If these young men are stupid enough to potentially destroy any real career options they may still have, then I hope they DO sue. And win. Because people that clueless don’t need to have actual careers in any job where their poor judgment could cause serious problems for other people.
In winning, they would lose. Many things are this way.–not Confucius 
A little context would help. College freshmen are undergoing the transition to adulthood and cannot be said to have fully made it. These college freshmen are from Texas, where the norms of public discourse are a bit different from the North Atlantic states’ (remember the name of Rick Perry’s family ranch?). “The ‘N’ Word” is a bugaboo of the middle class and rolls off the tongues of the upper and lower crust with very little thought or consequence. And while the song was rehearsed, their status as fraternity pledges makes me suspect it was prompted by their older “brothers.”
This is an opportunity for a teaching moment, and they are students. Expelling them outright to save the university’s clean reputation is a craven move.
It’s a teachable moment, and all of Texas needs a lesson. Stop saying the n-word. Stop acting like black people don’t matter. If you can’t clean your mind and heart, at least clean your discourse.
Agreed. As much as I hate their idiotic chant, I think banning freedom of speech/expression is a very slippery slope.
I think I agree with this, which may be why this whole thing is bothering me. Universities should have the goal of teaching & fighting ignorance and moving things forward. This was an opportunity to address the underlying problem: racism. The racist chant was just a symptom of the underlying illness that these students likely learned at some point in their lives. I would prefer that the university, being a learning environment and all, help cure the disease rather than just treat the symptoms. Much more effective for the long haul imho.
It can probably still happen, but I had hoped that this would open a dialog between the men on the tape and other more enlightened students. Rather than shunning them (a very understandable reaction), why not try to educate them & break this ugly cycle?
Even if taking a shit on your professor’s desk during class isn’t technically a violation of rules, it’s beyond the pale and needs more action than “let’s talk about this.” Expulsion MAY teach these kids a lesson. Anything less teaches them that calling black people by the n-word is somehow OK.
IMHO, anyway, although I could be wrong.
Taking a shit on someone else’s property is not constitutionally protected speech. Singing that “There will never be a nigger at SAE” is constitutionally protected speech.
It’s really not that difficult people. I mean, yes there are some edge cases, but this is not one of them.
I hear you. I swing back and forth like a pendulum. On the one hand, I love that the president sent such a clear message denouncing hate and ignorance…. but then again I’m a huge proponent of free speech. I’m guessing the ACLU will take the side of free speech, though I don’t think they’ve weighted in on this yet.
ETA The First Amendment is one of the things that makes America awesome so we have a duty to protect that awesomeness imho
The Westboro Baptist Church has never lost a case in court over their funeral protests, AFAIK. So? If you were teaching one of their kids in college, would you tolerate it if they starting shouting you down in class and yelling about fags? It may be protected speech, but there’s stuff that’s just socially inappropriate, and the civilized among us would like to teach our young that some things are technically allowed, but nobody will be your friend if you do those things.
No, I do not want the government teaching our young what appropriate speech is or isn’t. That is a job for other social institutions.
With your specific hypothetical, there are a couple of issues:
In class, schools have pretty wide latitude to control their students. Public schools are allowed to tell kids to shut up during class time. So any hypothetical about speech happening during class time isn’t equivalent.
Outside of class, yes, it is protected speech. Do I want people to do it? No, and they should suffer social consequences for their speech. They should not suffer consequences from the government.
We have decided in this country that the government is not an arbitrator of what speech is appropriate. Public universities are the government, and therefore are not arbitrators of what speech is acceptable.
I’ll reiterate that: No, I do not want the University of Oklahoma trying to arbitrate the appropriateness of the content of speech.
In class is different.
Out on the streets, on nobody’s property/territory? Maybe.
I had an idea that there are exceptions to free speech when it comes to threats. The chant talks about hanging black people. Could that establish an exception?
I assumed those expelled were the older ringleaders. Is this not the case?
That was my immediate thought for how they would justify it. It’s an argument that can be made but I doubt they would win. If it was a credible threat there would be criminal charges. It wasn’t and there isn’t.
I am unwilling to compromise the 1st Amendment to teach someone a lesson. You?
As stated above, they could make the argument but I think it’s a losing argument. For it to be an actual threat under legal definitions someone must threaten to kill another with the purpose to put him in imminent fear of death under circumstances reasonably causing the victim to believe the immediacy of the threat and the likelihood that it will be carried out. Just mentioning lynching isn’t enough. Especially because the words were spoken in private with no specific target. And the words seem more in favor of lynching than threatening to lynch anyone. To say that song was a specific and immediate threat to anyone is a stretch at best.
They were talking about lynching. Lynching. That’s not just a harmless prank by impressionable boys. These are words that are used to destroy real people’s futures, that lock them out of opportunities, and that tear apart our nation.
Universities live and die by their reputations. It’s how they serve their students. If this university becomes known as “the place where privileged assholes go to chant racist songs”, the value of the thousands of degree that people worked hard and played by the rules for will plummet.
I don’t think the reputation of the university will soar if it becomes know as “the place where first amendment rights are trampled.” There are some things that public universities cannot do, and restricting speech rights are one of those things. There may be other actions that the university can take but expulsions for abhorrent but not criminal speech appears to be outside their legal scope.
Or not, I suspect this will end up in court at some level.
No. Parker Rice is a nineteen-year-old freshman and Levi Pettit is a twenty-year-old sophomore.
The two who were expelled were, I believe, the two who were caught on video. They were younger students.
Like I wrote, it is perceived that before the “court of public opinion”, even sven’s scenario is worse than yours, Telemark, even if a court *of law *would find to the contrary. “Craven”, as some other poster said? That could be argued, certainly. Yet to be seen if *anyone *feels like taking it to court.
The First Amendment’s intent was about protecting people from government retaliation against criticism of the government. I imagine the Founding Fathers would be less unanimous on protecting hate speech, if they were somehow alive today. Not that I’m interested in arguing the First Amendment, I’m just pointing that out as a real possibility.
I think it’s very telling that some of you believe this to be cut-and-dried. It says a lot about you.
I think the thing a lot of us here are ignoring is that the attitudes expressed by those students are held by a large majority of white citizens of all social classes in both Oklahoma and Texas.
Most of those folks know that plain speaking about their attitudes won’t look good if broadcast nationwide. But it plays just fine within their local workgroup, friends, or neighbors.
These guys and their organization are oafs & troglodytes. But for their entire lives they have swum in a sea of similar creatures. It’s hardly surprising they’ve never learned anything else.
I am **not **suggesting that’s the way it *should *be. I **am **suggesting that is the way it is.
IMO, the right response is to reinstate the students because protection from government sanction for free speech is absolute & sacrosanct. That is a larger, more important principle than “hostile learning environment”. And much more directly applicable. The ACLU should get behind the students, while publicly holding its nose a bit.
Then watch what happens next.