Oklahoma University has a big problem

[gladdenguy]

This SAE chapter may have just said farewell. There is dumb......but this goes beyond that.

Heard also that one football recruit has already walked away because of this.

http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/17460757-video-university-of-oklahoma-sigma-alpha-epsilon-singing-racist-chant

[GoMuskies]

Was this wrong? Should they not have done this? I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if ANYONE had said ANYTHING about this sort of chant when they first started at OU that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, ‘cause I've been on a lot of campuses and I tell you people do that all the time

[RealDeal]

Was this wrong? Should they not have done this? I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if ANYONE had said ANYTHING about this sort of chant when they first started at OU that that sort of thing was frowned upon, you know, ‘cause I've been on a lot of campuses and I tell you people do that all the time

The jerk store called, and they're running out of you.

[Kahns Krazy]

I think that is going to be a real problem for SAE nationwide. I saw a report today that the chant is not restricted to that chapter.

I can honestly say that I don't think I've ever met an SAE that identified themselves as such that wasn't a colossal prick. I'm sure there are a few good ones out there that are smart enough not to associate with that organization, but generally, they are the bag of dicks that everyone else can eat.

[Juice]

I think that is going to be a real problem for SAE nationwide. I saw a report today that the chant is not restricted to that chapter.

I can honestly say that I don't think I've ever met an SAE that identified themselves as such that wasn't a colossal prick. I'm sure there are a few good ones out there that are smart enough not to associate with that organization, but generally, they are the bag of dicks that everyone else can eat.

Same Assholes Everywhere

[DC Muskie]

Wait, do I have to eat a bag of dicks?

For some reason I am always surprised when something like this comes out. Not sure why I am surprised, mostly I guess I'd like to think people aren't pricks.

I can't imagine there wasn't one person on that bus listening to this chant and saying to themselves, "Really? 2015 everybody."

[D-West & PO-Z]

Wait, do I have to eat a bag of dicks?

For some reason I am always surprised when something like this comes out. Not sure why I am surprised, mostly I guess I'd like to think people aren't pricks.

I can't imagine there wasn't one person on that bus listening to this chant and saying to themselves, "Really? 2015 everybody."

Probably the person who put the video online.

[DC Muskie]

Probably the person who put the video online.

I seriously doubt in this day and age with millennials, that someone put it out there to bring down the frat.

To me it's more likely they thought is was funny, so post it. Of course I say his having zero idea where kids post things this day since none of them are on Facebook.

[GoMuskies]

I've spent a combined 7 years of the 21st century in North Carolina and Kansas, and in all that time I have never once in private conversation (even when people thought they were "safe") heard someone refer to someone as a nigger. So I agree with DC that I'm always surprised when these stories come out. Guess I'm also glad that I apparently don't put out an "okay to call people niggers" vibe.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I seriously doubt in this day and age with millennials, that someone put it out there to bring down the frat.

To me it's more likely they thought is was funny, so post it. Of course I say his having zero idea where kids post things this day since none of them are on Facebook.

I read an article that the a person made an anonymous call to a black organization on campus alerting them to the video. Thought it could have been who took the video. Proabably not one of the members but maybe a date on the bus? But maybe not. Seems pretty ignorant to think you could post that and not have major consequences because of what is being chanted. But ignorance would fit well with this group I guess.

[DC Muskie]

Guess I'm also glad that I apparently don't put out an "okay to call people niggers" vibe.

What would that vibe look like? Dressed up like Stonewall Jackson?


I read an article that the a person made an anonymous call to a black organization on campus alerting them to the video. Thought it could have been who took the video. Proabably not one of the members but maybe a date on the bus? But maybe not. Seems pretty ignorant to think you could post that and not have major consequences because of what is being chanted. But ignorance would fit well with this group I guess.

Maybe the video was posted and then someone with some sense thought, "Hey Snapchatters, you shouldn't pinned this to the YouFace."

I'm not really for people having their lives ruined over something stupid, but I do hope this sticks with these kids for awhile. And because they are most likely going to reproduce, hopefully their kids will be smarter.

[Snipe]

They expelled the kids. I expect they will be able to sue the University and win. It is a State College and they have First Amendment Rights. I think what the kids did was foolish, but what the adult administrators did was worse.

I think the discipline is racist. If a black student called a white person a cracker would they be expelled? If a Hispanic person called a white person an Anglo would they be expelled? And what about blacks that use the same N-word. When you have different standards for different races, that is by definition racist.

If they were severely punishing black people for some offense while letting all the white people skate with lesser punishments, we could all agree that is racist. Well in this instance it appears to be exactly the opposite, with white people singled out for punishment that they wouldn't dare give to minorities.

I can't see how this would pass constitutional muster. It is a Government school. A private organization could do whatever they want, but the government can't.

And how do these adults think that they make themselves look great by going after white college kids? Those guys aren't just kicked out of school, they are publicly run through the mill. Good luck with a career now. I think that they might be able to win substantial damages from the University for economic harm, pain and suffering.

Shouldn't Universities be places where we have teachable moments? Should we really be out to crucify these kids in the name of the righteous new religion of diversity and multiculturalism? I wouldn't be surprised if some lives were ruined today. And tomorrow we will just be off to the next ritual burning, none the wiser.

[xeus]

Maybe the video was posted and then someone with some sense thought, "Hey Snapchatters, you shouldn't pinned this to the YouFace."

I'm not really for people having their lives ruined over something stupid, but I do hope this sticks with these kids for awhile. And because they are most likely going to reproduce, hopefully their kids will be smarter.

You seem to be more concerned with the stupidity of posting the video online, and less concerned about the racist chant.

[DC Muskie]

It's not a First Amendment thing.

I'm always less surprised at people who don't have a basic understanding of how the First Amendment actually works. Surprised by the flatness racism; not surprised when people try and defend First Amendment rights and get it completely wrong.

Also, these white frat kids said to hang black people from a tree, so it was violent, not just some random use the word. If there was a video of the football team chanting to each other they would shoot white people rather than having be a Sooner, my guess...educated at best, would be there would be a serious problem with that.

Nice try Snipe! Decent effort, frankly.

[DC Muskie]

You seem to be more concerned with the stupidity of posting the video online, and less concerned about the racist chant.

Not sure where you read into that.

[xeus]

They expelled the kids. I expect they will be able to sue the University and win. It is a State College and they have First Amendment Rights. I think what the kids did was foolish, but what the adult administrators did was worse.

I think the discipline is racist. If a black student called a white person a cracker would they be expelled? If a Hispanic person called a white person an Anglo would they be expelled? And what about blacks that use the same N-word. When you have different standards for different races, that is by definition racist.

If they were severely punishing black people for some offense while letting all the white people skate with lesser punishments, we could all agree that is racist. Well in this instance it appears to be exactly the opposite, with white people singled out for punishment that they wouldn't dare give to minorities.

I can't see how this would pass constitutional muster. It is a Government school. A private organization could do whatever they want, but the government can't.

And how do these adults think that they make themselves look great by going after white college kids? Those guys aren't just kicked out of school, they are publicly run through the mill. Good luck with a career now. I think that they might be able to win substantial damages from the University for economic harm, pain and suffering.

