SAE what say you!

[oldscalphunter]

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:

Originally posted by oldscalphunter:

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:

Originally posted by seminole4life1:

Originally posted by OneNeverNoles:
lulz @ saying n------ can't join your frat and talk about hanging "them" from trees being "diverse opinion" and that "doesn't threaten individuals."

Never change, LR.

I would agree with you if the chant was at a group of individuals that were in their presence- it could then certainly be viewed as a direct threat to individuals. Just as we must weigh a protest vs harassment the setting of the chant does not really hold up for a direct threat.

So you know the ethnic background of everyone on the bus? What if one of the females was half black, quarter black and had a black parent or an adopted sibling who was black? What if it was a white chic who dated black guys and she felt directly threatened by the song?

Not about what a listener "felt," it's what the intention of the speaker was. Clearly was not a threat. Threatening speech is the worst argument OU could give (well, hate speech is the worst... but hate speech isn't an exception to the 1st amendment). It's not dangerous speech and when there's effective channels for counter-speech available, words are generally protected by the 1st Amendment. The past few days have shown that the counter-speech is clearly effective. They will face social and economic punishment because of it, punishment from the University is unacceptable under the First Amendment.

Let me see if I can get some clarification. Hypothetically speaking, if the filmer of the bus scene was half black, you're stating that a direct threat doesn't exist IF the bus full of people chanting about hanging ni#$#@ from a tree couldn't constitute a direct threat?

As a person who's mixed (granted, I'd stand out like a sore thumb but my son wouldn't) and as someone who could probably kick the sh!t out of 90% of the people on the bus, I'd feel directly threatened by 20 plus fraternity guys singing about hanging n#$$%# from a tree.

First, you're confusing the issue. If you felt threatened, you might be justified in throwing a punch and anything afterwards (assuming 15+ guys could take you), their punishment could be legally heightened by what they sang, based on their conduct. But the expulsion wasn't based on conduct, it was based on speech. The two are separate (though sometimes conduct IS speech, spoken words are not conduct). However, you do touch on what the strongest argument would be, in your scenario. If words would incite a reasonable person to violence, they could be considered fighting words... but even then, the context matters. They were giggling like kids getting away with something they shouldn't be doing... it's hard to see fighting words as a good argument given the video.

Second, what they sang was "You can hang...." they didn't sing about actually doing it, nor did they sing about potentially doing it, nor was it directed at anyone in particular. I highly doubt they'd have sang it if a black man or woman was on the bus (and they were aware of the person/ancestry). The threat argument is extremely weak in this context.

 

[oldscalphunter]

Originally posted by mnole03:

Originally posted by Singleshot:

Originally posted by Manch.:

How does the student code of conduct come into effect here if this was done off of school property? Does the CoC state that they can be disciplined for stuff like this outside of school? If SAE is a private organization, that probably has to register with the school, how can it be labeled as a "school issue" (it's the same question has to how can FSU be responsible in any way for JW if the consensual sex act he had was off campus).

I don't know about OU's, but if it is similar to FSU's, actually being on school property doesn't really matter depending on the situation. This would certainly probably fall under something they can take jurisdiction over. And they, like Winston, are still students. If it is bad enough, it doesn't matter where it happens. Just like you can be suspended or kicked out of a program for criminal charges that happen nowhere near school property.

This post was edited on 3/10 11:24 PM by Singleshot

Our CoC is actually very problematic with regard to free speech. What Winston yelled was obscenity. If it had been protected speech, like the speech of the SAEs, it would have drawn a lot more scholarly attention. What OU is doing is clearly unconstitutional.

This post was edited on 3/10 11:57 PM by mnole03

Scholarly attention would've been drawn to the Winston incident had Jimbo (i.e., the Head Coach) not claimed to be on board with the suspension publicly. Later, he's admitted (unintentionally perhaps) that he wasn't on board with the full game suspension. I think it was a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment with how it actually went down, particularly if he said it in the Student Union.

 

[Singleshot]

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:
You're focusing on the hyperbole. If someone who's mixed, "half" black is on that bus and hears that chant from 20 plus people how can that not be constituted as a direct threat. It's a mob of people not one or two but a mob of people singing/screaming at the top of their lungs about hanging black people from trees.

I would feel directly threatened.

Would it be any different if a bus full of guys were screaming about raping a girl and there was one girl on the bus? Is that a direct threat? (Really I'm asking).

