Expelled Oklahoma U fraternity to sue university, possibly President Boren

[martybegan]

Since the university no doubt has codes of conduct and a bunch of legalese that probably none of these drunk frat boys bothered to read before they signed, not so much.

Oh, look everyone, Mac is coming out in favor of racist frat boys.

That's the same simplistic, idiotic argument all liberals use: "The college has a code of conduct therefore the expulsion was constitutional."

But they don't wonder whether the code of conduct was broken at all. The relevant section in the code of conduct says that the harassment has to be based on a protected class and "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively keeps the targets of discrimination from getting an education,” says Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Link SAE s speech may be protected by First Amendment - OUDaily.com News

Will OU show a judge that someone was kept from getting an education because of this video? Who are the "targets" in the video?

Then we see what legal experts say: "the code could not take precedence over First Amendment rights." Link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/u...oma-students-leads-to-free-speech-debate.html

Related: Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

But if the University did nothing, they could have faced a Title VI lawsuit from the Civil rights act of 1964 by allowing racial discrimination. Thus hurting their image as a university and potentially losing federal funds.

The university was put in a rock and a hard place. However, the fraternity national chapter disbanned the fraternity before OU kicked them off campus so it's going to be a tough win. Also, those students were kicked off for "Creating a hostile education environment" so that's likely going to be upheld because its obvious that they did.

The school would not be liable because they did not endorse what the Frat did.

"Creating a Hostile Environment" Charges are merely an attempted end run around the 1st amendment.

But if they didn't kick them out, the public opinion would be they implicitly endorse the mentality of the fraternity.

That hurts recruiting not only for football but for their university as well. Why risk the future of your university on 2 idiots?

So you want to deny people due process and constitutional rights because of Football?

So the mob wins every time? So only speech everyone likes is protected?

Do you people even consider what you are proposing?

What's next? We expel Christians who oppose gay marriage because it creates a "hostile environment"?

 

[JFK_USA]

Since the university no doubt has codes of conduct and a bunch of legalese that probably none of these drunk frat boys bothered to read before they signed, not so much.

Oh, look everyone, Mac is coming out in favor of racist frat boys.

That's the same simplistic, idiotic argument all liberals use: "The college has a code of conduct therefore the expulsion was constitutional."

But they don't wonder whether the code of conduct was broken at all. The relevant section in the code of conduct says that the harassment has to be based on a protected class and "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively keeps the targets of discrimination from getting an education,” says Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Link SAE s speech may be protected by First Amendment - OUDaily.com News

Will OU show a judge that someone was kept from getting an education because of this video? Who are the "targets" in the video?

Then we see what legal experts say: "the code could not take precedence over First Amendment rights." Link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/u...oma-students-leads-to-free-speech-debate.html

Related: Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

But if the University did nothing, they could have faced a Title VI lawsuit from the Civil rights act of 1964 by allowing racial discrimination. Thus hurting their image as a university and potentially losing federal funds.

The university was put in a rock and a hard place. However, the fraternity national chapter disbanned the fraternity before OU kicked them off campus so it's going to be a tough win. Also, those students were kicked off for "Creating a hostile education environment" so that's likely going to be upheld because its obvious that they did.

The school would not be liable because they did not endorse what the Frat did.

"Creating a Hostile Environment" Charges are merely an attempted end run around the 1st amendment.

But if they didn't kick them out, the public opinion would be they implicitly endorse the mentality of the fraternity.

That hurts recruiting not only for football but for their university as well. Why risk the future of your university on 2 idiots?

So you want to deny people due process and constitutional rights because of Football?

So the mob wins every time? So only speech everyone likes is protected?

Do you people even consider what you are proposing?

What's next? We expel Christians who oppose gay marriage because it creates a "hostile environment"?

If they are doing something overt like Westboro baptist church type protest constantly on campus, then yes they are creating a hostile environment.

 

[PratchettFan]

Since the university no doubt has codes of conduct and a bunch of legalese that probably none of these drunk frat boys bothered to read before they signed, not so much.

Oh, look everyone, Mac is coming out in favor of racist frat boys.

That's the same simplistic, idiotic argument all liberals use: "The college has a code of conduct therefore the expulsion was constitutional."