Shouldn't Universities be places where we have teachable moments? Should we really be out to crucify these kids in the name of the righteous new religion of diversity and multiculturalism? I wouldn't be surprised if some lives were ruined today. And tomorrow we will just be off to the next ritual burning, none the wiser.

Student Code of Conduct. That's the "teachable moment".

If that happened at X, I would absolutely want those kids expelled. You prefer a "reflection session" or a "teachable moment" when it comes to overtly racist organizations operating on campus; I prefer more direct and decisive action.

[xeus]

Not sure where you read into that.

Um, in the part of your post that I quoted ... ?

[PM Thor]

Student Code of Conduct. That's the "teachable moment".

If that happened at X, I would absolutely want those kids expelled. You prefer a "reflection session" or a "teachable moment" when it comes to overtly racist organizations operating on campus; I prefer more direct and decisive action.

And I quote from their Code..
Prohibited Conduct
These definitions include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Abusive conduct: Unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe and pervasive that it alters the conditions of education or employment and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating, harassing or humiliating. These circumstances could include the frequency of the conduct, its severity, and whether it is threatening or humiliating. This includes physically abusing a person or holding a person against his or her will. Simple teasing, offhanded comments and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to abusive conduct.

Bye you racist idiots. I hope you never find a worthwhile job and this dogs you for the rest of your lives. Break the code of conduct, get kicked out of school. Enough said.

[xubrew]

They expelled the kids. I expect they will be able to sue the University and win. It is a State College and they have First Amendment Rights. I think what the kids did was foolish, but what the adult administrators did was worse.

I think the discipline is racist. If a black student called a white person a cracker would they be expelled? If a Hispanic person called a white person an Anglo would they be expelled? And what about blacks that use the same N-word. When you have different standards for different races, that is by definition racist.

If they were severely punishing black people for some offense while letting all the white people skate with lesser punishments, we could all agree that is racist. Well in this instance it appears to be exactly the opposite, with white people singled out for punishment that they wouldn't dare give to minorities.

I can't see how this would pass constitutional muster. It is a Government school. A private organization could do whatever they want, but the government can't.

And how do these adults think that they make themselves look great by going after white college kids? Those guys aren't just kicked out of school, they are publicly run through the mill. Good luck with a career now. I think that they might be able to win substantial damages from the University for economic harm, pain and suffering.

Shouldn't Universities be places where we have teachable moments? Should we really be out to crucify these kids in the name of the righteous new religion of diversity and multiculturalism? I wouldn't be surprised if some lives were ruined today. And tomorrow we will just be off to the next ritual burning, none the wiser.

Serious question, and by that I mean I don't know the answer, so I'm not making any implications. Just asking the question.

They were expelled. They're not being charged with a crime. With that in mind, were their first amendment rights actually violated??

If I said something like that, I'd be fired. So would a lot of people. I don't think the first amendment would protect me. It protects me from going to jail or being charged with a crime, but I'm not sure it protects me from much else, like keeping my job.

[Snipe]

Why is it not a First Amendment case? This is a government school, not a private institution. I don't get where you are showing me why I am wrong? I have been wrong plenty of times, and have no bones about it, so prove me wrong.

It is a government school. It's employees are paid by the government. They work for the State, and the First Amendment restricts the powers of the State against the Individual.

[PM Thor]

Simple Snipe, they broke the schools code of conduct. Thus, they are gone.

[xeus]

Why is it not a First Amendment case? This is a government school, not a private institution. I don't get where you are showing me why I am wrong? I have been wrong plenty of times, and have no bones about it, so prove me wrong.

It is a government school. It's employees are paid by the government. They work for the State, and the First Amendment restricts the powers of the State against the Individual.

There's a whole line of cases dealing with free speech at schools. Do your own research.

[Snipe]

http://www.sae.net/creed

Our Creed: “The True Gentleman”

The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies; who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity; who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another; who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements; who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy; whose deed follows his word; who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own; and who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe.
- John Walter Wayland

That is not an overtly racist organization.

[The Coz]

Wait, he has to do research. You mean he can't just pontificate and throw around phrases like "constitutional muster"?

[DC Muskie]

I'll make it simple...

They are not in jail Snipe.

[Snipe]

There's a whole line of cases dealing with free speech at schools. Do your own research.

I did.

[DC Muskie]

Um, in the part of your post that I quoted ... ?

Um, I guess you read it wrong?

[Snipe]

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy

No, it’s not constitutional for the University of Oklahoma to expel students for racist speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/10/no-a-public-university-may-not-expel-students-for-racist-speech/)

[DC Muskie]

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy

No, it’s not constitutional for the University of Oklahoma to expel students for racist speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/10/no-a-public-university-may-not-expel-students-for-racist-speech/)

From the author:

But he is not, I think, allowed to do that.

He's wrong.

What else you got?

[Snipe]

I'll make it simple...

They are not in jail Snipe.

That leaves the government some very broad powers over speech. The "not in jail" bar is very low. I am not sure even you would want to live in that world. You may hate the act, but think about the law. We have laws that protect the villiage idiot because in protecting the village idiot you are protecting all of our speech.

And what comes next?

What if they said "Never let a fag be an SAE?" or "Never let a tranny be an SAE", "Never let a fatty be an SAE", & "Never let a retard be an SAE". Which ones of these are tier 1 offenses? Which ones aren't? And do we hold blacks to the same standard?

[Snipe]

From the author:

But he is not, I think, allowed to do that.

He's wrong.

What else you got?

Feel free to disagree with the Constitutional scholar. Doesn't matter to me.

This was a private conversation, and these are stupid fraternity boys.

It is a modern day witch burning. Thor is happy though.

[DC Muskie]

That leaves the government some very broad powers over speech. The "not in jail" bar is very low. I am not sure even you would want to live in that world. You may hate the act, but think about the law. We have laws that protect the villiage idiot because in protecting the village idiot you are protecting all of our speech.

And what comes next?

What if they said "Never let a fag be an SAE?" or "Never let a tranny be an SAE", "Never let a fatty be an SAE", & "Never let a retard be an SAE". Which ones of these are tier 1 offenses? Which ones aren't? And do we hold blacks to the same standard?

What government would come after me if I said the same things they did? Would I be expelled from driving?

Why is it when shit like this happens, people have to sling every possible circumstance? Live in reality Snipe. No one is going to hang fat people from trees. Because they would break.

[Snipe]

Serious question, and by that I mean I don't know the answer, so I'm not making any implications. Just asking the question.

They were expelled. They're not being charged with a crime. With that in mind, were their first amendment rights actually violated??

If I said something like that, I'd be fired. So would a lot of people. I don't think the first amendment would protect me. It protects me from going to jail or being charged with a crime, but I'm not sure it protects me from much else, like keeping my job.

They have been kicked out of school because someone recorded a private conversation and made it public. That school belongs to the people. It is a public resource. You aren't supposed to be able to kick people out of public schools because of their political or ideological beliefs, and I don't know that these are even beliefs. What if we kicked the Jews out of government schools, would that be a first Amendment violation to you? After all, they didn't go to jail!

YAY! ROUND EM UP!

[DC Muskie]

Feel free to disagree with the Constitutional scholar. Doesn't matter to me.

This was a private conversation, and these are stupid fraternity boys.

