i see things havent changed that much

EffinDane said:
The only people with a hostile environment claim would be people on the bus. However, being on that bus has nothing to do with going to the school, so that's a pretty weak argument.



Everybody in the country should support these guys if they sue the school. You don't get to throw people out of school for speech. You cannot have successful higher education without free speech, otherwise you wind up like Liberty University.

These guys are jerkoffs, but freedom of speech is worth suffering jerkoffs.
Click to expand...

So much for the sacrifices of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, eh? But we all understand the difference between dropping the N-bomb and promoting communism and the Cuban revolution.
 
WracerX said:
Good job OU, you have stopped a few guys from saying hurtful things who were part of a group that unofficially was not open to all students. That is hurtful and hateful. Now, repent completely by donating that frat house to the office of minority affairs that will official discriminate against your students.
Click to expand...

:lol: pretty good response

although it was SAE national that closed the chapter, not the school, iirc
 
Last edited:
BuzzCzar said:
i believe in free speech
Click to expand...

usually everyone does

BuzzCzar said:
i dont think you have the right to incite violence, or act this way in leading a group with hostile behavior, and this qualifies, imo. i would not support them
Click to expand...

It most certainly does not qualify by any means. It doesn't even come close. If these kids were charged with inciting violence or inciting a crime, the case would be throw out before ever reaching court.
 
EffinDane said:
usually everyone does



It most certainly does not qualify by any means. It doesn't even come close. If these kids were charged with inciting violence or inciting a crime, the case would be throw out before ever reaching court.
Click to expand...

yes, you are always totally rational about what you consider to be your rights vs the rights of others :rolleyes:

yours end where they infringe on mine, you should learn that second part better
 
BuzzCzar said:
yes, you are always totally rational about what you consider to be your rights vs the rights of others :rolleyes:

yours end where they infringe on mine, you should learn that second part better
Click to expand...

You can't just make up rights, though. There's no right to not be offended. These jerkoffs' speech did nothing to prevent any other student from speech or any other actual, non-made-up right.

The word 'right' has a pretty specific meaning in this context, and it isn't 'how things should be'.

If these kids were at a private school, that school would be well within its rights to kick a student out for basically whatever reason it wants (e.g. Liberty University). Public, tax-funded schools do not have this luxury; they, as government institutions, cannot simply punish someone for exercising their right to speech, regardless of jerkoffness.
 
i guess they should have gone to an all-white school, like Georgie
 
EffinDane said:
You can't just make up rights, though. There's no right to not be offended. These jerkoffs' speech did nothing to prevent any other student from speech or any other actual, non-made-up right.

The word 'right' has a pretty specific meaning in this context, and it isn't 'how things should be'.
Click to expand...

i might have kicked them out for their own protection, as defending them from the potential harm that will befall them would be too much for the University to contain, and the potential liability of them getting beat up and maybe killed too great a risk for the University to bear
 
My guess is OU did a cost/benefit analysis of expulsion.

The only way there's a cost is if the students come out publicly and attach their names to a lawsuit that effectively says "I deserve $ because I got kicked out of school for singing about hanging n* from trees" which obviously has a huge negative effect on future employment activities.

The longer their names don't come out the less likely it is they sue, imo.
 
I would sue. It won't hurt their employment chances. There are dbag SAE's that will hire them.

Besides, I bet the ACLU represents them for free.
 
mmbt0ne said:
My guess is OU did a cost/benefit analysis of expulsion.

The only way there's a cost is if the students come out publicly and attach their names to a lawsuit that effectively says "I deserve $ because I got kicked out of school for singing about hanging n* from trees" which obviously has a huge negative effect on future employment activities.

The longer their names don't come out the less likely it is they sue, imo.
Click to expand...

this
 
Yukonwreck said:
So much for the sacrifices of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, eh? But we all understand the difference between dropping the N-bomb and promoting communism and the Cuban revolution.
Click to expand...

yeah, one difference is that there is no threat of communism and never was, while racism is clearly present here

another difference is that political words are not discriminatory against protected classes. big legal difference
 
mmbt0ne said:
My guess is OU did a cost/benefit analysis of expulsion.

The only way there's a cost is if the students come out publicly and attach their names to a lawsuit that effectively says "I deserve $ because I got kicked out of school for singing about hanging n* from trees" which obviously has a huge negative effect on future employment activities.

The longer their names don't come out the less likely it is they sue, imo.
Click to expand...


 
i think the University could also counter-sue. at least one highly-rated prospect has de-committed from the schools football program due to the comments; OU has gotten bad press and it likely caused the school to spend money on PR and on administrative costs

OU could try to counter-sue and make a case for material damages caused by the actions of those fools.
 
I think if the chants had simply been about African American students being unable to join a certain private group, expulsion would be a hard sell.

But the references to lynching and killing can be used to justify a "hostile environment" which has historically been upheld by the Courts.

Also, there are implications from violating the Student Code of Conduct and Ethics Guidelines. You can be expelled for copying someone else's answer in a test though the constitution gives you the right to look around, walk around or perform other functions that can enable you to cheat. There are "reasonable restrictions" on university campuses public or private.
 
These were students in a private settling singing a racist song. They weren't in front of a schoolhouse door.

It is absolutely,100%,1st Amendment protected ass-hattery.
 
WracerX said:
These were students in a private settling singing a racist song. They weren't in front of a schoolhouse door.

It is absolutely,100%,1st Amendment protected ass-hattery.
Click to expand...

they shared it with the public. what happens at SAE apparently did not stay at SAE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top