But they don't wonder whether the code of conduct was broken at all. The relevant section in the code of conduct says that the harassment has to be based on a protected class and "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively keeps the targets of discrimination from getting an education,” says Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Link SAE s speech may be protected by First Amendment - OUDaily.com News

Will OU show a judge that someone was kept from getting an education because of this video? Who are the "targets" in the video?

Then we see what legal experts say: "the code could not take precedence over First Amendment rights." Link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/u...oma-students-leads-to-free-speech-debate.html

Related: Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

But if the University did nothing, they could have faced a Title VI lawsuit from the Civil rights act of 1964 by allowing racial discrimination. Thus hurting their image as a university and potentially losing federal funds.

The university was put in a rock and a hard place. However, the fraternity national chapter disbanned the fraternity before OU kicked them off campus so it's going to be a tough win. Also, those students were kicked off for "Creating a hostile education environment" so that's likely going to be upheld because its obvious that they did.

The school would not be liable because they did not endorse what the Frat did.

"Creating a Hostile Environment" Charges are merely an attempted end run around the 1st amendment.

But if they didn't kick them out, the public opinion would be they implicitly endorse the mentality of the fraternity.

That hurts recruiting not only for football but for their university as well. Why risk the future of your university on 2 idiots?

This isn't about two idiots. It's about one of the most fundamental freedoms of our society. If unpopular speech isn't protected, then no speech is protected.

There is an old maxim.... the one thing we learn from history is that we never learn anything from history.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

Basically you are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a witch hunt.
And again, how is this creating a hostile learning environment?
The real hostility is now any student realizes they can be expelled for unpopular opinions. Going to go after opponents of Gay Marriage yet.

You are a Fascist, and a Coward.

Those frat boys signed a CONTRACT. If you sing songs about lynching gay people, this will also create a hostile learning environment, and OU has a right to protect that.

YOU ARE DUMB

If a contract contains an illegal subsection which favors the party that wrote it,, it is unenforceable, the fact that the frat boys signed it notwithstanding.

Let me give you an example. Suppose a man and a woman signed a contract saying that the man could beat the woman and she wouldn't leave because of it. Let us then suppose that the man did beat the woman and she left him.

Now, let's suppose the man sued the woman for breach of contract. We can clearly see that she was in breach of contract, however it is obviously illegal to beat a woman, so the contract is null and void. So no breach.

Same thing here, IF a court rules that the school couldn't limit free speech, the students weren't in breach b/c the contrat is unenforceable.

 

[martybegan]

That's the same simplistic, idiotic argument all liberals use: "The college has a code of conduct therefore the expulsion was constitutional."

But they don't wonder whether the code of conduct was broken at all. The relevant section in the code of conduct says that the harassment has to be based on a protected class and "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively keeps the targets of discrimination from getting an education,” says Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Link SAE s speech may be protected by First Amendment - OUDaily.com News

Will OU show a judge that someone was kept from getting an education because of this video? Who are the "targets" in the video?

Then we see what legal experts say: "the code could not take precedence over First Amendment rights." Link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/u...oma-students-leads-to-free-speech-debate.html

Related: Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

But if the University did nothing, they could have faced a Title VI lawsuit from the Civil rights act of 1964 by allowing racial discrimination. Thus hurting their image as a university and potentially losing federal funds.

The university was put in a rock and a hard place. However, the fraternity national chapter disbanned the fraternity before OU kicked them off campus so it's going to be a tough win. Also, those students were kicked off for "Creating a hostile education environment" so that's likely going to be upheld because its obvious that they did.

The school would not be liable because they did not endorse what the Frat did.

"Creating a Hostile Environment" Charges are merely an attempted end run around the 1st amendment.

But if they didn't kick them out, the public opinion would be they implicitly endorse the mentality of the fraternity.

That hurts recruiting not only for football but for their university as well. Why risk the future of your university on 2 idiots?

So you want to deny people due process and constitutional rights because of Football?

So the mob wins every time? So only speech everyone likes is protected?

Do you people even consider what you are proposing?

What's next? We expel Christians who oppose gay marriage because it creates a "hostile environment"?

If they are doing something overt like Westboro baptist church type protest constantly on campus, then yes they are creating a hostile environment.

So again, we are back to limiting and punishing speech because we don't like it. Who gets to decide who's offended status outranks who's?