It is a modern day witch burning. Thor is happy though.

I will disagree with the Constitutional scholar, thanks. I'm sure you do as well. I'm pretty sure you disagree with the Constitutional scholar who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

They were stupid, and now they can go to mechanics school and learn how to fix Harley's. Always need more people who can fix Harley's. I see the commercials for them all the time.

[Snipe]

It is all about who's ox is getting gored, and these guys are straight white male fraternity boys. They are public enemy number 1.

The only kids I ever heard saying the N word at X were black students. Still made me uncomfortable. I couldn't imagine this government school kicking out blacks for what they said in a private conversation.

[DC Muskie]

They have been kicked out of school because someone recorded a private conversation and made it public. That school belongs to the people. It is a public resource. You aren't supposed to be able to kick people out of public schools because of their political or ideological beliefs, and I don't know that these are even beliefs. What if we kicked the Jews out of government schools, would that be a first Amendment violation to you? After all, they didn't go to jail!

YAY! ROUND EM UP!

What if we simply took away your access to the internet? It's not jail, but I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be anyone who would come to your rescue. You could stand on the corner in OTR and shout about how oppressed you are!

[DC Muskie]

The only kids I ever heard saying the N word at X were black students. Still made me uncomfortable. I couldn't imagine this government school kicking out blacks for what they said in a private conversation.

Well, get someone to record it, post it on YouFace and let's see what happens.

[LA Muskie]

Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy

No, it’s not constitutional for the University of Oklahoma to expel students for racist speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/10/no-a-public-university-may-not-expel-students-for-racist-speech/)
Volukh is a genius, a gentleman, and a great all around guy.

[Snipe]

What government would come after me if I said the same things they did? Would I be expelled from driving?

Why is it when shit like this happens, people have to sling every possible circumstance? Live in reality Snipe. No one is going to hang fat people from trees. Because they would break.

So it is ok to tape some young men making fun of gays in a private conversation (with no gays around), and them kick them out of school? Would faggot meet the new standard for the first Amendment?

I don't think that destroying these young men's lives is a good thing.

We don't hang black people from trees.

[Snipe]

Volukh is a genius, a gentleman, and a great all around guy.

You are a lawyer, what do you think of his argument here? Should those kids have 1st Amendment Rights in this case?

[PM Thor]

Feel free to disagree with the Constitutional scholar. Doesn't matter to me.

This was a private conversation, and these are stupid fraternity boys.

It is a modern day witch burning. Thor is happy though.

No, that was not a private conversation. That was a full on chant of a bus load full of dolts. It's not a modern day witch burning, it's a university cracking down hard on an openly racist frat.

[PM Thor]

It is all about who's ox is getting gored, and these guys are straight white male fraternity boys. They are public enemy number 1.

The only kids I ever heard saying the N word at X were black students. Still made me uncomfortable. I couldn't imagine this government school kicking out blacks for what they said in a private conversation.

Hey here is an idea. Don't do racist chants on a bus.

[LA Muskie]

From the author:

But he is not, I think, allowed to do that.

He's wrong.

What else you got?

DC, if you think the First Amendment proscribes only government conduct that results in jail time or other criminal consequences, you are very wrong. The First Amendment proscribes any unnecessary government conduct that imposes consequences or conditions on speech or otherwise seeks to preclude speech (whether criminally or otherwise).

There's little doubt under the law that OU is a state actor. So the condition of government conduct is satisfied. And there's little question they were expelled because of the content of their speech. So ultimately the question is whether the Student Code of Conduct complies with the First Amendment -- either facially or as applied. Which, under Supreme Court precedent, requires application of strict scrutiny: is the provision narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest? I could see arguments on both sides of that.

Nevertheless, if I'm one of those students (and I'm certainly not) there's no way I'm suing. I would want to get as far from the episode as possible, not re-live it publicly for the next 3-5 years.

[DC Muskie]

So it is ok to tape some young men making fun of gays in a private conversation (with no gays around), and them kick them out of school? Would faggot meet the new standard for the first Amendment?

I don't think that destroying these young men's lives is a good thing.

We don't hang black people from trees.

What does your example hope to prove, other than being deflective in nature? Yes, if there was a taped conversation (which really wasn't a conversation) about killing faggots, I would hope those people would be kicked out of school.

I don't think chanting hanging black people from trees is a good thing. Maybe you do. Who knows with your rambling.

[Snipe]

Should we really be out to crucify these kids in the name of the righteous new religion of diversity and multiculturalism? I wouldn't be surprised if some lives were ruined today. And tomorrow we will just be off to the next ritual burning, none the wiser.




[B]Bye you racist idiots. I hope you never find a worthwhile job and this dogs you for the rest of your lives. Break the code of conduct, get kicked out of school. Enough said.

Q) What do we burn apart from witches?

A) MORE WITCHES!!!!!

BURN BY BURN!

And anyone who publicly condemns them gets +1 SJW (Social Justice Warrior) points.

[DC Muskie]

DC, if you think the First Amendment proscribes only government conduct that results in jail time or other criminal consequences, you are very wrong. The First Amendment proscribes any unnecessary government conduct that imposes consequences or conditions on speech or otherwise seeks to preclude speech (whether criminally or otherwise).

There's little doubt under the law that OU is a state actor. So the condition of government conduct is satisfied. And there's little question they were expelled because of the content of their speech. So ultimately the question is whether the Student Code of Conduct complies with the First Amendment -- either facially or as applied. Which, under Supreme Court precedent, requires application of strict scrutiny: is the provision narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest? I could see arguments on both sides of that.

Nevertheless, if I'm one of those students (and I'm certainly not) there's no way I'm suing. I would want to get as far from the episode as possible, not re-live it publicly for the next 3-5 years.

I was merely keeping it very basic to people like Snipe.

I'm not sure what the government would do to me if I started chanting "hang Black People from Trees." I guess take away my privilege to drive? My privilege to have the internet? Maybe take away my right to bang ugly people?

[RealDeal]

The jerk store called, and they're running out of you.

Cmon go, I set you up for the "that's ok you're their all time best seller."

[LA Muskie]

For those who don't want them expelled, what do you believe the reasonable amount of punishment is for a violent racist chant during a fraternity (and perhaps university) sponsored event? I'm being serious. It's appalling to me. I'm curious where it falls on your spectrum.

[Snipe]

What does your example hope to prove, other than being deflective in nature? Yes, if there was a taped conversation (which really wasn't a conversation) about killing faggots, I would hope those people would be kicked out of school.

I don't think chanting hanging black people from trees is a good thing. Maybe you do. Who knows with your rambling.

I don't think that chanting a joke about hanging black people from a tree is a good thing. I didn't think it had to be said.

Why do you think it is crazy to ask "Where do you draw the line?" is it because you don't like answering the question.

This is a First Amendment case, and where the line should be drawn is at the heart of the whole argument.

Plenty of things are offensive. Many people endorse the killing of young human children in the womb. That is offensive to some people. What if we kicked those people out of school and tried to ruin their lives? Surely killing children and publicly endorsing it is far worse than a racist joke made in a private setting.

Isn't political correctness about what you can't say? Aren't these racists supposed to keep their racist thoughts private? These kids aren't giving speeches.