I think you're over exaggerating what they were doing. I just watched it. They weren't screaming at the top of their lungs or even looking at anyone in particular. Their volume wouldn't even matter. They could all be staring at the one person and just saying it at almost a whisper and it would be more of a direct threat than what they did. Maybe we have differing definitions of what a "direct" threat is. You aren't directing it at someone and the lyrics weren't even "We can hang them" it's "You can hang them" so even taking it as just words it isn't something you are threatening to do to someone.

If you're going to use a hypothetical like rape, then it is still about context. There's actually a lot of songs with rape insinuations that most don't even know about usually. That doesn't make it a direct threat to sing them. If they are directed at someone or done in a certain way, especially when they are clearly trying to send a message to you while you're there, then it can be taken as a threat. You can't just slap a generalization on every context though.

If this was a black fraternity singing with racist speech in the lyrics, I would think it would be just as racist, but still don't think they should be expelled either for saying it, but it wouldn't even be a story then. Who did what to who in the past doesn't mean hating on another race is somehow not racist. Hate is hate and racism is racism no matter which side it comes from.

 

[Singleshot]

Originally posted by oldscalphunter:

Our CoC is actually very problematic with regard to free speech. What Winston yelled was obscenity. If it had been protected speech, like the speech of the SAEs, it would have drawn a lot more scholarly attention. What OU is doing is clearly unconstitutional.


This post was edited on 3/10 11:57 PM by mnole03

Scholarly attention would've been drawn to the Winston incident had Jimbo (i.e., the Head Coach) not claimed to be on board with the suspension publicly. Later, he's admitted (unintentionally perhaps) that he wasn't on board with the full game suspension. I think it was a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment with how it actually went down, particularly if he said it in the Student Union.

Actually agreeing with something or following the law to the letter on something like whether to suspend Winston or not, isn't always the same as what is done as just a PR move to keep people off your back.

 

[Rhino_nole]

Originally posted by oldscalphunter:

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:

Originally posted by oldscalphunter:

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:

Originally posted by seminole4life1:

Originally posted by OneNeverNoles:
lulz @ saying n------ can't join your frat and talk about hanging "them" from trees being "diverse opinion" and that "doesn't threaten individuals."

Never change, LR.

I would agree with you if the chant was at a group of individuals that were in their presence- it could then certainly be viewed as a direct threat to individuals. Just as we must weigh a protest vs harassment the setting of the chant does not really hold up for a direct threat.

So you know the ethnic background of everyone on the bus? What if one of the females was half black, quarter black and had a black parent or an adopted sibling who was black? What if it was a white chic who dated black guys and she felt directly threatened by the song?

Not about what a listener "felt," it's what the intention of the speaker was. Clearly was not a threat. Threatening speech is the worst argument OU could give (well, hate speech is the worst... but hate speech isn't an exception to the 1st amendment). It's not dangerous speech and when there's effective channels for counter-speech available, words are generally protected by the 1st Amendment. The past few days have shown that the counter-speech is clearly effective. They will face social and economic punishment because of it, punishment from the University is unacceptable under the First Amendment.

Let me see if I can get some clarification. Hypothetically speaking, if the filmer of the bus scene was half black, you're stating that a direct threat doesn't exist IF the bus full of people chanting about hanging ni#$#@ from a tree couldn't constitute a direct threat?

As a person who's mixed (granted, I'd stand out like a sore thumb but my son wouldn't) and as someone who could probably kick the sh!t out of 90% of the people on the bus, I'd feel directly threatened by 20 plus fraternity guys singing about hanging n#$$%# from a tree.

First, you're confusing the issue. If you felt threatened, you might be justified in throwing a punch and anything afterwards (assuming 15+ guys could take you), their punishment could be legally heightened by what they sang, based on their conduct. But the expulsion wasn't based on conduct, it was based on speech. The two are separate (though sometimes conduct IS speech, spoken words are not conduct). However, you do touch on what the strongest argument would be, in your scenario. If words would incite a reasonable person to violence, they could be considered fighting words... but even then, the context matters. They were giggling like kids getting away with something they shouldn't be doing... it's hard to see fighting words as a good argument given the video.

Second, what they sang was "You can hang...." they didn't sing about actually doing it, nor did they sing about potentially doing it, nor was it directed at anyone in particular. I highly doubt they'd have sang it if a black man or woman was on the bus (and they were aware of the person/ancestry). The threat argument is extremely weak in this context.

I'm not trying to be a dick but your last statement is confusing. Are you stating that a mixed black person who doesn't have strong black features (like my son) wouldn't feel threatened in this context and the threat argument is extremely weak?

Or that the disciplinary action from the university in terms of a direct threat toward someone is weak in terms of their expulsion?

I read a rumor that the girl who filmed this had been "caught" dating a black guy and that her sisters from her sorority told some of the SAE guys and she was worried about getting black balled.