Hostile environments are an attempt to extend fighting words restrictions to non fighting words situations.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Since the university no doubt has codes of conduct and a bunch of legalese that probably none of these drunk frat boys bothered to read before they signed, not so much.

Oh, look everyone, Mac is coming out in favor of racist frat boys.

That's the same simplistic, idiotic argument all liberals use: "The college has a code of conduct therefore the expulsion was constitutional."

But they don't wonder whether the code of conduct was broken at all. The relevant section in the code of conduct says that the harassment has to be based on a protected class and "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively keeps the targets of discrimination from getting an education,” says Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Link SAE s speech may be protected by First Amendment - OUDaily.com News

Will OU show a judge that someone was kept from getting an education because of this video? Who are the "targets" in the video?

Then we see what legal experts say: "the code could not take precedence over First Amendment rights." Link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/u...oma-students-leads-to-free-speech-debate.html

Related: Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

But if the University did nothing, they could have faced a Title VI lawsuit from the Civil rights act of 1964 by allowing racial discrimination. Thus hurting their image as a university and potentially losing federal funds.

The university was put in a rock and a hard place. However, the fraternity national chapter disbanned the fraternity before OU kicked them off campus so it's going to be a tough win. Also, those students were kicked off for "Creating a hostile education environment" so that's likely going to be upheld because its obvious that they did.

The school would not be liable because they did not endorse what the Frat did.

"Creating a Hostile Environment" Charges are merely an attempted end run around the 1st amendment.

But if they didn't kick them out, the public opinion would be they implicitly endorse the mentality of the fraternity.

That hurts recruiting not only for football but for their university as well. Why risk the future of your university on 2 idiots?

This is true, but a public entity isn't like a private company, if you own a company and one of your employees is chanting racist nonsense, damn right, you can tell them to shut up , or fire them. The government can NOT do so.

I'm actually on the fence as to my own opinion on whether they should be allowed to do so, but the case law is clear, they can't.

 

[PratchettFan]

Since the university no doubt has codes of conduct and a bunch of legalese that probably none of these drunk frat boys bothered to read before they signed, not so much.

Oh, look everyone, Mac is coming out in favor of racist frat boys.

That's the same simplistic, idiotic argument all liberals use: "The college has a code of conduct therefore the expulsion was constitutional."

But they don't wonder whether the code of conduct was broken at all. The relevant section in the code of conduct says that the harassment has to be based on a protected class and "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively keeps the targets of discrimination from getting an education,” says Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Link SAE s speech may be protected by First Amendment - OUDaily.com News

Will OU show a judge that someone was kept from getting an education because of this video? Who are the "targets" in the video?

Then we see what legal experts say: "the code could not take precedence over First Amendment rights." Link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/u...oma-students-leads-to-free-speech-debate.html

Related: Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

But if the University did nothing, they could have faced a Title VI lawsuit from the Civil rights act of 1964 by allowing racial discrimination. Thus hurting their image as a university and potentially losing federal funds.

The university was put in a rock and a hard place. However, the fraternity national chapter disbanned the fraternity before OU kicked them off campus so it's going to be a tough win. Also, those students were kicked off for "Creating a hostile education environment" so that's likely going to be upheld because its obvious that they did.

The school would not be liable because they did not endorse what the Frat did.

"Creating a Hostile Environment" Charges are merely an attempted end run around the 1st amendment.

But if they didn't kick them out, the public opinion would be they implicitly endorse the mentality of the fraternity.

That hurts recruiting not only for football but for their university as well. Why risk the future of your university on 2 idiots?

This is true, but a public entity isn't like a private company, if you own a company and one of your employees is chanting racist nonsense, damn right, you can tell them to shut up , or fire them. The government can NOT do so.

I'm actually on the fence as to my own opinion on whether they should be allowed to do so, but the case law is clear, they can't.

The government can fire one of its employees for the same reason.

 

[Carla_Danger]

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

hey dumb dumb, you'll note that NO ONE is arguing that the frat, which is a private organization, didn't have the right to pull their charter.

This is ENTIRELY about the school. And they are going to be hard pressed to prove that these songs impeded anyone's educational experience.

You are incorrect. Proving this created a hostile learning environment is going to be the easy part.

Hell, someone on that bus felt it was a hostile environment, or they wouldn't have turned over the cell phone video.

OU is losing football players who don't want to attend school in such an environment.

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!!!