It is a modern day lynching.

[DC Muskie]

For those who don't want them expelled, what do you believe the reasonable amount of punishment is for a violent racist chant during a fraternity (and perhaps university) sponsored event? I'm being serious. It's appalling to me. I'm curious where it falls on your spectrum.

You realize you are just asking Snipe, right?

[DC Muskie]

I don't think that chanting a joke about hanging black people from a tree is a good thing. I didn't think it had to be said.

Why do you think it is crazy to ask "Where do you draw the line?" is it because you don't like answering the question.

This is a First Amendment case, and where the line should be drawn is at the heart of the whole argument.

Plenty of things are offensive. Many people endorse the killing of young human children in the womb. That is offensive to some people. What if we kicked those people out of school and tried to ruin their lives? Surely killing children and publicly endorsing it is far worse than a racist joke made in a private setting.

Isn't political correctness about what you can't say? Aren't these racists supposed to keep their racist thoughts private? These kids aren't giving speeches.

It is a modern day lynching.

I don't like answering questions to things that don't actually deal with the subject at hand. You come up with the idea of "drawing the line" as a cover to continue your rambling.

You don't even have a basic understanding of the definition of the word "lynching." So yes I am guilty of not liking to answer your questions that are made up in fantasy.

[Snipe]

For those who don't want them expelled, what do you believe the reasonable amount of punishment is for a violent racist chant during a fraternity (and perhaps university) sponsored event? I'm being serious. It's appalling to me. I'm curious where it falls on your spectrum.

If this was in the classroom they could be expelled. This is in their private lives. I would let the fraternity punish, and I don't think the school should be involved.

If someone makes a joke about the Holocaust to a friend in their private lives, it might be tasteless and horrible, but should the government punish them? If they are a student, do they have no First Amendment Rights?

If these kids were surrounding a young black student and chanting "Hang him from the tree" that is violent. But back in the apartment or in the car alone if you say that Holocaust joke it isn't violent. Even though the Holocaust killed hundreds of thousands of people. It is context.

I don't think the government should have punished those kids for their private conversations.

[LA Muskie]

You realize you are just asking Snipe, right?

Ugh. No, I didn't. You'd think I would know better.

[LadyMuskie]

I kind of agree with Snipe. Why expel the bigots? We now know who the two ringleaders of the chant are. Let society take care of it sort of like how the society inside a prison takes care of child molesters. My guess is, life on campus will become so uncomfortable for Jefferson Davis and David Duke that they'll leave in any event. Now, whenever they apply for a job, their names will be googled and this will show up.

And to be fair, SAE has a long and storied history of being the fraternity that comes as close as possible to joining the KKK without having to a wear a white sheet on campus. In 1982, the chapter at UC was suspended for holding a racist MLK Jr. party. The chapters at Texas A&M, Syracuse and Memphis, to name only a few, have all faced disciplinary action for engaging in racist activity. So, really, these guys were just following tradition. What were they to do? Grow up? Embrace modernity? Have some class and dignity? I mean, it is a fraternity after all.

And, so as to not appear as though only the males attached to this fraternity are racist, the house mother for the OU chapter is now on the internet saying the word nigger over and over again. But, it's okay because in her statement she lets us know that she has . . . wait for it . . . black friends.

[PM Thor]

In Snipes world it's ok to just say whatever you want with no ramifications whatsoever. In the real world when you say something so blatantly racist, so vile, you will be held accountable. As for the "where is the line?" idea? Here it is. Don't do that.

I do love Snipe calling it a "modern day lynching", using the same terminology as those frat boys. Where all he is trying to do is to change the focus from the sick, twisted comments to whether or not it's a 1st Amendment issue...even though it's obviously not.

[Snipe]

I don't like answering questions to things that don't actually deal with the subject at hand. You come up with the idea of "drawing the line" as a cover to continue your rambling.

You don't even have a basic understanding of the definition of the word "lynching." So yes I am guilty of not liking to answer your questions that are made up in fantasy.

Lynching is mob justice. Witch Burning is mob justice. This is Social Justice Warrior Mob Justice. I don't like mob justice. I prefer the Constitution. It isn't that hard to fathom. Had someone shown this video privately to the University President, I bet the outcome would have been different. But it was out there, and we all have to head to social media to denounce these evil fraternity kids for their sense of humor.

And who wins?

[DC Muskie]

If this was in the classroom they could be expelled. This is in their private lives. I would let the fraternity punish, and I don't think the school should be involved.

If someone makes a joke about the Holocaust to a friend in their private lives, it might be tasteless and horrible, but should the government punish them? If they are a student, do they have no First Amendment Rights?

If these kids were surrounding a young black student and chanting "Hang him from the tree" that is violent. But back in the apartment or in the car alone if you say that Holocaust joke it isn't violent. Even though the Holocaust killed hundreds of thousands of people. It is context.

I don't think the government should have punished those kids for their private conversations.

Do you know for a fact there wasn't a black person present and privy to this conversation? Or has some black racial ancestry? I mean if we are going to get crazy, let's get crazy.

How do you know it was a joke? Maybe they were planning to hang a black guy from a tree...you don't know that.

Where do we draw the line on everything you know about this case?

[DC Muskie]

Lynching is mob justice. Witch Burning is mob justice. This is Social Justice Warrior Mob Justice. I don't like mob justice. I prefer the Constitution. It isn't that hard to fathom. Had someone shown this video privately to the University President, I bet the outcome would have been different. But it was out there, and we all have to head to social media to denounce these evil fraternity kids for their sense of humor.

And who wins?

Lynching is killing someone. Witch burning is killing someone. Social Justice Warrior Mob Justice is some phrase you farted out of your ass and doesn't mean shit.

[X Factor]

Wouldn't be surprised to see these kids hire a lawyer and sue Oklahoma University. Were these kids on the campus when they were singing this racist song?

I think it's a fair question that Snipe is asking.

[LadyMuskie]

Absolutely! The should definitely hire a lawyer and dig their heels in further to prove they are most definitely racists!

I can see the trial now . . . "It's not enough your honor, that I chanted what amounts to racist propaganda, but I want to further cement in the minds of, well, everyone, that I'm fully committed to the racist things I say and should not, therefore, be punished for it. After all, this is the south, and if we can't be racist here, where can we be racist? Now, if we could hurry this along, I've got to press my white sheets before heading across town for a cross burning."

At some point, I would hope, someone with common sense will tell these boys that the very best thing they can possibly do is to go away for awhile, and then come back to perform a mea culpa with Diane Sawyer. It's just about the only way to save themselves from being branded racists for life. College is 4 years. They're looking at a life sentence and there will be no one to sue for their own stupidity.

[DC Muskie]

Wouldn't be surprised to see these kids hire a lawyer and sue Oklahoma University. Were these kids on the campus when they were singing this racist song?

I think it's a fair question that Snipe is asking.

Well fire up the lawyer and find out. The great thing about America is that we can overcome stupid decisions made in the court system.

You could have an entire trial about drawling lines, and where those lines should be drawn. You can argue lines shouldn't be circular in nature, but perhaps curvy. You could make up phrases like Social Justice Warrior Mob Justice, and incorrectly define actual words.