 

[Singleshot]

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:
I read a rumor that the girl who filmed this had been "caught" dating a black guy and that her sisters from her sorority told some of the SAE guys and she was worried about getting black balled.

See, it's different if there's some back story like that with things happening before and/or after the video or things happening that can't be seen on camera about the atmosphere there. If the girl began filming as a result of feeling threatened because she felt they were singing it because of something like that and she was being singled out whether someone told her something or people off screen were looking directly at her and/or their body language towards her was suggestive, etc, then that is very different and what I meant as a direct threat.

Not just singing along while paying her no mind or directing any of it toward anyone. But I haven't seen any such rumor yet but I also haven't dug into the story at all either. I'm just going by the surface.

 

[oldscalphunter]

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:

Originally posted by oldscalphunter:

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:

Originally posted by oldscalphunter:

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:

Originally posted by seminole4life1:

Originally posted by OneNeverNoles:
lulz @ saying n------ can't join your frat and talk about hanging "them" from trees being "diverse opinion" and that "doesn't threaten individuals."

Never change, LR.

I would agree with you if the chant was at a group of individuals that were in their presence- it could then certainly be viewed as a direct threat to individuals. Just as we must weigh a protest vs harassment the setting of the chant does not really hold up for a direct threat.

So you know the ethnic background of everyone on the bus? What if one of the females was half black, quarter black and had a black parent or an adopted sibling who was black? What if it was a white chic who dated black guys and she felt directly threatened by the song?

Not about what a listener "felt," it's what the intention of the speaker was. Clearly was not a threat. Threatening speech is the worst argument OU could give (well, hate speech is the worst... but hate speech isn't an exception to the 1st amendment). It's not dangerous speech and when there's effective channels for counter-speech available, words are generally protected by the 1st Amendment. The past few days have shown that the counter-speech is clearly effective. They will face social and economic punishment because of it, punishment from the University is unacceptable under the First Amendment.

Let me see if I can get some clarification. Hypothetically speaking, if the filmer of the bus scene was half black, you're stating that a direct threat doesn't exist IF the bus full of people chanting about hanging ni#$#@ from a tree couldn't constitute a direct threat?

As a person who's mixed (granted, I'd stand out like a sore thumb but my son wouldn't) and as someone who could probably kick the sh!t out of 90% of the people on the bus, I'd feel directly threatened by 20 plus fraternity guys singing about hanging n#$$%# from a tree.

First, you're confusing the issue. If you felt threatened, you might be justified in throwing a punch and anything afterwards (assuming 15+ guys could take you), their punishment could be legally heightened by what they sang, based on their conduct. But the expulsion wasn't based on conduct, it was based on speech. The two are separate (though sometimes conduct IS speech, spoken words are not conduct). However, you do touch on what the strongest argument would be, in your scenario. If words would incite a reasonable person to violence, they could be considered fighting words... but even then, the context matters. They were giggling like kids getting away with something they shouldn't be doing... it's hard to see fighting words as a good argument given the video.

Second, what they sang was "You can hang...." they didn't sing about actually doing it, nor did they sing about potentially doing it, nor was it directed at anyone in particular. I highly doubt they'd have sang it if a black man or woman was on the bus (and they were aware of the person/ancestry). The threat argument is extremely weak in this context.

I'm not trying to be a dick but your last statement is confusing. Are you stating that a mixed black person who doesn't have strong black features (like my son) wouldn't feel threatened in this context and the threat argument is extremely weak?

Or that the disciplinary action from the university in terms of a direct threat toward someone is weak in terms of their expulsion?

I read a rumor that the girl who filmed this had been "caught" dating a black guy and that her sisters from her sorority told some of the SAE guys and she was worried about getting black balled.

No, I don't think you're being a dick at all... I'm certainly not trying to be.

I'm saying that if they didn't know someone was black on the bus, they couldn't have intended it as a threat... I'm also saying the University shouldn't have used the word "threat" in their statement re: the expulsion because it wasn't a threat.

I don't think the girl's relationship is necessarily relevant.

 

[Singleshot]

You have to be careful with where you draw the lines on what is considered a threat. This is why in most of the code verbiage they are clear about individualizing or the threat being direct. Without that, you can just go expelling or arresting anyone while infringing on their free rights to assemble, speak or write under the guise of you "felt" threatened.

If there was a klan meeting somewhere near my town, I couldn't just call up the police and tell them I felt threatened just by their presence within a certain proximity, how they dressed and what they said and expect them to go break up the meeting and start arresting people when they had not done anything directly toward me in a threatening way.