OU should sue SAE.

 

[JoeMoma]

I don't think anyone has a problem with the Fraternity losing its charter to be on campus. However, expelling the individual students is a different matter. Will any black students be expelled from the university if they show up in a youtube vidieo singing a rap song that has the N-word in it? I bet not.

Also, the President of the university seems to be judge, jury and executioner in this story. What happened to due process before punishment was imposed on these students. They are given the opportunity to appeal the decision after the fact, but that's different.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You have the right to act as ignorant as you sound.

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

Basically you are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a witch hunt.
And again, how is this creating a hostile learning environment?
The real hostility is now any student realizes they can be expelled for unpopular opinions. Going to go after opponents of Gay Marriage yet.

You are a Fascist, and a Coward.

That frat house was allowed to exist on college campus at the pleasure of OU. They can shut them down for any number of reasons. Another thing to keep in mind is that one of the frat brats blamed his behavior on drinking, and he's a minor. That alone is cause to shut down the house.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That's the same simplistic, idiotic argument all liberals use: "The college has a code of conduct therefore the expulsion was constitutional."

But they don't wonder whether the code of conduct was broken at all. The relevant section in the code of conduct says that the harassment has to be based on a protected class and "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively keeps the targets of discrimination from getting an education,” says Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Link SAE s speech may be protected by First Amendment - OUDaily.com News

Will OU show a judge that someone was kept from getting an education because of this video? Who are the "targets" in the video?

Then we see what legal experts say: "the code could not take precedence over First Amendment rights." Link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/u...oma-students-leads-to-free-speech-debate.html

Related: Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

But if the University did nothing, they could have faced a Title VI lawsuit from the Civil rights act of 1964 by allowing racial discrimination. Thus hurting their image as a university and potentially losing federal funds.

The university was put in a rock and a hard place. However, the fraternity national chapter disbanned the fraternity before OU kicked them off campus so it's going to be a tough win. Also, those students were kicked off for "Creating a hostile education environment" so that's likely going to be upheld because its obvious that they did.

The school would not be liable because they did not endorse what the Frat did.

"Creating a Hostile Environment" Charges are merely an attempted end run around the 1st amendment.

But if they didn't kick them out, the public opinion would be they implicitly endorse the mentality of the fraternity.

That hurts recruiting not only for football but for their university as well. Why risk the future of your university on 2 idiots?

So you want to deny people due process and constitutional rights because of Football?

So the mob wins every time? So only speech everyone likes is protected?

Do you people even consider what you are proposing?

What's next? We expel Christians who oppose gay marriage because it creates a "hostile environment"?

If they are doing something overt like Westboro baptist church type protest constantly on campus, then yes they are creating a hostile environment.

Yes. Inside the privacy of their frat gatherings they're creating a hostile environment.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I don't think anyone has a problem with the Fraternity losing its charter to be on campus. However, expelling the individual students is a different matter. Will any black students be expelled from the university if they show up in a youtube vidieo singing a rap song that has the N-word in it? I bet not.

Also, the President of the university seems to be judge, jury and executioner in this story. What happened to due process before punishment was imposed on these students. They are given the opportunity to appeal the decision after the fact, but that's different.

Their due process is right here...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

Basically you are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a witch hunt.
And again, how is this creating a hostile learning environment?
The real hostility is now any student realizes they can be expelled for unpopular opinions. Going to go after opponents of Gay Marriage yet.

You are a Fascist, and a Coward.

That frat house was allowed to exist on college campus at the pleasure of OU. They can shut them down for any number of reasons. Another thing to keep in mind is that one of the frat brats blamed his behavior on drinking, and he's a minor. That alone is cause to shut down the house.

The university has EVERY right to restrict free expression.

As soon as they disavow all public funding, of course.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

Basically you are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a witch hunt.
And again, how is this creating a hostile learning environment?
The real hostility is now any student realizes they can be expelled for unpopular opinions. Going to go after opponents of Gay Marriage yet.

You are a Fascist, and a Coward.

That frat house was allowed to exist on college campus at the pleasure of OU. They can shut them down for any number of reasons. Another thing to keep in mind is that one of the frat brats blamed his behavior on drinking, and he's a minor. That alone is cause to shut down the house.

