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

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Greek-letter organizations are not just “student accommodation”. The penalty against the individual students is questionable, but there is absolutely no question that the university has the authority to shut down the house.

Yes.

(Well, maybe. Depending on who owns the property, the university may not be able to evict residents. But they can certainly terminate their association with the fraternity).

[Bricker]

@ricksummon

Does this mean that, for instance, sexual harassment laws don’t apply to federal and state government employers? If a male professor greets his female department head with a lewd joke every morning, do his free speech rights prevent her from firing him?

Is this a genuine question?

The answer is no.

The reason, in short, is that government-as-employer has much greater ability to restrict the content of speech of its employees while at work than government-as-government has.

If you’re genuinely interested, I can write more.

[UltraVires]

@Rhythmdvl

I would close by arguing that by chanting that “there would never be a nigger at SEA,” the participant was actively advocating that an entire protected class be permanently barred from an opportunity to obtain these benefits. They were not merely espousing repugnant (but protected) views, but engaging in, reinforcing, and perpetuating a conspiracy to deny others a fundamental civil right.

Your first closing sentence is the very definition of protected speech. A person may advocate for a repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or advocate that the law be changed so a protected class be denied the opportunity to receive these benefits you mentioned. It’s repugnant, but as has been mentioned, freedom of speech isn’t to protect us from “good” speech. We already like good speech and there is no need to have a protection for it.

Your second sentence is a stretch. If it can be shown that these two boys were acting as a larger plot to disallow entry of blacks into the frat, then that would be a good argument. Drunkenly signing a racist song that probably originated years ago and has been sung for years at these types of events are not indicative of that. Look at the other parts of the song about “hang him from a tree.” Is that consistent with a conspiracy to really and truly lynch blacks? Are the SAE members doing that?

It’s stupid, but protected speech.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

Is this a genuine question?

The answer is no.

The reason, in short, is that government-as-employer has much greater ability to restrict the content of speech of its employees while at work than government-as-government has.

If you’re genuinely interested, I can write more.

The 1st amendment allows me to tell my neighbor “Keep your nigger kids off my lawn”. It does not protect me from being fired by my employer if I tell my coworker “Get your nigger ass out of my office”. Even if the employer is the government.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@Lemmytheseal2

First of all, the word you are looking for is “biased”, with an “ed” suffix.

Second, we seem to be talking past one another. You wrote that, if things were fair, anybody who was listening to someone like Ice-T on campus should be similarly punished. I pictured some student in their room, listening to something you find offensive, either because they actually enjoyed it, they were being ironic, or they were just curious, or something like that. Then I wondered how that could be equivalent to this frat incident. If someone was going around campus quoting/performing this kind of material, or blasting it through speakers at people, then yes, it might similarly create a hostile learning environment.

I remember one night in college when I watched the infamous documentary about GG Allin. That’s chock full of evil, and yet me watching the movie has nothing in common with this kind of behavior.

Listening to misogynist rap (or other hate music) loud enough for someone else (i.e., inflicting it on them by forcing them to listen), especially someone who is the targeted victim of the music, is the same as what those young men did. Whether it’s an amateur performance or a professional recording shouldn’t matter. You are correct that watching GG Allin had nothing in common with this kind of behavior. An individual enjoying something is their business. However when they force someone else to watch or listen, it become another a matter.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@AtomicDog

As a subject of those two shitheads’ vitriol, forgive me for not giving a rat’s ass about their First Amendment rights.

With that attitude, then why should I care if your First Amendment rights are ever violated? Equal rights under the law means even the people you don’t like have to be treated fairly

[Nars_Glinley]

@Lemmytheseal2

I remember one night in college when I watched the infamous documentary about GG Allin. That’s chock full of evil, and yet me watching the movie has nothing in common with this kind of behavior.

Link broken.

To those that might be curious, even though this video is on Youtube, it is quite NSFW.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@ZPG_Zealot

Listening to misogynist rap (or other hate music) loud enough for someone else (i.e., inflicting it on them by forcing them to listen), especially someone who is the targeted victim of the music, is the same as what those young men did.

No, it’s not, for two reasons:

1. The people on the bus probably thought (to the degree they thought anything) that everyone listening was okay with the vile content of the music. The hypothetical shitty music player has no such thought, most likely.
2. The hypothetical shitty music player can make the defense that it’s the beat or the harmony or the voice that most appeals to her, and that she’s not choosing ugly lyrics specifically. The singer can make no such defense, since it’s his vocal cords making those ugly lyrics come out.

[buddy431]

@Bricker

Yes.

(Well, maybe. Depending on who owns the property, the university may not be able to evict residents. But they can certainly terminate their association with the fraternity).

What can and can’t the university do with respect to the frat? I thought that was addressed in Iota XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. GMU. The school tried to punish the frat for its ugly woman contest, was told they couldn’t. Is terminating their association with the frat allowed but putting the frat on probation not allowed?

Anyways, this is a moot point in this case, because SAE is closing down this chapter, which they are certainly allowed to do.

[Bricker]

@John_Mace

The 1st amendment allows me to tell my neighbor “Keep your nigger kids off my lawn”. It does not protect me from being fired by my employer if I tell my coworker “Get your nigger ass out of my office”. Even if the employer is the government.

Right.

That’s what I said. Government-as-employer has much greater ability to restrict the content of speech of its employees while at work than government-as-government has.

[Bricker]

@buddy431

What can and can’t the university do with respect to the frat? I thought that was addressed in Iota XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. GMU. The school tried to punish the frat for its ugly woman contest, was told they couldn’t. Is terminating their association with the frat allowed but putting the frat on probation not allowed?