 

[oldscalphunter]

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:

Originally posted by oldscalphunter:

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:

Originally posted by oldscalphunter:

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:

Originally posted by seminole4life1:

Originally posted by OneNeverNoles:
lulz @ saying n------ can't join your frat and talk about hanging "them" from trees being "diverse opinion" and that "doesn't threaten individuals."

Never change, LR.

I would agree with you if the chant was at a group of individuals that were in their presence- it could then certainly be viewed as a direct threat to individuals. Just as we must weigh a protest vs harassment the setting of the chant does not really hold up for a direct threat.

So you know the ethnic background of everyone on the bus? What if one of the females was half black, quarter black and had a black parent or an adopted sibling who was black? What if it was a white chic who dated black guys and she felt directly threatened by the song?

Not about what a listener "felt," it's what the intention of the speaker was. Clearly was not a threat. Threatening speech is the worst argument OU could give (well, hate speech is the worst... but hate speech isn't an exception to the 1st amendment). It's not dangerous speech and when there's effective channels for counter-speech available, words are generally protected by the 1st Amendment. The past few days have shown that the counter-speech is clearly effective. They will face social and economic punishment because of it, punishment from the University is unacceptable under the First Amendment.

Let me see if I can get some clarification. Hypothetically speaking, if the filmer of the bus scene was half black, you're stating that a direct threat doesn't exist IF the bus full of people chanting about hanging ni#$#@ from a tree couldn't constitute a direct threat?

As a person who's mixed (granted, I'd stand out like a sore thumb but my son wouldn't) and as someone who could probably kick the sh!t out of 90% of the people on the bus, I'd feel directly threatened by 20 plus fraternity guys singing about hanging n#$$%# from a tree.

First, you're confusing the issue. If you felt threatened, you might be justified in throwing a punch and anything afterwards (assuming 15+ guys could take you), their punishment could be legally heightened by what they sang, based on their conduct. But the expulsion wasn't based on conduct, it was based on speech. The two are separate (though sometimes conduct IS speech, spoken words are not conduct). However, you do touch on what the strongest argument would be, in your scenario. If words would incite a reasonable person to violence, they could be considered fighting words... but even then, the context matters. They were giggling like kids getting away with something they shouldn't be doing... it's hard to see fighting words as a good argument given the video.

Second, what they sang was "You can hang...." they didn't sing about actually doing it, nor did they sing about potentially doing it, nor was it directed at anyone in particular. I highly doubt they'd have sang it if a black man or woman was on the bus (and they were aware of the person/ancestry). The threat argument is extremely weak in this context.

I'm not trying to be a dick but your last statement is confusing. Are you stating that a mixed black person who doesn't have strong black features (like my son) wouldn't feel threatened in this context and the threat argument is extremely weak?

Or that the disciplinary action from the university in terms of a direct threat toward someone is weak in terms of their expulsion?

I read a rumor that the girl who filmed this had been "caught" dating a black guy and that her sisters from her sorority told some of the SAE guys and she was worried about getting black balled.

No, I don't think you're being a dick at all... I'm certainly not trying to be.

I'm saying that if they didn't know someone was black on the bus, they couldn't have intended it as a threat... I'm also saying the University shouldn't have used the word "threat" in their statement re: the expulsion because it wasn't a threat.

I don't think the girl's relationship is necessarily relevant.

 

[RRtrackdawgson]

KA Order has had black, and other ethnic members for quite sometime.

 

[JohnnieHolmesNole]

So one of the "dates" filmed this? I wondered how this incident found its way to film.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[OrlandNole]

Originally posted by Manch.:

The frat house cook was black,and now he is out of a job.

 

[LesClaypool]

Rhino Nole making all sorts of great points in this thread.

Singleshot making all sort of poor points.

 

[SoddyNole]

I can without a doubt racial issue was the furthest think from anyone's mind during my very short time in a frat at FSU during the 80s. At the parties we were either trying to get F...... or F...up. I did visit SAE while rushing and that night they ended up getting in a fight with the frat close by. I did not go back, fighting was not the Fs I was looking for.

 

[tommynole3476]

Not going to directly address some of the opinions in this thread, because many of them are just God awful stupid.

But, this is an interesting story to me. Mainly because I've always thought it was fairly common knowledge that frats are bastions of racist, sexist, misogynistic, alcoholic and whatever other terrible behavior you can imagine. So the fact one group is caught on film doing something like this, doesn't really move the needle for me.

What does is the reaction. This is not to take anything away from how swiftly (AND CORRECTLY) David Boren acted.