You could do this. Of course a judge might throw the case out. Oh wait...is that another First Amendment violation?

[PM Thor]

Wouldn't be surprised to see these kids hire a lawyer and sue Oklahoma University. Were these kids on the campus when they were singing this racist song?

I think it's a fair question that Snipe is asking.

It's irrelevant. They were subject to the OU Code of Conduct wherever they are, and they broke that. They also broke the Code that applies to student organizations too.

[xubrew]

Wouldn't be surprised to see these kids hire a lawyer and sue Oklahoma University. Were these kids on the campus when they were singing this racist song?

I think it's a fair question that Snipe is asking.

I think it's a fair question too.

I can't say I feel the slightest bit sorry for these kids, and if they were permitted to stay in school, I could see the rest of the students making life very miserable for them.

I know what the First Amendment is, but I don't know what it protects you from outside of being a criminal. If I said that, I'm pretty sure I would lose my job. I'm pretty sure professors at the university would lose their jobs too. They wouldn't be charged with a crime, but the First Amendment doesn't protect you from every possible consequence that comes from saying something stupid. Does it protect you from being expelled or being fired??

They're idiots, and everybody knows it, and regardless of what happens that's at least something.

[xeus]

It's irrelevant. They were subject to the OU Code of Conduct wherever they are, and they broke that. They also broke the Code that applies to student organizations too.

You seem to be very familiar with the scope of the OU Code of Conduct. When and where does the Code apply?

[Snipe]

It is difficult to go up against the State. The State has almost infinitely more resources, and they could draw it out and publicize it to punish you more in the court of public opinion. What lawyer wants to take the case. These kids are kicked out of school and now publicly unemployable, they won't have the money to pay.

I think their lives are over. Many people here think they deserve it. I wouldn't be surprised to see one of them dead in the next few years.

I am not sure if I would want to hire them, only because I wouldn't want the Social Justice Warriors on my case. I don't know where they go from here. The State has massive power, and in this case it might not even matter if they have a good First Amendment case.

I like the First Amendment. I also tend to believe in an ideology that tells me the more power the government has, the less free people have. I could be wrong on that, but it is what I believe.

DC, you continually make this personal. I don't mind, but I don't think it does much to further your case. I am serious about the slippery slope arguments, because we are arguing about the limits of government power. What these kids said is considered vile and wildly unpopular. But the First Amendment isn't supposed to swing with the wiles of public opinion.

Homosexuals have gained tremendous power and influence in today's society. They cost the CEO of Mozilla his job, and they targeted many private citizens in their "Eight Maps" campaign. I could see these same kids being kicked out of school for joking about "faggots". I don't endorse joking about faggots either. Many young men follow the herd and at times are young and irresponsible. I am not sure the popular solution we have arrived at today is the best for a just society.

Even people that are eventually found innocent have their lives ruined by the social justice warriors. Darrin Wilson will never be able to be a cop again. And a small town burned with what turned out to be a justifiable homicide. But that doesn't stop people from saying "Hands Up Don't Shoot".

[Snipe]

I think it's a fair question too.

I can't say I feel the slightest bit sorry for these kids, and if they were permitted to stay in school, I could see the rest of the students making life very miserable for them.

I know what the First Amendment is, but I don't know what it protects you from outside of being a criminal. If I said that, I'm pretty sure I would lose my job. I'm pretty sure professors at the university would lose their jobs too. They wouldn't be charged with a crime, but the First Amendment doesn't protect you from every possible consequence that comes from saying something stupid. Does it protect you from being expelled or being fired??

They're idiots, and everybody knows it, and regardless of what happens that's at least something.

Plenty of Marxist professors on campuses across the country. Marxism/Communism killed over 100 million people in the last century. And they aren't joking. Can we fire them for that? No.

With hate speech the most important factor seems to be who is doing the speaking. That is perhaps the biggest flaw in my eyes, but you have to realize it is a feature, not a bug. They only wish to persecute certain people, so that is why they need to know who said it.

[Snipe]

DC, if you think the First Amendment proscribes only government conduct that results in jail time or other criminal consequences, you are very wrong. The First Amendment proscribes any unnecessary government conduct that imposes consequences or conditions on speech or otherwise seeks to preclude speech (whether criminally or otherwise).

There's little doubt under the law that OU is a state actor. So the condition of government conduct is satisfied. And there's little question they were expelled because of the content of their speech. So ultimately the question is whether the Student Code of Conduct complies with the First Amendment -- either facially or as applied. Which, under Supreme Court precedent, requires application of strict scrutiny: is the provision narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest? I could see arguments on both sides of that.

Nevertheless, if I'm one of those students (and I'm certainly not) there's no way I'm suing. I would want to get as far from the episode as possible, not re-live it publicly for the next 3-5 years.

I think that was excellent.

[xeus]

I think their lives are over. Many people here think they deserve it. I wouldn't be surprised to see one of them dead in the next few years.

That's a harrowing progression of sentences.

[DC Muskie]

It is difficult to go up against the State. The State has almost infinitely more resources, and they could draw it out and publicize it to punish you more in the court of public opinion. What lawyer wants to take the case. These kids are kicked out of school and now publicly unemployable, they won't have the money to pay.

I think their lives are over. Many people here think they deserve it. I wouldn't be surprised to see one of them dead in the next few years.

I am not sure if I would want to hire them, only because I wouldn't want the Social Justice Warriors on my case. I don't know where they go from here. The State has massive power, and in this case it might not even matter if they have a good First Amendment case.

I like the First Amendment. I also tend to believe in an ideology that tells me the more power the government has, the less free people have. I could be wrong on that, but it is what I believe.

DC, you continually make this personal. I don't mind, but I don't think it does much to further your case. I am serious about the slippery slope arguments, because we are arguing about the limits of government power. What these kids said is considered vile and wildly unpopular. But the First Amendment isn't supposed to swing with the wiles of public opinion.

Homosexuals have gained tremendous power and influence in today's society. They cost the CEO of Mozilla his job, and they targeted many private citizens in their "Eight Maps" campaign. I could see these same kids being kicked out of school for joking about "faggots". I don't endorse joking about faggots either. Many young men follow the herd and at times are young and irresponsible. I am not sure the popular solution we have arrived at today is the best for a just society.

Even people that are eventually found innocent have their lives ruined by the social justice warriors. Darrin Wilson will never be able to be a cop again. And a small town burned with what turned out to be a justifiable homicide. But that doesn't stop people from saying "Hands Up Don't Shoot".

It's not personal Snipe. Sorry to disappoint. I mean you wrote such outrageous stuff. You don't know the definition of words and phrases like lynching, and witch hunting, and then turn around and try to associate them in the same manner with Social Justice.

So tell me how you exactly are further your case?

You don't like a lot of people. I get that. It's frustrating to think that somehow in your world you are being oppressed. You would never consider coming on here and defending homos or blacks, or anything or anyone that isn't like you. It's no big deal, but you take this shit too personal. It's not about you. It never is and it never will be. You're not some Constitutional conscience here to educate the rest of us social justice mob justice warriors.

You think one of the kids will be dead. That would be awful. Maybe someone will actually lynch him. Then you could actually get the definition correct. That would be the only silver lining for you, that you ended up being correct on the definition of lynching if/when this jokester racist is lynched.

