Oklahoma banned students could sue the college and win big

[emilynghiem]

RE If there was a code or rule being violated

Hi Judicial review and thanks for standing up for the side that isn't being heard for all the hoopla over the R and N word.

Yes and no.

The University has policies about not creating a hostile environment.
One of the students who videotaped the chant felt this was hostile, and exposed it.

There was nothing wrong with protesting the chants, and the University following up with protocol within their policies.
The SAE also has the right to disband a group they find as failing to meet their standards and policies.

These groups have the right to act in this way.

Where I MIGHT agree with you, is if people conspire to retaliate, if they abuse free speech to slander or harass the students further, that might be excessive.

Frankly I believe it would be more productive, constructive and corrective for the student body to work WITH the students to address the matter.

I started a thread, asking should there be other corrections or restitution. And one of the poll options was to let the students work out a plan for resolving the conflict.

The peer counseling, mediation models, honor system/consensus penalties,
and teen court programs I've looked at are very effective
in empowering students to resolve noncriminal issues like violations of school policy.

I would have supported the students in addressing this, since both the chants were
led by students, participated in, and videotaped. I would trust the students to work out a solution
and use this as a good exercise in petitioning to redress grievances.

Thanks Judicial

There have been a couple of cases of free speech and school policy violations
at my own alma mater that I believe could be better resolved by a joint review by students and faculty
so the community takes full ownership and responsibility for both the rules, infractions and consequences
for deterrence, correction and prevention. I believe the restorative justice approach works better in such cases.

Yours truly,
Emily

Link added to thread I had started elsewhere,
where I offer the idea of restitution projects that could repair these damaged relations and image:
Should OU chants call for condemnation or corrections US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[emilynghiem]

Just saw the video. Yeah, that's pretty bad. I can understand where the University is coming from. The students could win a lawsuit though. But i think they've already decided against filing. If you're part of a University, you represent that University. So you do have to be careful. The University has to cover its own ass.

But that being said, It is a murky issue as far as Free Speech goes. The students might have had a legal argument, but it was wise not pursuing it. Best to let it go. What they said was pretty rough. Very few will rush to their defense.

People have said way worse and found legal counsel and won. These kids will be FORCED to pursue this. There lives can't get any worse. They are already receiving death threats.

They put the University in a very bad position. It has to cover its own ass. They're out. And that's that.

You dont cover your ass by violating someone's civil rights. I agree thats probably how they saw it. It was cowardly and wrong.

You want Al Sharpton and the other Dem Race-Baiter loons camping out at your place for months? They gave the University no choice. They blew it.

Bullshit. The university should have had the students take some class on racial sensitivity or some bullshit, suspended the students from the fraternity for 2-3 semesters, and issued a statement that while they deplore the conduct they respect the right of free speech and free association and be done with it.

I agree The Rabbi this could be corrected instead, but it is up to the free will and discretion of the other people affected.
If the students offered to make corrections, I'm sure they would accept that, but maybe after the media hoopla and damaged is capped first.

g5000 is right, that the policy of discriminating against recruiting Blacks is another issue.
And other people brought up damages this caused to the organizations affiliated.

Thanks for posting that the actual incident occurred off campus.

Some companies have a policy that extends the harassment issues to off site interactions between associates.
So this isn't necessarily limited to just harassment issues that occur onsite, if the University extends this to offsite events.
It depends on the policy.

I am hoping the students and their parents see more value
in restoring good faith relations rather than suing which will publicize more negativity.
I believe corrective efforts can be made that address the legal issues and rights here,
but without further instigating negative reactions and divisions. Corrections can still be made that emphasize
all the points you and JR bring out, but without any further hostility attached.

I hope the community supports the students in taking that route, the higher ground, and still defending and establishing where they were within their rights, and better ways to address breaches and violations that don't need to be punitive.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Saying something is not discrimination.
They didnt create a hostile environment. They were on a bus. The person who made and released the video created the environment. Even so, "creating a hostile environment" is bullshit. There is no reasonable definition of it anywhere and it loses every time it comes up in law.