But what power does this college student possess? I suppose they control who can enter the frat, and maybe an argument could be made that future earnings or potential could possibly be affected, but the reality is, they have virtually no real power. Which is why their ousting is almost infuriating to me. What if, that was, say a racist email sent by, oh I don't know, police officers? Would the reaction and consequences be sent down as strongly and quickly? *psst*wealreadyknowtheanswertothis

In a way, sure, I'm glad this kid got busted, but if he had gotten busted 20 years from now, while working in some position with actual power, he'd probably be just fine, maybe get a transfer or a 2 week suspension, or at worst be allowed to resign with his dignity (and pension) intact.

It is also interesting how the main one, Rice, has been allowed to just release a statement apologizing for his actions, without having to face any kind of questioning from the media. Although I'm sure someone from BSM will have him on in a few months to do an interview attempting to garner sympathy for being the 'real victim in all of this' and having to live with the consequences of his 'free speech.'




FTR, I'm sure there are plenty of frats and sororities that do good in their community, but you don't really need to be in one to foster that kind of behavior. To me, these fall into the 'how is this still a thing?' category. Seriously, eliminate frats and sororities tomorrow, and are college campuses a net better or worse place?

 

[goldmom]

As regards the "black cook" he was interviewed and stated he'd been at the SAE house for 13 years, and he'd lost "the best job he ever had".
The follow up is that as of last night over $30,000 had been donated to a fund for his benefit.

I think the publicity could be mistaken as the old "gee but some of my best friends, etc." claims, but actually the reports identified him as a victim of the fallout from these dumb and thoughtless actions.

I hope the man ends up with a lot more than $30k.

The best lessons in life are the ones we must teach ourselves, and I just hope these thoughtless kids learned a huge one.

 

[Rhino_nole]

Originally posted by tommynole3476:
Not going to directly address some of the opinions in this thread, because many of them are just God awful stupid.

But, this is an interesting story to me. Mainly because I've always thought it was fairly common knowledge that frats are bastions of racist, sexist, misogynistic, alcoholic and whatever other terrible behavior you can imagine. So the fact one group is caught on film doing something like this, doesn't really move the needle for me.

What does is the reaction. This is not to take anything away from how swiftly (AND CORRECTLY) David Boren acted.

But what power does this college student possess? I suppose they control who can enter the frat, and maybe an argument could be made that future earnings or potential could possibly be affected, but the reality is, they have virtually no real power. Which is why their ousting is almost infuriating to me. What if, that was, say a racist email sent by, oh I don't know, police officers? Would the reaction and consequences be sent down as strongly and quickly? *psst*wealreadyknowtheanswertothis

In a way, sure, I'm glad this kid got busted, but if he had gotten busted 20 years from now, while working in some position with actual power, he'd probably be just fine, maybe get a transfer or a 2 week suspension, or at worst be allowed to resign with his dignity (and pension) intact.

It is also interesting how the main one, Rice, has been allowed to just release a statement apologizing for his actions, without having to face any kind of questioning from the media. Although I'm sure someone from BSM will have him on in a few months to do an interview attempting to garner sympathy for being the 'real victim in all of this' and having to live with the consequences of his 'free speech.'




FTR, I'm sure there are plenty of frats and sororities that do good in their community, but you don't really need to be in one to foster that kind of behavior. To me, these fall into the 'how is this still a thing?' category. Seriously, eliminate frats and sororities tomorrow, and are college campuses a net better or worse place?

I suspect that the reaction is directly tied to what college campuses are now these days. A business.

Sports drive a significant portion of most universities these days, TV deals, advertisements etc. etc. and losing black athletes b/c of the perception that your largest fraternity is a bunch of racist could theoretically hurt the bottom line.

What if the school misses out on the next Adrian Peterson b/c they didn't react w/ swift justice. Toss in the fact that it's been 50 years since Bloody Sunday and the march on Selma, bad timing on SAE's part to air dirty laundry.

 

[AdNole]

Now there is a blast from the past! Kos lives!

Originally posted by kosmiknupe6:

There is no brotherhood in that chapter.

 

[FreeFlyNole]

Being a former infantryman, and having been in a fraternity at FSU, I have seen groups of young men say and do some really stupid, racist, misogynist, xenophobic, inflammatory, and down right bone headed stuff.

Hopefully, this is a lesson for all the future dumb asses from all races, creeds and backgrounds about saying and doing stupid stuff in front of a group. The lesson here is don't do or say anything in a public setting you don't want the world to see.

Everybody has a camera phone, and everybody is 150 typed characters from reaching a global audience.

Ask Jameis Winston.

 

[Bav803]

I need more ONN in this thread.

