# Why weren't University of Oklahoma students protected by the First Amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778 "2015-03-11T20:18:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/41 "2015-03-11T23:05:59Z")
I don’t think these two…young fellows…will be welcome on campus for quite a few years, and it looks like they realize this, and have wisely chosen to avoid fighting their expulsion. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/42 "2015-03-11T23:08:27Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > The statement from the university president said that the students “created a hostile learning environment for others.” Presumably this legally justifies the expulsion. And of the two students, one offered his own apology while the parents of the second apologized for him. So I don’t expect them to challenge this. The use of the phrase “hostile environment” is almost certainly not accidental. That’s the language used in some civil rights law (for instance, employment law) which has apparently stood all court challenges I’m aware of. That’s probably the foundation of the legal reasoning to say that these expulsions don’t violate a First Amendment protection: the speech in question is not protected because of the structure and precedent of existing (presumably legitimate) civil rights laws. Not a lawyer. But the structural similarity is striking. ---
**Author:** ![ZPG\_Zealot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e47c2d/32.png) [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/43 "2015-03-11T23:10:17Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > That’s different, and possibly a red herring. These students (let’s stop calling them kids; they are old enough to know better) were actually performing the song, and had clearly rehearsed it. It wasn’t some spontaneous unfunny bullshit. No, it isn’t. There is plenty of music that’s offensive. Some of the amateur rap I’ve heard performed live definitely qualifies as hate speech and contains threats of rape toward women and violence toward other minorities. So what, if they rehearsed and performed it? Maybe they were reenacting some old frat song from the 1920’s their great grandfathers’ taught them. Check out some historical folksongs, you will find lots of racists, sexist, classist, etc. music. People may be offended by what the students did, but it didn’t break any bones or pick anyone’s pocket (Jeffersonian freedom of speech reference for the uninformed). ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/44 "2015-03-11T23:13:30Z")
> [@get\_lives](#): > > Why would these two individuals _want_ to stay at a school that dissolved their beloved fraternity? To prove a point? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/45 "2015-03-11T23:13:36Z")
Again, the students were not expelled for being “offensive.” ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/46 "2015-03-11T23:19:19Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > And that was explicitly the case here. The students _were not_ expelled merely for expressing their racism, but specifically for infringing the rights of other students (who had also paid tuition, etc.) to a learning environment free of intimidation and harassment. They weren’t in a ‘learning environment’ at the time and there was no demonstrated intimidation or harassment either because it was a private event. They were on a fraternity sponsored bus attending a formal dating event. I don’t support what they said obviously but that is what freedom of speech is all about. Even the ACLU has defended KKK member’s right to assembly and free speech. American style free speech includes protection against offensive and most forms of hate speech as well. This is no counter-right for others who simply don’t agree with simple speech no matter how offensive they may find it. As previously noted, freedom of speech applies to the government only which includes government universities. The fraternity itself is private and can handle it in any they choose. I believe they would win this case easily if they chose to fight it (not that it would be the best course of action). ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/47 "2015-03-11T23:22:05Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Again, the students were not expelled for being “offensive.” What were they expelled for then? Everything that I have seen and read indicates that they made an offensive chant during a private event that happened to be recorded and posted. I don’t know how you can interpret it any other way unless there were some lynchings and beat-downs that most of us don’t know about. ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2015, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/48 "2015-03-11T23:34:41Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > To prove a point? These two…carbon-based life forms…haven’t the simple courage to do that, I’ll bet. Of course, we already know they _won’t_, but I suspect they simply haven’t the sheer chutzpah it takes. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/49 "2015-03-12T00:31:27Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > And that was explicitly the case here. The students _were not_ expelled merely for expressing their racism, but specifically for infringing the rights of other students (who had also paid tuition, etc.) to a learning environment free of intimidation and harassment. > [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > The statement from the university president said that the students “created a hostile learning environment for others.” Presumably this legally justifies the expulsion. And of the two students, one offered his own apology while the parents of the second apologized for him. So I don’t expect them to challenge this. > [@gnoitall](#): > > The use of the phrase “hostile environment” is almost certainly not accidental. That’s the language used in some civil rights law (for instance, employment law) which has apparently stood all court challenges I’m aware of. > > That’s