The person who made and released the video created the environment.

Too funny

That is rich!

But true.
If this were 30 years ago would any of this be an issue? No. It was the video, not the incident that created any hostile environment.

People can now get tickets for driving violations, due to the police red light cameras. Is it the police departments fault when someone gets a speeding ticket, or is it the the person driving the car?

So now you support the police in everythig they do? Little brownshirter.

The person speeding is responsible for speeding, no?

 

[paulitician]

Just saw the video. Yeah, that's pretty bad. I can understand where the University is coming from. The students could win a lawsuit though. But i think they've already decided against filing. If you're part of a University, you represent that University. So you do have to be careful. The University has to cover its own ass.

But that being said, It is a murky issue as far as Free Speech goes. The students might have had a legal argument, but it was wise not pursuing it. Best to let it go. What they said was pretty rough. Very few will rush to their defense.

People have said way worse and found legal counsel and won. These kids will be FORCED to pursue this. There lives can't get any worse. They are already receiving death threats.

They put the University in a very bad position. It has to cover its own ass. They're out. And that's that.

You dont cover your ass by violating someone's civil rights. I agree thats probably how they saw it. It was cowardly and wrong.

You want Al Sharpton and the other Dem Race-Baiter loons camping out at your place for months? They gave the University no choice. They blew it.

Bullshit. The university should have had the students take some class on racial sensitivity or some bullshit, suspended the students from the fraternity for 2-3 semesters, and issued a statement that while they deplore the conduct they respect the right of free speech and free association and be done with it.

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. But these are different times. Businesses are routinely firing employees over Facebook postings. '9/11 changed everything.' Haven't you heard? Welcome to the new America. Enjoy.

 

[The Rabbi]

The person who made and released the video created the environment.

Too funny

That is rich!

But true.
If this were 30 years ago would any of this be an issue? No. It was the video, not the incident that created any hostile environment.

People can now get tickets for driving violations, due to the police red light cameras. Is it the police departments fault when someone gets a speeding ticket, or is it the the person driving the car?

So now you support the police in everythig they do? Little brownshirter.

The person speeding is responsible for speeding, no?

You are really trying to compare a traffic infringement with a free speech issue? You're a special kind of stupid, arentcha?

 

[The Rabbi]

People have said way worse and found legal counsel and won. These kids will be FORCED to pursue this. There lives can't get any worse. They are already receiving death threats.

They put the University in a very bad position. It has to cover its own ass. They're out. And that's that.

You dont cover your ass by violating someone's civil rights. I agree thats probably how they saw it. It was cowardly and wrong.

You want Al Sharpton and the other Dem Race-Baiter loons camping out at your place for months? They gave the University no choice. They blew it.

Bullshit. The university should have had the students take some class on racial sensitivity or some bullshit, suspended the students from the fraternity for 2-3 semesters, and issued a statement that while they deplore the conduct they respect the right of free speech and free association and be done with it.

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. But these are different times. Businesses are routinely firing employees over Facebook postings. 'Everything changed after 9/11.' Haven't you heard? Welcome to the new America. Enjoy.

That people do it doesnt make it right.

 

[emilynghiem]

SAE will be labled a racist fraternity across the nation. A student considering a fraternity will now be mocked if they mention SAE as a possibility. Their brand has been damaged

There has been permanent damage done to the fraternity by the bunch singing on the bus. They should all be sued and forced to pay damages to both SAE and the university

I am bumping this post by rightwinger which points out the real damage done.
If they don't sue for that, why not call it even and not have the students sue over free speech.
Why cause even more damage. Why not work on positive corrections to restore good faith and productive relations.
That is more important for the future of all those affected by this incident and exposure of discrimination among recruiters.

 

[emilynghiem]

....
The reputation of the school was on the line. The school had no choice but to eject these little racist shitheads.