 

[nole71911]

Originally posted by oldscalphunter:

Originally posted by nole71911:
Considering the frat and their promotion of their ties to the confederacy I do not understand why any black student would want to join. As a black man it seems really odd. Regardless they can suspend the frat, but I do not think they should have been expelled. Though what they said was terrible, they have the right to say it unfortunately. This sets a slippery slope about what's offensive and worthy of expulsion.

Nate Andrews is an SAE at FSU.

As I said before I do not know why any black student would join SAE or KA considering their history, and what they incorporate into their frat currently. There are plenty of other fraternities to pick from. I think it was dumb for Nate Andrews to join as well. When you read the founders were from Alabama and fought in the confederacy, it didnt give you a little pause? Regardless the kids deserve all the backlash, but they shouldn't have been expelled from school. They have a right to say whatever terrible crap they want to say.

This post was edited on 3/11 9:32 AM by nole71911

 

[larandtra]

While there are a few opinions on this matter int his thread that make me shake my head, there is also a lot of reasonable points made on both sides.
If they were expelled specifically for their words from a publicly funded University, then that is a Constitutional Violation.
BUT
If they were expelled for behavior that is specifically documented in the student COC as warranting expulsion, then the school has every right to do so.

It seems we regularly get people on both sides, black and white, who do stupid things which hinder the forward movement of positive relations. Ingrained behavior on both sides, incidents blown out of proportion, racism claimed where there is none, and blatant racism seemingly accepted by groups of people. Its a sad thing to see. The HS my daughter goes to ( older one graduated from and now teaches at one of the elementary schools which feed that particular HS), is the most diverse HS in the state of Georgia. Interestingly enough the school district is extremely diverse and the school is at the top of the list in Georgia for Public School academics and is regularly in the top 20 or so in the nation, 2014 being named HighSchool of the year by several reporting agencies. I see daily how students from diverse backgrounds and cultures intermingle and socialize. My older daughters class of second graders is 23 kids, 15 of which are bilingual, with 9 different languages spoken.I think when that is what your elemntary system is like it filters up to the HS and makes it more "normal" to be surrounded by varying races, religions, cultures. And it teaches you to be more accepting of it and embrace it as a positive.

Ingrained behavior of kids not exposed to such a life allows for their learned bias to kick in and when they get into the real world, those bias tend to show, whether in work or school.

Its a shame, but, society hasnt gotten there yet and probably never will. But, the ignorance on both sides sure doesnt help make it easier.

 

[nole71911]

@larandtra

That utopia only exist when kids are young, they appear to be oblvious to race/gender/differences. When you get to middle school ignorant/slick/racist comments and actions like the aforementioned video arise out of your so called friends..........and things change. At least that was my experience, the older we get the prevelant this type of behavior becomes.
This post was edited on 3/11 9:36 AM by nole71911

 

[rhurner]

Originally posted by FreeFlyNole:

Hopefully, this is a lesson for all the future dumb asses

Dumb asses are dumb asses for a reason. They're dumb. They don't learn. They are not smart. They will plod on with their dumbass flag flying high.....to entertain we less dumb.....asses. We will be able to point and laugh at their enhanced dumbassery as we congratulate ourselves for only being semiasses.


This is a lesson. That was a lesson. There will always be a lesson. But if a lesson is ignored does it have value?

 

[larandtra]

Nole71911

While I am not naive enough to believe we can wipe out hatred, I do believe the culture of the area you are brought up in has a very big effect on your adult views. While the HS I mentioned is not perfect, there are not the issues which exist at neighboring HS of racial divides which occur frequently. I think because these kids are brought through an elementary and MS system where integration is typical, multi culturalism is part of the normal day, when they get to HS, those traits are now carried with them.

 

[nole71911]

@larandtra
I would tend to agree with you, it definitely doesn't hurt.

 

[oldscalphunter]

Originally posted by nole71911:

Originally posted by oldscalphunter:

Originally posted by nole71911:
Considering the frat and their promotion of their ties to the confederacy I do not understand why any black student would want to join. As a black man it seems really odd. Regardless they can suspend the frat, but I do not think they should have been expelled. Though what they said was terrible, they have the right to say it unfortunately. This sets a slippery slope about what's offensive and worthy of expulsion.

Nate Andrews is an SAE at FSU.

As I said before I do not know why any black student would join SAE or KA considering their history, and what they incorporate into their frat currently. There are plenty of other fraternities to pick from. I think it was dumb for Nate Andrews to join as well. When you read the founders were from Alabama and fought in the confederacy, it didnt give you a little pause? Regardless the kids deserve all the backlash, but they shouldn't have been expelled from school. They have a right to say whatever terrible crap they want to say.

