Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone familiar with why the students were expelled does not need this explained to them, its rather easy to find the universities reason.
I'm familiar. but neither your cryptic 'leading and creating' nor boren's actual letter make much sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boren
You will be expelled because of your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.
leadership role in leading a chant? how in heck do two students 'lead' a chant? sing louder than everyone else? start first? hum a few bars at the beginning?
and how does this chant, which took place on a bus off campus, which was never intended to be heard outside said bus, 'create a hostile educational environment' for anyone outside the aforementioned bus?
Quote:
Originally Posted by billydaman
Not that the truth matters to anyone, they rather perpetrate this myth they were expelled for singing a song.
you're implying that if they hadn't sung the song, they would still have been expelled?
and how does this chant, which took place on a bus off campus, which was never intended to be heard outside said bus, 'create a hostile educational environment' for anyone outside the aforementioned bus?
The fraternity was associated with the university.
Quote:
you're implying that if they hadn't sung the song, they would still have been expelled?
very puzzling.
No student who only sung the song was disciplined.
I guess you just can't "lead" or "create" free speech, but if you just go along with it you're okay.
There you go distorting again, they did not create free speech, they created a hostile environment. I guess you are conceding now they weren't expelled for singing a song.
What constitutionally protected speech? Didn't know there was any type of protected speeches one can make. The school did not imprison them for their speech, but the school is fully within their right to expell the students.
There are many other sanctions that can deprive people of their rights.... oh such as expelling them from a public university for speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
They would have to magically prove that the school violated their freedom of speech. That is what we call an "impossible task" in the real world.
I think it is rather easy to prove. If you are punished for the exercise of your free speech right, then the school has violated their freedom of speech and it is also prior restraint on others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
There actually is a "Fighting Words" exception but it is not applicable in this case since their conduct did not threaten to create an immediate breach of the peace.
I was speaking directly to the previous posters assertion that the 1st Amendment specifically contained language on racism exceptions and 'fighting words' exception, not the case law where they might exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elan
It appears I was correct. They were expelled for creating a hostile learning environment. Indeed, they did. It's difficult to concentrate on your studies when surrounded by protests and turmoil. The remaining students can now get on with their education.
That is one of the most laughable assertions yet, holding them responsible if people were to go onto campus to protest.
I went to Berkeley where protests and disruptions were a daily occurrence and no one was ever expelled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billydaman
What speech did they restrict? Was this student prevented from saying something? I did not see a university employee on that video that restricted or prevented them from speaking.
It really does not matter what kind of speech they used. Again no speech was restricted or prevented.
Their speech on that bus was not prevented or restricted. You can call them relevant all you want. The case you cited had to do with the head of the university preventing an organization from forming. Its not congruent to this issue. As I said when I started posting, free speech is not an issue here. The only thing that was restricted or prevented was the students attendance at OU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billydaman
You keep saying these two students rights were violated. You keep saying their speech was prevented or restricted. It was not at all. Now, if you want to say some current student feels their rights are being violated by the code of conduct, have them bring a case.
You seem very confused on this point.
You do not have to be prevented from speaking to have your free speech rights violated. Being punished for exercising those rights is also a violation of free speech rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miker2069
These very thinly veiled arguments on CD are so weak, failing to get people to look at the situation through a cloudy fishbowl vs. dealing with the situation pragmatically.
They did not curtail free speech - they clearly had the freedom to say whatever they wanted - and they did. The University has every right to respond in the manner that it did (expulsion) as a violation of a code of conduct. This isn't a civil or criminal law that we're talking about, you adhere to a code of contact which is contractual and can be exercised by the governing body. So stop trying to make it like the university is violating a constitutional right - they didn't. Freedom to speak, and freedom to reap the consequences of it.
You know that makes zero sense right? If branches of the government have a right to punish the exercise of free speech then by definition there is no free speech.
No, the university does not have the right to expel them based on speech. No code of conduct can override constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miker2069
I've challenged those who keep harping that the University is some how violating the free speech rights of the students involved in the video. Simply go to some public place say something vulgar like you hate the president or you hate Jews, or even recite the chant and have the video put on youtube. Ensure your employer finds out about it. Then sue your employer for terminating you - you should win big if your right about all speech included hate speech is protected.
Why are you talking about an employer-employee relationship when this is a governmental agency? This is a very clear free speech violation. Dover cited the relevant case law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d
Actually, the First Amendment only covers political speech which is why a public university can't expel students who are protesting something but can expel students who lead racist chants.
