Why weren't University of Oklahoma students protected by the First Amendment?

[wonky]

@MandaJo

I feel that in a society where lots and lots of beliefs can get you excluded from the group, there’s a pretty good chance that at least one or two of those things are going to be things I believe–so my ability to express myself is limited. So I think the list of things that put you beyond the pale, that make you someone Good People Don’t Talk To, should be really fucking short. It should exist, but it should be short.

I think it is short.

It’s just that your list and my list are not likely the same list.

[MandaJo]

@jsgoddess

I think it is short.

It’s just that your list and my list are not likely the same list.

Are you trying to imply something about me as a person? This statement confuses me.

[wonky]

@MandaJo

Are you trying to imply something about me as a person? This statement confuses me.

I’m trying to say that I think the list is short and that different people have different lists. You, for example, said you were on the side of the parents in the example you gave, while I would be on the side of the child. Everyone would have a different spot where they would say “Enough, this is too far.”

[Acsenray]

@MandaJo

I am not arguing we create a universal bright line rule. I am saying that we should talk about when and under what circumstances we would each make our own choices. That we should make the decision to join in cutting someone out of society very carefully, and with recognition that it’s a complex thing that does carry potential costs to the idea of free speech.

And I never said we shouldn’t “react” to it. I said we should not lightly shun people–ban them from our company.

Since when is “tolerate” the opposite of "shun? If your child votes Republican, you can disagree with them without telling them not to come over for Christmas. No where am I advocating failure to express your own beliefs. I am suggesting only that rejecting any connection with an entire person because of their beliefs–such as expelling them from a school, or a family, or a church, or a market place–is a big deal and ought not be done lightly.

No where have a said a word about fairness, about boycotting having a terrible economic toll. I don’t begin to care about any of that. I just think an environment where people feel that their ability to belong in society is contingent upon agreeing with the majority is complicated. And deserves to be treated as complicated, and not dismissed as a back-door attempt to apologize for racists or object to civil rights.

What about families that shun homosexual kids? Churches who expel people who marry outside the faith? Communities who reject people who vote against the majority view?

@MandaJo

I’ve never said any of that. I’ve only said that it’s the sort of thing you should be careful about. And when we are talking about big companies, I guess I don’t really care, but if someone tries to start a small restaurant down the street from me, I’m going to need to be really offended before I’ll let the owner’s personal beliefs keep me from eating there–it’s not going to be enough that I see he has a Jesus fish on his car.

Every individual will draw his or her own line and more extreme boycotts will be rarer than more sensible ones.

I won’t boycott a business if the owner has a fish on his or her personal car, but if business signs incorporate Christian symbols — like the cross hidden in this Miracles salon logo http://www.miraclesinthecity.com — I will avoid doing business there.

[wonky]

@Acsenray

Every individual will draw his or her own line and more extreme boycotts will be rarer than more sensible ones.

I won’t boycott a business if the owner has a fish on his or her personal car, but if business signs incorporate Christian symbols — like the cross hidden in this Miracles salon logo http://www.miraclesinthecity.com — I will avoid doing business there.

I think signs like that are a good example of where personal choice should come into play. That person, by putting that symbol in their business sign, is probably trying to appeal to people who want to do business with someone with a Christian symbol in their sign. To say they should be able to reap the benefit of the sign but not the downside would be an unreasonable statement (no one in this thread is likely making such a statement).

[AmbushBug]

@Grumman

If I was kicked out of my student accommodation on two days notice because somebody else living in the same building is a bigot, I would sue.

I was wondering this as well. I found this article, which seems to indicate that standard Oklahoma eviction law processes requiring 30-day written notice don’t apply to university dorms and fraternity/sorority houses.

The Oklahoman: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, News, Politics and Sports

[Northern_Piper]

Interesting. This isn’t the first time this frat has been in trouble with the University:

The Oklahoma Kappa chapter of SAE was established at OU in 1909 and was banned from campus after a 1989 hazing incident where members allegedly forced a pledge to drink until he vomited. The fraternity’s local charter was reinstated in November 1995 after meeting the national office’s criteria for reacceptance.

[Shodan]

Wow, a fraternity with a drinking violation. What are the odds.

Regards,
Shodan

[Peremensoe]

@MandaJo

No, I’m saying that when your reaction–especially if “you” is “the majority of society” takes the explicit form of “you are excluded from all society, even parts of it that having nothing to do with this”, it limits other’s free speech. Belonging to society is a pretty fundamental right that shouldn’t be taken from people lightly. There are other ways to react.

OK, why don’t you name one time this has happened in the present culture, and we can talk about that.

Nobody’s being driven into the hills.

[Enola_Gay]

I think buddy431 & Richard Parker had it right: OU broke the law to avoid bad press

[quote=]
As a state institution, the University of Oklahoma is constrained by the Constitution. Among other things, that means that it must respect the free speech guarantees contained in the First Amendment, even if that speech is repugnant. Just because the university doesn’t like what students say, thinks it’s hateful, or worries that it will produce an unpleasant atmosphere on campus, doesn’t grant it the authority to punish people for speaking. One would think that Boren — a former U.S. senator who took an oath to uphold the Constitution when he was sworn into office — would know better. Apparently not.
[/quote]

Apparently, Boren even violated OU’s own student code of conduct, by expelling them without due process. As much as I sympathize with him, because I actually think he did the right thing from a moral standpoint, I see a big legal storm brewing.

[Nars_Glinley]

David Boren is a lifelong politician. He was governor of Oklahoma before moving on to the Senate. He’s also an extremely intelligent man (a Rhodes scholar nonetheless). I guarantee that what he did was calculated and well thought. Even if there is a lawsuit, he can’t lose. PR is everything to a university and waiting on due process would have (incorrectly IMHO) brought much more negative press.