This post was edited on 3/11 9:32 AM by nole71911

Your opinion is dumb. You don't understand what the confederacy was about. This isn't about the South... at all. Oklahoma isn't the South. Unbelievable you'd try to link that to this. Ignorance meets ignorance.

 

[NDallasRuss]

Originally posted by oldscalphunter:

Originally posted by nole71911:

Originally posted by oldscalphunter:

Originally posted by nole71911:
Considering the frat and their promotion of their ties to the confederacy I do not understand why any black student would want to join. As a black man it seems really odd. Regardless they can suspend the frat, but I do not think they should have been expelled. Though what they said was terrible, they have the right to say it unfortunately. This sets a slippery slope about what's offensive and worthy of expulsion.

Nate Andrews is an SAE at FSU.

As I said before I do not know why any black student would join SAE or KA considering their history, and what they incorporate into their frat currently. There are plenty of other fraternities to pick from. I think it was dumb for Nate Andrews to join as well. When you read the founders were from Alabama and fought in the confederacy, it didnt give you a little pause? Regardless the kids deserve all the backlash, but they shouldn't have been expelled from school. They have a right to say whatever terrible crap they want to say.


This post was edited on 3/11 9:32 AM by nole71911

Your opinion is dumb. You don't understand what the confederacy was about. This isn't about the South... at all. Oklahoma isn't the South. Unbelievable you'd try to link that to this. Ignorance meets ignorance.

Your knowledge of history is dumb.

In the version that I'm familiar with, tribal leaders in the Indian Territory (Oklahoma) signed treaties of alliance with the Confederate government, and had representation in the Confederate Congress. That seems pretty "Southern" to me.

As for the cause of the Civil War, my understanding is that it was fought over States' rights vs Federal rights. The main issue where State vs Federal caused a discrepancy was with slavery - more specifically, whether the Federal government could tell future states whether they could or couldn't have slavery.

The Confederacy was about the protection of the States' rights to decide what was best for themselves, rather than letting other people (Yankees) decide for them. And, what was best for the Confederate states was the slaves that they needed to keep their agrarian economies running smoothly.

Or are you really debating that?

 

[seminole4life1]

Originally posted by larandtra:
While there are a few opinions on this matter int his thread that make me shake my head, there is also a lot of reasonable points made on both sides.
If they were expelled specifically for their words from a publicly funded University, then that is a Constitutional Violation.
BUT
If they were expelled for behavior that is specifically documented in the student COC as warranting expulsion, then the school has every right to do so.

The CoC cannot override constitutional protections at a public university.

 

[NDallasRuss]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm really struggling to see where in that text it protects college students from saying whatever they want without the possibility of being kicked out for it.

This amendment protects you from being put in jail because of what you say or believe, but it doesn't protect you from any other possible consequences for being an idiot. Since the racist kids aren't going to jail over their chants, the 1st amendment still seems to be working.

 

[nole71911]

Oldscalphunter you do not think I know what the confederacy is/was? The fraternity itself was founded in Alabama right before the civil war. Some of the founders of the fraternity fought in the confederacy. That is what I was talking about the orgaization as a whole not one chapter. That history and lineage, and how it is part of fraternity today (Rebel Flags etc/southern gentlemen crap). I would think that would give a black perspecitve member pause and cause for concern. I personally wouldnt be too keen on joining an organization where the founders would have rather seen me picking cotton than attending FSU. So with that being said I, and most black students, would rather join something else.
This post was edited on 3/11 11:23 AM by nole71911

 

[NDallasRuss]

Originally posted by nole71911:

Oldscalphunter you do not think I know what the confederacy is/was? The fraternity itself was founded in Alabama right before the civil war. Some of the founders of the fraternity fought in the confederacy. That is what I was talking about the orgaization as a whole not one chapter. That history and lineage, and how it is part of fraternity today (Rebel Flags etc/southern gentlemen crap). I would think that would give a black perspecitve member pause and cause for concern. I personally wouldnt be too keen on joining an organization where the founders would have rather seen me picking cotton than attending FSU. So with that being said I, and most black students, would rather join something else.

This post was edited on 3/11 11:23 AM by nole71911

I can't believe that you don't think this would be the preferred scene for a black man.

My dad was a KA at Tulsa back in the late 50s. I've seen his Old South Ball photos, and they look exactly like these (except in black and white - the photo, not the attendees...). Things don't change as much, or as fast, as we'd always like them to.

 

[SoddyNole]

How about this?

