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.
As much as you want to continue this myth that they were penalized for singing a song, its simply not true. You have no evidence other than your opinion. They were penalized for leading and creating a hostile environment as their expulsion letter stated.
And how was this "hostile environment" created?
By the fraternity brothers singing a song.
Sorry, free speech rights trump the non-existent "right" of people not to be offended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXNGL
It is constitutionally protected. They aren't in prison, are they?
Any kind of penalty is a violation of their right to free speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
To the contrary, I think expulsion is letting them off too easy. I think they should stay and complete their studies. They have to attend class though. On campus. With everyone.
Sorry, you can't force them to do anything they don't want to do.
That would be penalizing them for their free speech, which is unconstitutional.
Quote:
This may be a public university, but parents and students pay thousands of dollars for the privelige of attendending. It's not free.
Who cares?
If they don't like it, they can go elsewhere.
Quote:
So should people be allowed to tarnish the image and reputation of the institution without any consequence at all?
Berkeley learned a long time ago that people could turn it into a hotbed of communism, anti-white racism, anti-semitism, rioting and outright treason, and get away with it.
So your argument fails.
Quote:
What about all the non racist white students paying for the privelige of going there? Do you think the University has a responsibility to them? This isn't only a hostile environment for black students.
Oh, boo-hoo.
I doubt you'd be saying this if people created a hostile environment for Jews and conservatives on campus.
Oh wait, they already do!
Quote:
I absolutely defend the right of all racists to be open and vocal about their stance. I don't defend their "right" to do so without repercussion.
You've said they should be forced to do such-and-so.
That isn't defending their rights.
Quote:
Racism is a scourge on this free country. You have a right to be one, but I'm not obligated to like it.
Who said you have to like it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
Other than the video clip of that song? What, gleefully singing about lynching is not enough for you?
You do realize that lynching is a real thing, right?
Not anymore.
Lynchings ended as a regular thing about 100 years ago.
Quote:
Doing nothing is akin to condoning it.
No, it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
So are you telling me that, say for example the President of the United State's administrative assistant ran out on the street in front of the media and yelled "I hate n******rs, lynch em from the highest tree while I sip tea, I'm the President's secretary", the government would not be allowed to fire him/her, or take any other punitive action?
Again, employer-employee relationships are not affected by the first amendment.
How many times does this have to be repeated?
I guess as many times as everything else has to be repeated, because the trolling and propaganda technique of liberals and leftists is to just keep repeating things that have already been disproven.
Thus does a one-hundred post thread turn into a one-thousand post thread.
Last edited by dechatelet; 03-17-2015 at 12:54 AM..
these kids signed a code of conduct with the university...
those kids are free to sing those songs all they want now that they are expelled... they are protected
However, as soon as they find another school and sign a new code of conduct they will have to act accordingly or risk being expelled again if they do something similar.
Doesn't work that way.
You can't waive a fundamental right.
That right is still there, whether you "signed it away" or not.
I did not speak to the incident regarding the physical attack you brought into the discussion, so how could you have "understood me correctly" regarding which is worse. They're both bad, the physical attack is worse. If you're going to make stuff up then this pointless.
Why did the president of the university expel the frat boys, but not the athlete who you now say did something worse than the frat boys?
What justifies making different decisions in those cases?
Quote:
I'm 50. What does the timeline have to do with anything? There are 2 generations of people older than me with persons alive today who lived through that era.
You make it sound like it was pervasive as recently as 50 years ago. It wasn't. You would have to be from the south and well over 100 years old to remember a large number of lynchings.
Quote:
Are you telling me if my second grader brought a project to school that consisted of "I hate n*****s and they should all be banned from my school, I'm not going to play with them and they should all be hung from a tree" that there would be no consequence?
The Supreme Court ruled that children do not have the free speech rights that adults have. See the Tinker case.
I notice that you start out being absolutely sure of everything, and then suddenly you show that you haven't even researched the facts.
Quote:
What different dynamic would that be? An employment contact perhaps? That restricts their right to say whatever they like in public about their employer? Maybe something similar to a code of conduct?
Why don't you look into it yourself?
Quote:
Can military personnel go around saying whatever they like in public without repercussion? What would happen if they called their Superior Officer a slur? You reckon that would be a ok with their employer, aka the government?
Why don't you look into it yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
I didn't say they were employees now, did I? They were members of a fraternity and students of the university, the university has authority over students, just like bosses have authority over employees.
Not true.
Quote:
18. Harassment, Threats, and Bullying: Subjectively and objectively offensive verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, harassment, coercion, bullying or other conduct that threatens or endangers the mental or physical health/safety of any person or causes reasonable apprehension of such harm that is persistent, severe, or pervasive.