Sure. The government can hire a diversity coach to present its preferred message of “embrace diversity” and decline to hire a separatist coach who advocates for non-social mixing of the races.

[Enola_Gay]

@get_lives

I’m hoping for the opportunity to make the point that there’s no real need for such a huge gap between what the law allows versus what is actually useful for society on a macro and micro level. I’m not saying I want there to be NO gap, but…what’s the point in giving these two kids so much room to end their careers before they start? An object lesson for others? The people wise enough to learn that lesson from watching it happen are wise enough not to NEED it.

But who would determine what type of speech is “useful for society”? If 2 gay guys want to chant about homosexual love on campus, is that useful for society or would such speech be banned?

The underlying principle of the First Amendment is that the government must not prohibit individuals from expressing ideas simply because they are unpopular or offensive. Hearing things we may find offensive is the price we pay for living in a truly free democracy.

[Lemmytheseal2]

@ZPG_Zealot

Listening to misogynist rap (or other hate music) loud enough for someone else (i.e., inflicting it on them by forcing them to listen), especially someone who is the targeted victim of the music, is the same as what those young men did. Whether it’s an amateur performance or a professional recording shouldn’t matter. You are correct that watching GG Allin had nothing in common with this kind of behavior. An individual enjoying something is their business. However when they force someone else to watch or listen, it become another a matter.

That’s why I included the possibility of “blasting it at them”, i.e. using it to create the kind of unwelcome environment created when you have these organizations that defend power and privilege singing racist songs and the like.

[Dewey_Finn]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

1. The people on the bus probably thought (to the degree they thought anything) that everyone listening was okay with the vile content of the music. The hypothetical shitty music player has no such thought, most likely.

I wonder if anyone on that bus (including the bus driver) objected to the song.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

No, it’s not, for two reasons:

1. The people on the bus probably thought (to the degree they thought anything) that everyone listening was okay with the vile content of the music. The hypothetical shitty music player has no such thought, most likely.
2. The hypothetical shitty music player can make the defense that it’s the beat or the harmony or the voice that most appeals to her, and that she’s not choosing ugly lyrics specifically. The singer can make no such defense, since it’s his vocal cords making those ugly lyrics come out.

1. Anyone that is not profoundly autistic knows that turning on a radio, CD player, etc. without hooking up a pair of head phones is going to release sound waves into the air that other people can hear and be offended by. In many cases, the noise itself regardless of the lyrics is offensive if played in what should be a quiet time or place.

2. The same applies to the frat guys. Their chant had a beat and harmony though not particular complex. They could easily (because one man’s taste is music can be another man’s garbage) argue they like the vibrations those particular words made in their vocal cords rather than the actual lyrics.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@Dewey_Finn

I wonder if anyone on that bus (including the bus driver) objected to the song.

A very interesting question, after all why didn’t somebody just tell them not to sing that? Someone made the recording and sent it off. I do wonder if their motivations were more of a personal vendetta against the singers than a concern for racism.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@ZPG_Zealot

1. Anyone that is not profoundly autistic knows that turning on a radio, CD player, etc. without hooking up a pair of head phones is going to release sound waves into the air that other people can hear and be offended by. In many cases, the noise itself regardless of the lyrics is offensive if played in what should be a quiet time or place.

2. The same applies to the frat guys. Their chant had a beat and harmony though not particular complex. They could easily (because one man’s taste is music can be another man’s garbage) argue they like the vibrations those particular words made in their vocal cords rather than the actual lyrics.

They could make that argument, but nobody would believe them; it’s easily dismissed out of hand as ludicrous, and I see no reason to dignify ludicrous arguments with a response.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

They could make that argument, but nobody would believe them; it’s easily dismissed out of hand as ludicrous, and I see no reason to dignify ludicrous arguments with a response.

Interesting, you find it ludicrous that the 1st Amendment applies to everyone in the United States, not just people you agree with you. And the argument would definitely not be dismissed with a good lawyer behind it. All they would really need to do is convince the jury to nullify on grounds that the young men’s 1st Amendment rights had been violated.

[AtomicDog]

@ZPG_Zealot

With that attitude, then why should I care if your First Amendment rights are ever violated? Equal rights under the law means even the people you don’t like have to be treated fairly

Of course, you are correct. I was just venting. Still glad to see them gone, though.

[Hilarity_N.Suze]

@get_lives

I have a few questions for all you First Amendment citers in the thread:

1. If YOU had gotten caught doing this and were expelled (assuming for the moment you are college-aged NOW) would you sue?

2. If your CHILD had gotten caught and expelled, would you recommend they sue the university?

3. Would you hire either of these two students for a high profile position that required tact, judgment, and the ability to deal with people of different cultures and backgrounds?

1. I am not college aged now. I wouldn’t have done something like this when I was at the U of O, and I was, when I was college aged. But if I had, I think I would sue. Reason: These were young and easily led students who conducted themselves as if they were alone among their tribe, which they were. I would agree with letting them know what they did was wrong, but I don’t agree with expelling them.

2. My child? Yes. I would sue. (I don’t think any of my boys would have done this BUT if they were in a fraternity, and some of them were, and they were on a bus and somebody started a racist/sexist/whatever chant, I couldn’t swear they would have stopped it, and I don’t think that’s grounds for expulsion.)

3. By the time they get to that point they will be different people, and whether I would hire them would depend on who they are at the time–not what they did years ago as a fraternity prank.