And the assholes made it clear they were not signing up blacks to their frat. That's discrimination.

I am bumping this post by g5000 and will add on the previous comment that this violated the school's anti-discrimination policy.

The little racists punks got caught violating the school's anti-discrimination policy. They're outta here, and they haven't a legal leg to stand on.

Case closed.

 

[paulitician]

They put the University in a very bad position. It has to cover its own ass. They're out. And that's that.

You dont cover your ass by violating someone's civil rights. I agree thats probably how they saw it. It was cowardly and wrong.

You want Al Sharpton and the other Dem Race-Baiter loons camping out at your place for months? They gave the University no choice. They blew it.

Bullshit. The university should have had the students take some class on racial sensitivity or some bullshit, suspended the students from the fraternity for 2-3 semesters, and issued a statement that while they deplore the conduct they respect the right of free speech and free association and be done with it.

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. But these are different times. Businesses are routinely firing employees over Facebook postings. 'Everything changed after 9/11.' Haven't you heard? Welcome to the new America. Enjoy.

That people do it doesnt make it right.

You're always 'on the clock' now. Anything you say can and will be held against you by your Employer or University. 'There should be no expectation of privacy anymore.' Well, that's what the Nanny/Police Staters keep telling us anyway.

Sadly, it looks like most have decided to go along to get along. They've given up. So watch what you say and do. Your Government and Employer are watching.

 

[Thirty6BelowZero]

This is fantastic news!

People have gotten so wrapped up in themselves that they think anything that offends them is racist... If we're going to be equal, lets be treated equal.

So start with those black panther members that were chanting to kill whitey and kill the cracker babies...

Any of you liberals down to debate that?

 

[Carla_Danger]

That is rich!

But true.
If this were 30 years ago would any of this be an issue? No. It was the video, not the incident that created any hostile environment.

People can now get tickets for driving violations, due to the police red light cameras. Is it the police departments fault when someone gets a speeding ticket, or is it the the person driving the car?

So now you support the police in everythig they do? Little brownshirter.

The person speeding is responsible for speeding, no?

You are really trying to compare a traffic infringement with a free speech issue? You're a special kind of stupid, arentcha?

It takes a special kind of stupid to blame the person who released the video.

 

[Plasmaball]

The students have a perfect case. They were off campus in a private venue. Punishing people for unpopular statements is exactly what the 1A was meant to prevent.

this isnt a first amendment issue. just like all the others where not either

 

[emilynghiem]

The students have a perfect case. They were off campus in a private venue. Punishing people for unpopular statements is exactly what the 1A was meant to prevent.

I am bumping this post by The Rabbi that points out the event was off campus and private.
1. does anyone know if the University rules on harassment or discrimination apply to private actions off site?
if this concerns fraternity recruitment, then doesn't g5000's points apply that it still violates anti-discrimination OU policies.
And the fraternity can still take action as rightwinger pointed out for damages to reputation.
If the university and fraternity agree not to sue, then maybe expulsion prevented further legal action.
Maybe the parties called it even and agreed to drop it to prevent any further harm to any person over this.

2. The Rabbi and Judicial review
might I point out that nothing to this magnitude is being done to address
the complaints of gang rapes at parties for the recruitment of college football candidates.

Why is so much attention projected onto easy targets that are not causing physical injury and harm,
while real targets of rape harassment and coverup are skirted under the rug.

If there are going to be complaints over how this case was handled
A. I agree with The Rabbi that corrective measures could be pursued since no physical damage was done.
but if the damage to image, relations and financial support is beyond what the students can repair,
if the parties opt to sever relations that is their choice.
B. Why are real issues of racism and damages ignored while jumping over an incident that could be easily corrected?
I think this is worth taking a look at.
I brought it up on my other thread, but was accused of derailing and getting off topic.
but all the issues of racism come with the territory, and it isn't going to be resolved in a vacuum.
the whole context must be included, or else people will take issues from one area and project them elsewhere.