probably the foundation of the legal reasoning to say that these expulsions don’t violate a First Amendment protection: the speech in question is not protected because of the structure and precedent of existing (presumably legitimate) civil rights laws. > > Not a lawyer. But the structural similarity is striking. “Hostile learning environment” has indeed been the theory advanced by universities in these cases, and universally rejected by the courts. It could always be said than any given offensive speech is being punished not because of the speech but because of the effect of the speech. Unless the speech constitutes a “true threat” or is obsence or meets some other narrow exception, it is protected. > [@Enola\_Gay](#): > > I just skimmed a bunch of other Codes of Conduct from other public universities and all appear to have similar rules regarding hate speech. If I am understanding the responses in this thread correctly, those rules are unconstitutional since these are public universities who use public funds. > > I realize the students may not\* want \*to go back (and probably shouldn’t) but why would public universities have codes of conduct that violate the constitution? Because students and administrators increasingly believe, like many posters in this thread, that there is some offensiveness exception to free speech. But as the courts have ruled time and again, they are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/50 "2015-03-12T00:42:41Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Not that much. I believe both of these guys are freshman, so they have one semester of credits that should most likely transfer to another institution. I think both of the students are also Texas residents, so they pay the non-resident tuition at OU which is a flat $10,107.75 for the semester, for 12 or more hours for the current semester that they are out of pocket. They don’t have to worry about breaking a lease, as the house they were living in was shut down. And, for the sake of comparison, the one guy went to a private high school where the annual tuition is over $15K, and that’s an understatement: uniforms and books and expected donations add several grand to that. The other kid went to a public high school that has its own parking garage, in a city where the average home price is $1.2M. To compare, an average-y kind of “family” home in the rest of DFW is like $150-$200. This isn’t California. Neither of these individuals have had their long term college prospects horribly dimmed. They can enroll at a different public university next year and go on with their lives. ---
**Author:** ![davida03801](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5e925/32.png) [@davida03801](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davida03801)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/51 "2015-03-12T00:45:38Z")
First, let me say those over privileged drunk frat boys clearly need a pause in their lives to consider the bigger picture of life. However the troubling aspect here, at least to me, is that all of academia clearly has a double standard in regards to speech. Colleges and universities only wish to allow speech they approve of. Speech they do not approve of is immediately shut down, or you’re not even allowed on campus to give the speech. On the other hand if you’re some ethnicity, or group, on the approved list and you spew out hateful speech to the same degree I doubt the bar will be placed so high. ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/52 "2015-03-12T00:53:22Z")
Let us remember that it’s specifically “offensive” speech for which the First Amendment exists. The government would have no reason to censor someone for saying “Have a nice day.” It’s specifically obscene, hateful, bigoted speech that would offend someone enough to invite censorship. That’s the speech that must be protected . . . and the only speech that needs to be. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/53 "2015-03-12T01:09:31Z")
Ironically, if those students were able to return to the University of Oklahoma, I’ll bet that _they_ would experience a hostile learning environment. ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/54 "2015-03-12T01:51:18Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Ironically, if those students were able to return to the University of Oklahoma, I’ll bet that _they_ would experience a hostile learning environment. And they know it, and so they won’t. And they _deserve_ one. These kids deserve to be made an example of, and the university community will be better because of it. You don’t joke about lynching when many people alive today remember all the deaths in the 50s and 60s during the most turbulent times of the Civil Rights era. If you don’t get that, you’re too socially and generally clueless to function well in many work environments today, and that’s only going to become more true. These boys NEED this wake-up call, and so probably did a number of others who were lucky enough to not get caught doing such things. ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/55 "2015-03-12T01:53:46Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > Let us remember that it’s specifically “offensive” speech for which the First Amendment exists. The government would have no reason to censor someone for saying “Have a nice day.” It’s specifically obscene, hateful, bigoted speech that would offend someone enough to invite censorship. That’s the speech that must be protected . . . and the only speech that needs to be. This kind of speech is flirting with yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, though. I agree they’re not quite there, but they’re within a stone’s throw. There were plenty of deaths of civil rights leaders in living memory. Lynching is a thing of the very disturbingly recent past. ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/56 "2015-03-12T01:59:11Z")