Universities don't get to decide on the limits of free speech. That's what courts are for. It is quite clear that OU's use of the term "subjectively" puts it on thin ice, legally speaking.
Quote:
So please don't pretend that all speech is constitutionally protected.
No one here has said it is.
Quote:
Obviously if you agree to a code of conduct that includes the prohibition of verbal abuse then it is not.
Wrong. Universities and their codes of conduct do not determine the limits of free speech. Courts do that.
Quote:
I hope they take it to court, I'd like to see them attempt to defend themselves.
It wouldn't be them defending themselves. It would the university trying to defend itself -- and most likely failing.
Quote:
It is also arguable whether Shabazz should have been disciplined for breaking the code. I don't know, this thread is not about him. It's possible that he should, but feel free to start a new thread on it, because I'm not answering to his circumstance in this one.
So according to you, the white fraternity boys should be ashamed of their racism, but the black racist shouldn't.
I didn't say they were employees now, did I? They were members of a fraternity and students of the university, the university has authority over students, just like bosses have authority over employees. It's you who stated the government cannot punish someone for their speech under any circumstances ever.
Here's the section of the Student Code of Conduct that would be relevant:
18. Harassment, Threats, and Bullying: Subjectively and objectively offensive verbal abuse, threats, intimidation, harassment, coercion, bullying or other conduct that threatens or endangers the mental or physical health/safety of any person or causes reasonable apprehension of such harm that is persistent, severe, or pervasive.
A public university CANNOT override students' First Amendment right to Free Speech. It's as simple as that. There wouldn't be so many protests of various sorts, many of which are subjectively and objectively offensive and verbally abusive, at UC Berkeley if they could. End of discussion.
Why did the president of the university expel the frat boys, but not the athlete who you now say did something worse than the frat boys?
What justifies making different decisions in those cases?
I don't know, you'll have to ask them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
You make it sound like it was pervasive as recently as 50 years ago. It wasn't. You would have to be from the south and well over 100 years old to remember a large number of lynchings.
No I don't, I have the SAE frat boys to keep it at the forefront.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
The Supreme Court ruled that children do not have the free speech rights that adults have. See the Tinker case.
So, there are limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
I notice that you start out being absolutely sure of everything, and then suddenly you show that you haven't even researched the facts.
Why don't you look into it yourself?
Why don't you look into it yourself?
I wasn't asking you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Not true.
Really? If they have suspension and expulsion policies, then yes the university administration has authority over the students.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Universities don't get to decide on the limits of free speech. That's what courts are for. It is quite clear that OU's use of the term "subjectively" puts it on thin ice, legally speaking.
That's fine. Let's see them use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
No one here has said it is. Wrong. Universities and their codes of conduct do not determine the limits of free speech. Courts do that.
Good. Let's see them bring it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
It wouldn't be them defending themselves. It would the university trying to defend itself -- and most likely failing. So according to you, the white fraternity boys should be ashamed of their racism, but the black racist shouldn't.
Shows how principled you are.
According to me? I didn't say any such thing. Another one that likes to make stuff up.
A public university CANNOT override students' First Amendment right to Free Speech. It's as simple as that. There wouldn't be so many protests of various sorts, many of which are subjectively and objectively offensive and verbally abusive, at UC Berkeley if they could. End of discussion.
Lol, "end of discussion". Oh the irony. I'll discuss whatever I like, thanks anyway.
Lol, "end of discussion". Oh the irony. I'll discuss whatever I like, thanks anyway.
Doesn't make you right. When are you all who insist a public university has a right to trample students' First Amendment rights going to stop reacting emotionally and start using critical thinking skills?
Doesn't make you right. When are you all who insist a public university has a right to trample students' First Amendment rights going to stop reacting emotionally and start using critical thinking skills?
A university has rules. It's not a free for all. Should they be ruled unconstitutional in their action then so be it. I am happy they challenged this crap. If you think the school is being hypocritical, you certainly have a right to your opinion. Should they have acted differently in other cases? Sure, probably. Have they overstepped in this case? Could be. You may well be right about that.
The fact remains, whether I'm right or not, whether the university is right or not - they did indeed take action. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. So it's up to the court to decide whether they had grounds. Obviously they think they did, so you jumping up and down saying they can't ad infinitum has no merit at this point, because they JUST DID.
So, let's see what the court has to say about it. I'm happy for them to challenge the university. Let's hear it.
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.
When are you all who insist a public university has a right to trample students' First Amendment rights going to stop reacting emotionally and start using critical thinking skills?