I'm really sad for you that you don't like Social Justice. And that would prevent you from helping someone who has wronged others and was turning to you. I wonder if that idea would ever sink in. I pray that is does one day. I really do.

Take care my friend.

[LadyMuskie]

It's true that these SAE members may die an untimely death. Between (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-12-30/deadliest-frat-s-icy-torture-of-pledges-evokes-tarantino-films) 2006 and 2013, SAE accounted for more deaths than any other single Greek organization in the United States. 9 people associated with SAE or an SAE event died in that time period. There were 60 Greek related deaths total in that time period. SAE is not an organization for choir boys, and what's more is that these boys on the bus are not the first, nor are they likely to be the last, SAE members that are caught being horrible people.

[GoMuskies]

Cmon go, I set you up for the "that's ok you're their all time best seller."

Oh yeah, well I had sex with your wife!

[PM Thor]

You seem to be very familiar with the scope of the OU Code of Conduct. When and where does the Code apply?

Actually, I just googled it and it came right up.

Student Rights and Responsibilities Code
2014-2015 Section VI. Student Responsibilities
Enrollment in the University creates special obligations beyond those attendant upon membership in general society. In addition to the requirement of compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, the student assumes the obligation to comply with all applicable University and College regulations.
It is the responsibility of all students who are potential parties or witnesses to an alleged violation of the Code to participate in the conduct process. Students have a duty to cooperate and discuss the incident with appropriate University officials, adhere to stated deadlines, attend scheduled meetings, provide documentation as requested and participate in all proceedings. Failure to meet these duties may result in a decision being made without the benefit of the student’s participation, or may result in a student being charged with failing to comply with the direction of a University official.

As students, the code applies at all times.

[GoMuskies]

The ACLU should send a lawyer to represent these assholes in their case against OU. Minds would be blown.

[DC Muskie]

The ACLU should send a lawyer to represent these assholes in their case against OU. Minds would be blown.

Now that would be awesome. Especially if they wore shirts that said, "We Fight Social Justice Warriors."

[PM Thor]

I think their lives are over. Many people here think they deserve it. I wouldn't be surprised to see one of them dead in the next few years.

Yeah, riiiiight. Or their fellow SAE members from the past will help take care of them. I mean, it's not like these guys came up with this chant on the bus right then, it most likely had been handed down year after year, probably decade after decade as a fraternity tradition. They will do what you are doing, blame others for being picked on, instead of just accepting that they effed up. So there is the problem, it most likely was pervasive to the frat, and all the ones who came before these buffoons just didn't get busted for it. So the good old boy system will probably help them out. And the silence about it speaks volumes. And yeah, I'm glad the frat got shut down and those leaders got expelled, they deserved it.

[gladdenguy]

I don't think these guys would be invited into SAE.....

http://www.barstoolsports.com/boston/dude-gets-knocked-the-fuck-out-after-sliding-into-another-dudes-girls-dms/

[D-West & PO-Z]

It's true that these SAE members may die an untimely death. Between (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-12-30/deadliest-frat-s-icy-torture-of-pledges-evokes-tarantino-films) 2006 and 2013, SAE accounted for more deaths than any other single Greek organization in the United States. 9 people associated with SAE or an SAE event died in that time period. There were 60 Greek related deaths total in that time period. SAE is not an organization for choir boys, and what's more is that these boys on the bus are not the first, nor are they likely to be the last, SAE members that are caught being horrible people.

Wow that article is nuts.

I was in a fraternity in college and I can tell you there is no way I would have put up with anything remotely close to that when I was pledging and I wouldnt have tolerated it as a member. We did some dumb things and we had some mild hazing things but nothing that put anyone's life in danger.

Crazy stuff.

[DC Muskie]

By the way, what's the over/under on when Snipe will come back?

I put it at 1:15 am.

Any takers?

[Kahns Krazy]

Even if I could buy that Snipe is just arguing the constitutionality of expelling racist kids, I don't think that applies here. The nature of the chant, and the fact that fraternities are university sponsored and controlled organizations raises the level of this chant to action that requires the response from the university. Otherwise, it seems fairly clear to me that the university would risk liability from permitting racially biased organizations from operating with the benefit of state funded support.

If they were chanting "we hate niggers" it would be racist speech and I could understand a protected speech argument. The fact that they are chanting about preventing people from joining their university sponsored organization because of their race is a different circumstance entirely.

[Snipe]

It's not personal Snipe. Sorry to disappoint. I mean you wrote such outrageous stuff. You don't know the definition of words and phrases like lynching, and witch hunting, and then turn around and try to associate them in the same manner with Social Justice.

So tell me how you exactly are further your case?

You don't like a lot of people. I get that. It's frustrating to think that somehow in your world you are being oppressed. You would never consider coming on here and defending homos or blacks, or anything or anyone that isn't like you. It's no big deal, but you take this shit too personal. It's not about you. It never is and it never will be. You're not some Constitutional conscience here to educate the rest of us social justice mob justice warriors.

You think one of the kids will be dead. That would be awful. Maybe someone will actually lynch him. Then you could actually get the definition correct. That would be the only silver lining for you, that you ended up being correct on the definition of lynching if/when this jokester racist is lynched.

I'm really sad for you that you don't like Social Justice. And that would prevent you from helping someone who has wronged others and was turning to you. I wonder if that idea would ever sink in. I pray that is does one day. I really do.

Take care my friend.

Again with the personal. I am some sort of racist for bringing up the First Amendment. I reject your statements and I find them offensive. You can't make a First Amendment case so why not just call me a bigot. How does one go about proving they are not a bigot? As for defending "homos", I was pro gay marriage before Obama was. I have plenty of gay friends and have known gay people on a friend basis my whole life. Growing up I had gay neighbors, and today I have gay neighbors. I live in a neighborhood that is 90+% black. My preacher is black. Sometimes we are the only white people in church. I have plenty of friends in the neighborhood. "I HAVE BLACK FRIENDS" (The old canard!) I think you would be pretty surprised with some of the people I have broke bread and had beers with. And black people in the hood love talking about race. They talk about whites, jews, the arab that runs the corner store. I have had some pretty frank conversations on a whole range of subjects.

Do I hold some thoughts that are considered "heretical" by current pop culture standards? Yes I do, and I think we all do. I think political correctness is a war on noticing things. Certain things cannot be noticed. It doesn't even matter if they are true. If they are true they are still hate speech. I like to call them "Hate Facts".

Heather MacDonald did some reporting on stop and frisk policy in New York. She looked at statistics and found that 98% of all of the gun crimes in the city were committed by blacks and hispanics. 2% by whites and asians. That is a hate fact. And when I don't blame white racism and a history of oppression as the reason for the statistical disparity, then you know what I am really thinking. Just me repeating it proves to you that I am a racist. When we talk about blacks and gun crime, the acceptable way to talk about it is to talk about racist cops gunning down gentle giants with their hands up in the prime of their youth. And because I didn't do that, you know everything else I must be thinking.

Truth be told, I haven't seen any campus related First Amendment cases involving blacks or homosexuals. I would be glad to argue their first Amendment rights though, because I do believe in the First Amendment. I don't think the government should get involved.