 

[nole71911]

@NDallasRuss

Its just a hunch, but what do I know. I honestly do not want them to change, if thats the lineage they want speak about and be proud of cool. I think it is tacky and futile, but I am sure white people think things about black fraternities are the same. I just do not know wtf a black student would join though, that makes me scratch my head.
This post was edited on 3/11 11:57 AM by nole71911

 

[seminole4life1]

Originally posted by NDallasRuss:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm really struggling to see where in that text it protects college students from saying whatever they want without the possibility of being kicked out for it.

This amendment protects you from being put in jail because of what you say or believe, but it doesn't protect you from any other possible consequences for being an idiot. Since the racist kids aren't going to jail over their chants, the 1st amendment still seems to be working.

Public university cannot punish students based on their speech. This isn't my opinion, the SC has ruled very clearly on campus speech restrictions.

Again, there are multiple debates happening in this thread that are mixing together- we all feel the disgust for the language used, that is a different discussion than the need to protect speech- even offensive and despicable speech at public universities.

 

[JohnnieHolmesNole]

Legally and constitutionally, the speech is permissible (although offensive and outrageous). Practically, politically and financially, it will not be tolerated. OU is mandated by non-legal considerations to do what it did.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Bartdog]

Background, white former fraternity member (DTD, '88)

While I have spent a bit of my live despising SAE, since they were our main rivals when I was in school, I don't think they should be permanently kicked off campus. Don't get me wrong, the charter should be pulled on this chapter, but they should be allowed to re-start in a few years. This has happened many times with offenses far worse than singing a racist song. That is, if you believe actual physical abuse and rape are worse than singing a song.

Furthermore, I am quite sure the national SAE organization has policies, etc. that cover this and, had they known, the charter would have already been pulled.

To me, this is more a problem with the local culture at OU. If I were in charge I would take a hard look at the other greek orgs there to see if there are more knuckleheads like these.

more background... way back in `87 we had one black member and were rushing another, hard. He didn't wind up joining. Most of his friends who were members were older and were graduating already. He didn't have any good ties with us younger guys. Our charter was pulled because a new generation of knuckleheads came in about 10 years after I graduated and ruined everything. They didn't pay their national dues, didn't take care of the shelter, etc. I guess the point here is that a college organization is a very fluid thing, changing with necessity over time as the membership turns over. What once was a diverse and inclusive chapter [became] something else entirely.
This post was edited on 3/11 2:07 PM by Bartdog

 

[oldscalphunter]

Originally posted by NDallasRuss:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm really struggling to see where in that text it protects college students from saying whatever they want without the possibility of being kicked out for it.

This amendment protects you from being put in jail because of what you say or believe, but it doesn't protect you from any other possible consequences for being an idiot. Since the racist kids aren't going to jail over their chants, the 1st amendment still seems to be working.

You are wrong. I don't have the time to go into detail as to why right now, but this article is spot on.

1st Amendment doesn't just keep you out of jail

 

[peezy28]

Originally posted by Rhino_nole:

Originally posted by seminole4life1:

Originally posted by OneNeverNoles:
lulz @ saying n------ can't join your frat and talk about hanging "them" from trees being "diverse opinion" and that "doesn't threaten individuals."

Never change, LR.

I would agree with you if the chant was at a group of individuals that were in their presence- it could then certainly be viewed as a direct threat to individuals. Just as we must weigh a protest vs harassment the setting of the chant does not really hold up for a direct threat.

So you know the ethnic background of everyone on the bus? What if one of the females was half black, quarter black and had a black parent or an adopted sibling who was black? What if it was a white chic who dated black guys and she felt directly threatened by the song?

I think the above is exactly why this video was recorded and posted... My guess is one of the females was biracial or something to the affect you mentioned above was offended and started recording... ON the 2nd video you can clearly see its a female recording.

 

[NDallasRuss]

Originally posted by seminole4life1:

Originally posted by NDallasRuss:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm really struggling to see where in that text it protects college students from saying whatever they want without the possibility of being kicked out for it.

This amendment protects you from being put in jail because of what you say or believe, but it doesn't protect you from any other possible consequences for being an idiot. Since the racist kids aren't going to jail over their chants, the 1st amendment still seems to be working.

Public university cannot punish students based on their speech. This isn't my opinion, the SC has ruled very clearly on campus speech restrictions.

Again, there are multiple debates happening in this thread that are mixing together- we all feel the disgust for the language used, that is a different discussion than the need to protect speech- even offensive and despicable speech at public universities.

I read oldscalp's link, and it appears that I might be wrong, which wouldn't be the first time. I'm sure it'll get tested again, and we'll get to find out if it's still protected speech or not.