Actually that ship sailed along time ago. Free speech now covers such non-political speech as pornography and topless dancing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wehotex
For those of you who say that this is simply free speech, this letter reinforces to me that admission and right to attend OU is a privilege, rather than a right. Right wing folk would be the first to say that driving is a privilege, not a right. This falls under the same category? PRESIDENT has right to expel them.
No, attending a public university is a right. You might want to brush up on Title 20.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miker2069
Boren did not say that - He said they misused their free speech. The expulsion was for code of conduct violations. Not to mention they admitted to under age drinking on university premise.
Unfortunately Boren violated the universities own polices and procedures for student discipline. Too bad neither student was a football star, then code of conduct violations are a trifle.
Oh..... and if OU expelled every underage drinker at the university they would not be able to fill a lecture hall with the freshmen and sophomore classes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billydaman
Once again, as stated by the university, they were expelled for leading and creating a hostile environment. They were not punished for singing a song. There is no evidence to suggest they were expelled for singing the song. You say the universities reason for expelling them is irrelevant and in the same post state their reason is unconstitutional. No speech was prevented or restricted nor was it penalized. They have yet to penalize a single student for singing that song. I do not think you understand the point....speech can be legally punitive. Not that it matters, OU did not seek legal remedy they only expelled them.
Your logic is pretty circular. 'They were not expelled for singing a song they were expelled for creating a hostile environment, which they did by singing a song.'
Hunh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miker2069
Nope - they'd lose because the basis of their argument would be disproved and thereby dismissed. They'd insinuate they were expelled for their speech and it was not - it was code of conduct violation by creating a hostile environment for black students.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Griffis
Your very thread title is completely disingenuous. Obviously these students weren't "expelled for singing." That is nothing but baseless nonsense and hyperbole. There is nobody more rabidly anti-censorship than me. And as much as this got around global news, their "song" was certainly not censored. They were expelled, clearly, (as any rational person can see) for racist, threatening hate speech. I have free speech. That is as it should be. But I would be a complete and utter idiot if I expected to be in a campus organization, chanting (and being filmed while doing it) about how women weren't allowed, they should be raped, etc. and suffer no reprisals.
This is the same logic as above.
'They were not expelled for singing a song they were expelled for creating a hostile environment, which they did by singing a song.'
You seem to misunderstand that the fact that they sang the song without interruption means their free speech rights couldn't have been violated. If they are expelled for their speech, their rights are being violated.
Who did they threaten? Which African American students were targeted?
Lastly, the university was actually ready not only to allow chanting (rapping) about how women weren't allowed, they should be raped, etc, but to promote in with a concert by Waka Flocka, but that noted advocate for women's rights and civil discourse cancelled his concert because of racism.
That is one of the most laughable assertions yet, holding them responsible if people were to go onto campus to protest.
I went to Berkeley where protests and disruptions were a daily occurrence and no one was ever expelled.
I've made that exact same point. Male students could very easily contend that feminists' protests on campus create a hostile learning environment, as could the children of deployed military parents regarding anti-war protestors. Yet, that's never happened.
OU's president, Boren, acted too hastily, and Constitutionally, doesn't have a leg to stand on in defending his actions.
Quote:
You know that makes zero sense right? If branches of the government have a right to punish the exercise of free speech then by definition there is no free speech.
No, the university does not have the right to expel them based on speech. No code of conduct can override constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Exactly, and I don't get why that's so hard for many to understand.
Quote:
Lastly, the university was actually ready not only to allow chanting (rapping) about how women weren't allowed, they should be raped, etc, but to promote it with a concert by Waka Flocka
Exactly, which is why Boren and OU have no cause to act against the frat boys.
There you go distorting again, they did not create free speech, they created a hostile environment. I guess you are conceding now they weren't expelled for singing a song.
No, they were expelled for singing a song which the school said somehow created a hostile education environment, which was the only way they could even begin to justify it.
No, they were expelled for singing a song which the school said somehow created a hostile education environment, which was the only way they could even begin to justify it.
You're doubling down on this issue says a lot about you. You cant justify it. Period. You should stop digging yourself a hole. Probably half way to China by now.
You're doubling down on this issue says a lot about you. You cant justify it. Period. You should stop digging yourself a hole. Probably half way to China by now.
It says I'm a free speech advocate, I'll double down on free speech.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The school did not imprison them for their speech, but the school is fully within their right to expell the students. 