Indeed, I think it is dangerous for the government to take sides. In Europe you can go to jail for denying the Holocaust. Jews are wealthy and powerful relative to the other tribes (another hate facts!), and they have the law on their side. But you can draw cartoons of Allah and it pisses Muslims off. Maybe Muslims could take it better if they knew we all had to undergo freedom of expression, but they see the Jews having favored status, and they want it too. Muslims have animosity against Jews. We all know that. Nobody talks about how it may be a two way street, or perhaps some of those newspapers with cartoons were owned by Jews. I bet they never notice.....

Once the government starts regulating speech, it never ends. We end that fight by not beginning it in the first place. You are free to speak your mind and so am I. We both have to live with the consequences of what we say, but at least the government isn't patrolling speech.

I can think of a whole host of things that people find offensive. It never ends. Who gets to decide what crosses the line. Luckily we don't have to debate it all day because we have the First Amendment and the Govt isn't in the game. Invite the government in, and it will never end.

I don't defend what they said, but I will defend their right to say it among a private fraternity of men that they call brothers. I don't know any SAE's and they all may well be tremendous asshats. I don't care, so long as they stay off my property.

[XU 87]

It seems to me that one thing Snipe is arguing is that if you're a non-liberal white male and say something vulgar and disgusting, you're treated one way. If you're a minority, or a liberal, and say something vulgar and disgusting, you're treated another way. If you're a white male who says something vulgar and disgusting against a minority, woman, protected religious class, or any other so-called protected class, you're likly to be destroyed. If you're a liberal who makes similar comments, it gets ignored. See for example, the treatment to Trent Lott's comments ("he would have made a great president in 1948") vs. the treatment of the comments of Joe Biden ("Obama- he's clean") and Harry Reid (Obama- "he doesn't speak in that negro dialect unless he wants to").

We live in a country of double standards.

[XU 87]

Again with the personal.



This must be your first argument with DC Muskie.

[DC Muskie]

This must be your first argument with DC Muskie.

Yeah really, I mean everything I say is soo personal.

[DC Muskie]

It seems to me that one thing Snipe is arguing is that if you're a white male and say something vulgar and disgusting, you're treated one way. If you're a minority, or a liberal, and say something vulgar and disgusting, you're treated another way. If you're a white male who says something vulgar and disgusting against a minority, woman, protected religious class, or any other so-called protected class, you're likly to be destroyed. If you're a liberal who makes similar comments, it gets ignored. See for example, the treatment to Trent Lott's comments ("he would have made a great president in 1948") vs. the treatment of the comments of Joe Biden ("Obama- he's clean") and Harry Reid (Obama- "he doesn't speak in that negro dialect unless he wants to").

We live in a country of double standards.

You guys with the personal stuff. Please.

[LadyMuskie]

The definition of ridiculous may be when white males complain about double standards. Although, if anyone should know about double standards, it would be the white male who has been imposing double standards on the rest of the world since pretty much forever. All men are created equal - unless, you know, you're black or have a different shaped eye than us. And by men, we literally mean men and not men as slang for human beings which would then encompass the feeble-minded females of the world.

Since 1776, white males have never had to fight for any of the following in this country: freedom from slavery, the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to inherit, the right to work, the right to eat, drink or sleep where he pleases, etc. etc.

It must be so hard to be so oppressed. Maybe we can start some sort of support group to help white men learn to share the wealth, prestige, job market, land, and so on.

[XU 87]

Yeah really, I mean everything I say is soo personal.

You do tend to personalize these arguments.

[DC Muskie]

Again with the personal. I am some sort of racist for bringing up the First Amendment. I reject your statements and I find them offensive. You can't make a First Amendment case so why not just call me a bigot. How does one go about proving they are not a bigot? As for defending "homos", I was pro gay marriage before Obama was. I have plenty of gay friends and have known gay people on a friend basis my whole life. Growing up I had gay neighbors, and today I have gay neighbors. I live in a neighborhood that is 90+% black. My preacher is black. Sometimes we are the only white people in church. I have plenty of friends in the neighborhood. "I HAVE BLACK FRIENDS" (The old canard!) I think you would be pretty surprised with some of the people I have broke bread and had beers with. And black people in the hood love talking about race. They talk about whites, jews, the arab that runs the corner store. I have had some pretty frank conversations on a whole range of subjects.

I'm just going to focus on this.

I destroyed your arguments Snipe. You have nothing to retort. You have gay friends, and democrat, I've heard it all before. You're a great guy who just thinks there is a double standard that is infringing on you. I get it, you're not that complicated.

You don't like Social Justice. That's your words. You place them along side words and phrases like lynching and witch hunting. You don't know what you are talking about. Sorry if my disagreement with you brings out the 87 playbook of trying to make it sound like I all do is personal attacks , while you are the sensible one.

You're not. Again, sorry if that hurts your feelings.

That's not on me. I didn't force you to write those things.

[DC Muskie]

You do tend to personalize these arguments.

By saying he doen't understand the fundamental definition of the word "lynching?"

Or the fact that Snipe doesn't like people? Is that wrong? Does Snipe like everybody? He hates Social Justice. His words, not mine.

[DC Muskie]

The definition of ridiculous may be when white males complain about double standards.

That's the definition of this board. White guys with gay friends who live in Cincinnati who think that are being oppressed. It's actually amusing.

Of course these facts may be a little too personal to people. But that's because they are facts that they don't like.

[XU 87]

The definition of ridiculous may be when white males complain about double standards.

Maybe we can start some sort of support group to help white men learn to share the wealth, prestige, job market, land, and so on.

I am a white male. Are you arguing we should have one set of rules for me and another set of rules for you?

And are you saying that life isn't fair until I share some of my wealth with you? After that, do I have to give some of my clients to various female attorneys?

There is a woman who runs a business across the hall from me. She makes a lot more money than I do. Maybe she should share her wealth with me to even things up.

[DC Muskie]

I am a white male. Are you arguing we should have one set of rules for me and another set of rules for you?

And are you saying that life isn't fair until I share some of my wealth with you? After that, do I have to give some of my clients to various female attorneys?

There is a woman who runs a business across the hall from me. She makes a lot more money than I do. Maybe she should share her wealth with me to even things up.

Do you need support, or just telling us that you are fine without it?

I don't understand what point you are trying to make?

[XU 87]

I destroyed your arguments Snipe. You have nothing to retort.



Snipe, victory has been declared. Give it up, you racist sexist homophobe.

[DC Muskie]

Snipe, victory has been declared. Give it up, you racist sexist homophobe.

This. Thanks 87.

[XU 87]

Do you need support, or just telling us that you are fine without it?

I don't understand what point you are trying to make?

These comments clearly reflect that you are anti-white male.

[DC Muskie]

These comments clearly reflect that you are anti-white male.

No...not sure how you jumped to that conclusion.

White people like Trent Lott makes a mistake, he gets a golden parachute. Black people like Michael Brown makes a mistake, he gets killed.

White guys who think there is a double standard usually have it confused with life not being fair.

It's not fair that Trent Lott has to leave the Senate, although he has a great job on K Street as a lobbyist. Black people who don't confront the police are usually just arrested, but they live.

That's how life is unfair.