Once again stupid, NO ONE is protesting the frat being shut down.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Since the university no doubt has codes of conduct and a bunch of legalese that probably none of these drunk frat boys bothered to read before they signed, not so much.

Oh, look everyone, Mac is coming out in favor of racist frat boys.

That's the same simplistic, idiotic argument all liberals use: "The college has a code of conduct therefore the expulsion was constitutional."

But they don't wonder whether the code of conduct was broken at all. The relevant section in the code of conduct says that the harassment has to be based on a protected class and "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively keeps the targets of discrimination from getting an education,” says Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Link SAE s speech may be protected by First Amendment - OUDaily.com News

Will OU show a judge that someone was kept from getting an education because of this video? Who are the "targets" in the video?

Then we see what legal experts say: "the code could not take precedence over First Amendment rights." Link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/u...oma-students-leads-to-free-speech-debate.html

Related: Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

But if the University did nothing, they could have faced a Title VI lawsuit from the Civil rights act of 1964 by allowing racial discrimination. Thus hurting their image as a university and potentially losing federal funds.

The university was put in a rock and a hard place. However, the fraternity national chapter disbanned the fraternity before OU kicked them off campus so it's going to be a tough win. Also, those students were kicked off for "Creating a hostile education environment" so that's likely going to be upheld because its obvious that they did.

The school would not be liable because they did not endorse what the Frat did.

"Creating a Hostile Environment" Charges are merely an attempted end run around the 1st amendment.

But if they didn't kick them out, the public opinion would be they implicitly endorse the mentality of the fraternity.

That hurts recruiting not only for football but for their university as well. Why risk the future of your university on 2 idiots?

Not really. They could have issued a statement disassociating themselves with the repugnant song. But that would never happen because they're Leftists and therefore must destroy any affront to political correctness.

 

[martybegan]

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

Basically you are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a witch hunt.
And again, how is this creating a hostile learning environment?
The real hostility is now any student realizes they can be expelled for unpopular opinions. Going to go after opponents of Gay Marriage yet.

You are a Fascist, and a Coward.

That frat house was allowed to exist on college campus at the pleasure of OU. They can shut them down for any number of reasons. Another thing to keep in mind is that one of the frat brats blamed his behavior on drinking, and he's a minor. That alone is cause to shut down the house.

Once again stupid, NO ONE is protesting the frat being shut down.

As a caveat the National Fraternity is within their rights to revoke the charter. Not so sure the university can just unilaterally shut it down due to the actions of its members, if said actions are protected.

 

[martybegan]

I don't think anyone has a problem with the Fraternity losing its charter to be on campus. However, expelling the individual students is a different matter. Will any black students be expelled from the university if they show up in a youtube vidieo singing a rap song that has the N-word in it? I bet not.

Also, the President of the university seems to be judge, jury and executioner in this story. What happened to due process before punishment was imposed on these students. They are given the opportunity to appeal the decision after the fact, but that's different.

Their due process is right here...

LOL. so he goes to the EEO Officer, who works for the President, and gets told 'fuck off." THAT's due process to you?

Fuck you, you fucking fascist.

 

[martybegan]

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

hey dumb dumb, you'll note that NO ONE is arguing that the frat, which is a private organization, didn't have the right to pull their charter.

This is ENTIRELY about the school. And they are going to be hard pressed to prove that these songs impeded anyone's educational experience.

You are incorrect. Proving this created a hostile learning environment is going to be the easy part.

Hell, someone on that bus felt it was a hostile environment, or they wouldn't have turned over the cell phone video.

OU is losing football players who don't want to attend school in such an environment.

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!!!

OU should sue SAE.

Why?

 

[martybegan]

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

Basically you are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a witch hunt.
And again, how is this creating a hostile learning environment?
The real hostility is now any student realizes they can be expelled for unpopular opinions. Going to go after opponents of Gay Marriage yet.

You are a Fascist, and a Coward.

That frat house was allowed to exist on college campus at the pleasure of OU. They can shut them down for any number of reasons. Another thing to keep in mind is that one of the frat brats blamed his behavior on drinking, and he's a minor. That alone is cause to shut down the house.

So OU will now go after all Frats for underage drinking?

LOL, any excuse to get these guys punished to the maximum extent, right?

 

[Preacher]

Stephen Jones...same one that defended McVeigh? I hope the Fraternity wins. Free speech must be taken seriously and be defended at all costs.