Clearly there was projection here, so why not address the real issues and not just the projections of them?
Thank you, Gentlemen

 

[paulitician]

This is fantastic news!

People have gotten so wrapped up in themselves that they think anything that offends them is racist... If we're going to be equal, lets be treated equal.

So start with those black panther members that were chanting to kill whitey and kill the cracker babies...

Any of you liberals down to debate that?

They're the 'Good Racists.' So don't bother. The usual suspect Race-Baiter loons will only rant & rave about White Racists. They won't ever acknowledge that there's bigotry in all races.

It's all about 'Get Whitey' for them. So don't hold your breathe waiting for a reasonable and logical discussion with them. It just ain't gonna happen. They have their 'Get Whitey' Talking Points, and that's that.

 

[boilermaker55]

Ah!!! American Exceptionalism.

Anybody who disagrees with mE and cries foul that some right of theirs was taken away is a hypocrite and is a disgrace to America because they are what is wrong with america. Case and point. So please keep on talking.

 

[Carla_Danger]

The students have a perfect case. They were off campus in a private venue. Punishing people for unpopular statements is exactly what the 1A was meant to prevent.

I am bumping this post by The Rabbi that points out the event was off campus and private.
1. does anyone know if the University rules on harassment or discrimination apply to private actions off site?
if this concerns fraternity recruitment, then doesn't g5000's points apply that it still violates anti-discrimination OU policies.
And the fraternity can still take action as rightwinger pointed out for damages to reputation.
If the university and fraternity agree not to sue, then maybe expulsion prevented further legal action.
Maybe the parties called it even and agreed to drop it to prevent any further harm to any person over this.

2. The Rabbi and Judicial review
might I point out that nothing to this magnitude is being done to address
the complaints of gang rapes at parties for the recruitment of college football candidates.

Why is so much attention projected onto easy targets that are not causing physical injury and harm,
while real targets of rape harassment and coverup are skirted under the rug.

If there are going to be complaints over how this case was handled
A. I agree with The Rabbi that corrective measures could be pursued since no physical damage was done.
but if the damage to image, relations and financial support is beyond what the students can repair,
if the parties opt to sever relations that is their choice.
B. Why are real issues of racism and damages ignored while jumping over an incident that could be easily corrected?
I think this is worth taking a look at.
I brought it up on my other thread, but was accused of derailing and getting off topic.
but all the issues of racism come with the territory, and it isn't going to be resolved in a vacuum.
the whole context must be included, or else people will take issues from one area and project them elsewhere.

Clearly there was projection here, so why not address the real issues and not just the projections of them?
Thank you, Gentlemen

Student Conduct Office - Welcome


Student Handbook

 

[Plasmaball]

If there wasn't a code or rule being violated, then the college just censored free speech and on top of it slandered these students reputation by publicizing this situation in the way that they did, and potentially did financial harm to them.

It's a "public" university. Free speech could have been violated a right granted to every citizen no matter what they say under article 1 of the constitution.

Could likely win an arguement that their civil rights were violated whether a school policy was broken or not.

What civil right was violated, because it wasn't free speech.

Was absolutely free speech. They were in a private vehicle, not out in public (though they woulda been protected then as well.)

where they arrested for saying what they said?

 

[Thirty6BelowZero]

I think they should consider using the Affluenza defense, they're white, privileged, racist, superficial and stupid, it would be the perfect defense.

How are they privileged, and how are they racist?

I'll wait.

In the meantime, why do you people always walk face first into the stone hypocrite walls?

 

[The Rabbi]

If there wasn't a code or rule being violated, then the college just censored free speech and on top of it slandered these students reputation by publicizing this situation in the way that they did, and potentially did financial harm to them.

It's a "public" university. Free speech could have been violated a right granted to every citizen no matter what they say under article 1 of the constitution.