> [@MandaJo](#): > > Neither of these individuals have had their long term college prospects horribly dimmed. They can enroll at a different public university next year and go on with their lives. Can they? Do universities take into account that there is an expulsion on their transcript when making their admissions decisions? ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/57 "2015-03-12T02:26:25Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > What were they expelled for then? Everything that I have seen and read indicates that they made an offensive chant during a private event that happened to be recorded and posted. I don’t know how you can interpret it any other way unless there were some lynchings and beat-downs that most of us don’t know about. No, no, that was at the SAE chapter (formerly) at Cornell University in New York where the black prospective member was killed by the fraternity members. You’re getting your chapters of Sigma Alpha Epsilon confused. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/58 "2015-03-12T02:29:13Z")
BTW, it was mentioned above but to make clear: The National HQ of SAE kicked everyone out and dissolved the chapter, as is their perfect right to do as a private entity. It is almost certain that the individuals most directly involved are officially blackballed from reaffiliating to any SAE chapter ever, and UNofficially the word has spread that any frat that takes them will get a lot of adverse attention. Mind you, with the expulsion the University, too, is “making a point”. I can imagine University Administration thinking: \* “We **can** afford any realistic settlement to be had with these putzes if they sue. We can _ **not** _ afford the adverse publicity of being accused of coddling racists over legalisms. Furthermore, any additional publicity in a suit is positive for us and negative for them, let them be the ones arguing FTR that they should be able to say it loud, I’m a racist and I’m proud. At the very worst it will look like we had to yield only because the courts so ordered and not because we are at all sympathetic. Besides, are they going to halt their education for however many years it takes to hash out the court case, they most likely will not graduate from here anyway and that’s a plus.”\* Cynical? Well, yes. Sometimes you have to be when you’re The Man. ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/59 "2015-03-12T03:21:01Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > BTW, it was mentioned above but to make clear: The National HQ of SAE kicked everyone out and dissolved the chapter, as is their perfect right to do as a private entity. It is almost certain that the individuals most directly involved are officially blackballed from reaffiliating to any SAE chapter ever, and UNofficially the word has spread that any frat that takes them will get a lot of adverse attention. > > Mind you, with the expulsion the University, too, is “making a point”. I can imagine University Administration thinking: \* “We **can** afford any realistic settlement to be had with these putzes if they sue. We can _ **not** _ afford the adverse publicity of being accused of coddling racists over legalisms. Furthermore, any additional publicity in a suit is positive for us and negative for them, let them be the ones arguing FTR that they should be able to say it loud, I’m a racist and I’m proud. At the very worst it will look like we had to yield only because the courts so ordered and not because we are at all sympathetic. Besides, are they going to halt their education for however many years it takes to hash out the court case, they most likely will not graduate from here anyway and that’s a plus.”\* > > Cynical? Well, yes. Sometimes you have to be when you’re The Man. These stupid kids NEED this expulsion precisely because, even though their background is suggestive of them one day becoming The Man, they’re too clueless to know that you keep such racist attitudes to yourself, if you want to continue having a “The Man” job. They’d be worse off in the long run if they DIDN’T learn this lesson NOW, when the stakes are arguably much lower. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2015, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778/60 "2015-03-12T03:42:48Z")
> [@get\_lives](#): > > These stupid kids NEED this expulsion precisely because, even though their background is suggestive of them one day becoming The Man, they’re too clueless to know that you keep such racist attitudes to yourself, if you want to continue having a “The Man” job. They’d be worse off in the long run if they DIDN’T learn this lesson NOW, when the stakes are arguably much lower. I agree that their actions were bad but that still doesn’t give a state university the right to expel them for simple free speech during a private outing no matter what they said. That is what free speech is all about in the U.S. Their fraternity can blackball them as can any potential private employers but it is not constitutional for a state sponsored university to expel students based on free speech alone even if they think they can afford the potential lawsuit. All of us that are making this argument aren’t arguing for these young men specifically. We are arguing for the general right to free speech in the U.S. which is still one of the strongest in the world. It is a very principled stance that certain groups on both the left and the right embrace wholeheartedly but even that doesn’t matter. Just break out your personal copy of the U.S. Constitutional. It is right there in the 1st amendment and that is all that matters. I could see the ACLU (a very liberal organization in general) taking up this case pro bono just to emphasize the fact that state universities are part of the government and have to follow the 1st amendment strictly even for viewpoints that they do not agree with. You cannot have it both ways like most European countries try to. Either you have free speech or you don’t. The speech that demands protection is offensive or controversial almost by definition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-werent-university-of-oklahoma-students-protected-by-the-first-amendment/714778.md?page=4)