Could likely win an arguement that their civil rights were violated whether a school policy was broken or not.

What civil right was violated, because it wasn't free speech.

Was absolutely free speech. They were in a private vehicle, not out in public (though they woulda been protected then as well.)

where they arrested for saying what they said?

Were

 

[emilynghiem]

The students have a perfect case. They were off campus in a private venue. Punishing people for unpopular statements is exactly what the 1A was meant to prevent.

Thank you. This thread will clearly define the smart posters who believe in the constitution from the morons here at usmb. Specifically the bill of rights.

Hi Judicial review I am a liberal progressive who believes in the Bill of Rights, also the Fourteenth Amendment and the Code of Ethics for Govt Service. I believe in education all citizens in these principles so we can redress our own grievances.

Yes the students have free speech but so does the university and fraternity have their rules their members agreed to enforce.
You cannot take one rule out of context with the rest.

From looking at the bigger picture, the university and fraternity could also be trying to avoid lawsuits over allowing discriminatory practices to go on that are against their rules.

I support the students in redressing the grievances, and will gladly stand with them.
I've also been called racist for promoting campus plans of "poor Black communities" as if this is condenscending.
I thought it was empowering that the community residents and leaders came up with their own plans for restoration,
with the purpose of breaking the poverty cycle and dependence on welfare and govt. http www.houstonprogressive.org

But nobody wanted to look at these plans, it was more expedient to go along with corporate developer interests
and mow down these districts to seize the property from "poor Black residents" without legal resources to defend their interests. As long as they don't own the property, then preventing them from buying it keeps them unequal and powerless.

I protested this, but nobody would hear us without legal backing to win, so by the political war of attrition,
we were bled out of our own community so these campus plans could be censored for lack of support.

Why raise national hell over a discriminatory policy by a student fraternity
but let an entire national historic district of Black churches, Freed Slave history and Civil Rights landmarks
get run over by racial discrimination against "poor Blacks" while politically favoring wealth developers with more
money to buy lawyers and influence public officials campaigning for office?

I think your outrage may be just as "misdirected and projected" as these people making a big deal of this case.
Aren't you doing the same?

Why not ask the students if they'd like to expose the real racism and take on Freedmen's Town
and the campus plans that were politically censored by the very party leaders and officials
claiming to represent Black interests and stand against racism. That would make a public statement.

Judicial review you claimed to have contacts with a good lawyer and you are
willing to stand for Constitutional issues. Gladys House is a Black Republican who has been fighting against
the corrupt Black politicians for swindling the money away from Freedmen's Town to pay for their own political interests.

She can name the exact people and has the documentation to show the pattern of discrimination and abuse and corruption.
I will send you her number as she wanted to follow up on this idea of bringing this up to the students.

If you want national attention, you got it. this is a national historic registered site, actually two, both Allen Parkway Village is a recognized landmark of military history and Civil Rights, and the 40-80 block district of Freedmen's Town was a registered site that was deliberately destroyed to lose its historic significance so developers could take it over. The city claimed "separation of church and state" in why they weren't able to save it, but had no problem giving millions of tax money to developer friends of the Mayor to seize property to mow it down.

if you want to expose racism, this is a project overdue to go public.

But if you are no different from the people looking for an easy target to pick on,
then keep picking apart the OU case and run away from facing real issues of racism,
just like the Democrats are doing. Looking the other way, then overcompensating by jumping on cases
of high publicity for political points. Don't make the same mistake they do, and expect any different results, JR.

If you are different, like me and Gladys who don't expect govt to fix these problems,
take the bull by the horns.

If you are like everyone else, you will make a big fuss just to blame the other side,
then run away and not do a damn thing different. I hope you are different.

We need a real man to stand up for these issues. If that's the role you see yourself fulfilling, I support
you in that and can get you in touch with the contacts to take this district back, build a campus,
teach the laws and train people to be self-governing, and stop this dependence on govt that is overloading the system.