[XU 87]

White people like Trent Lott makes a mistake, he gets a golden parachute. Black people like Michael Brown makes a mistake, he gets killed.



I'm not sure I understand the comparison. Trent Lott made a comment at a senator's 100th birthday party that the senator would have made a great president.

Michael Brown rushed a cop after trying to take the cop's gun.

I know for a fact that Trent Lott didn't try to take the other senator's gun, nor did he bull rush him. Nor did Lott rob a convenience store a few minutes prior.

[DC Muskie]

I'm not sure I understand the comparison. Trent Lott made a comment at a senator's 100th birthday party that the senator would have made a great president.

Michael Brown rushed a cop after trying to take the cop's gun.

I know for a fact that Trent Lott didn't try to take the other senator's gun, nor did he bull rush him. Nor did Lott rob a convenience store a few minutes prior.

It's a general comparison. Consequences for one's action. Trent Lott gets to make more money as a lobbyist, Reid gets to stay. What they both said was wrong.

Consequences in the Michael Brown's case is, he did something wrong, he's dead. Another guy does something wrong, he goes to jail but lives.

It's scaled for your convenience.

[LadyMuskie]

I am a white male. Are you arguing we should have one set of rules for me and another set of rules for you?

And are you saying that life isn't fair until I share some of my wealth with you? After that, do I have to give some of my clients to various female attorneys?

There is a woman who runs a business across the hall from me. She makes a lot more money than I do. Maybe she should share her wealth with me to even things up.
I know you're smarter than this post makes you sound, so I'm not going to bother replying beyond this.

[XU 87]

I know you're smarter than this post makes you sound, so I'm not going to bother replying beyond this.

I suppose I could have said the same about your post complaining about white males "sharing the wealth and land."

[LadyMuskie]

I suppose I could have said the same about your post complaining about white males "sharing the wealth and land."

Sure. Except what I said is backed up by this nagging thing called historical FACT. To date, white men own most of the power and wealth in the western world, because they made the laws so that it would be so. For centuries white males were the only humans allowed to have title to property, which in some cases included their wives and slaves. 100 years ago women in this country still couldn't vote. 65 years ago women were told to leave their jobs in the factories because the men were returning home and the jobs belonged to the men simply because they were male - not because they were more qualified. This country is over 200 years old and a woman has never been president or vice president. A woman finally made it to secretary of state when Clinton was elected in the last decade of the 20th century. A woman has never been Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Is that because none were qualified or because they were systemically held back because of their sex? And, although we are finally allowed to vote and hold jobs outside the home, we still make less than our equally qualified male counterparts.
Women and minorities have had to and continue to have to fight for every sliver of the pie we get. White males have never had to fight for the right to vote or the right to work.

So, yeah. White males are not going to get any pity from anyone when they're told they're not the only ones who deserve to get paid, who deserve to hold leadership roles, etc. If you're looking for sympathy because as a white male you don't have it as good as white males used to because of all of us uppity women and black folk, you'll need a DeLorean or you can join the local SAE chapter.

[SemajParlor]

It is all about who's ox is getting gored, and these guys are straight white male fraternity boys. They are public enemy number 1.

The only kids I ever heard saying the N word at X were black students. Still made me uncomfortable. I couldn't imagine this government school kicking out blacks for what they said in a private conversation.


Literally laughed out loud. Thank you.

[Strange Brew]

I am not sure if I would want to hire them, only because I wouldn't want the Social Justice Warriors on my case. I don't know where they go from here.

They have already checked a number of boxes to become Democratic Senators. Just ask Byrd, Al Gore Sr. and Joe Biden. :)

Edit: Reading through the posts I appear to have left out Harry Reid. Sorry Harry, didn't mean to leave you out.

[Strange Brew]

Since 1776, white males have never had to fight for any of the following in this country: freedom from slavery, the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to inherit, the right to work, the right to eat, drink or sleep where he pleases, etc. etc.

It must be so hard to be so oppressed. Maybe we can start some sort of support group to help white men learn to share the wealth, prestige, job market, land, and so on.

Lady, men of all races (and women recently) have fought and died defending those freedoms you mentioned above. For them and for you.

What world do you live in Lady? Get out a bit. I work for and with women and men of all races. Seems you need Doc Brown to help you join the rest of us in 2015.

[Snipe]

Sure. Except what I said is backed up by this nagging thing called historical FACT. To date, white men own most of the power and wealth in the western world, because they made the laws so that it would be so. For centuries white males were the only humans allowed to have title to property, which in some cases included their wives and slaves. 100 years ago women in this country still couldn't vote. 65 years ago women were told to leave their jobs in the factories because the men were returning home and the jobs belonged to the men simply because they were male - not because they were more qualified. This country is over 200 years old and a woman has never been president or vice president. A woman finally made it to secretary of state when Clinton was elected in the last decade of the 20th century. A woman has never been Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Is that because none were qualified or because they were systemically held back because of their sex? And, although we are finally allowed to vote and hold jobs outside the home, we still make less than our equally qualified male counterparts.
Women and minorities have had to and continue to have to fight for every sliver of the pie we get. White males have never had to fight for the right to vote or the right to work.

So, yeah. White males are not going to get any pity from anyone when they're told they're not the only ones who deserve to get paid, who deserve to hold leadership roles, etc. If you're looking for sympathy because as a white male you don't have it as good as white males used to because of all of us uppity women and black folk, you'll need a DeLorean or you can join the local SAE chapter.

Lady I am impressed. You speak the language of the oppressed very well. I am down with your struggle.

[Snipe]

It appears that the ringleader was a freshman who was drunk. I don't know if the other fellow expelled was a freshman but both were underage and still consuming alcohol. Are those mitigating circumstances? I can only imagine the pressure to conform during young adulthood. They apparently were taught the song. He has apologized.

We live in a video driven culture. Ray Rice beat the heck out of his woman. Everyone knew it. There was only outrage when the video came out. IF that video doesn't come out, Ray Rice would have been a Raven last year.

So this drunken Freshman gets his mug on video. Wouldn't be surprised if it was someone who didn't like him. I don't think people are that naive and just posted it by accident.

So what happens if we didn't have video? Then it would be just a story that went away quickly. But we do have video, so this guy is expelled.

On a blame scale though, who is worse, some fraternity elder who is of age to consume. Maybe the ones that taught the freshmen the song and provided the underage kids with alcohol? That seems like a worse thing than the Freshman who got drunk and just ended his collegiate career at OU. If I was holding people accountable, I would find those people. But they aren't on tape, probably wise enough to know that would be a bad idea.

I think it is interesting. We are both video obsessed and video dependent in our social media rush to judgement.

[Snipe]

From the LA TImes:

Is Oklahoma University frat's racist chant protected by 1st Amendment? (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oklahoma-fraternity-explainer-20150310-story.html#page=1)

Short answer is yes, everyone interviewed concured that this speech was protected by the First Amendment.

But who needs a first Amendment when you can have a feel good moment? Those drunken Freshman should have to pay with their lives!

Oklahoma is one of the poorest states in the Union. Oklahoma is a public school, and they have around 40,000 students. I don't think standards are that high to get in. It wasn't ranked in the top 200 in Forbes. Tuition is $3,700 a semester. And just the fact that these kids chant like that makes me think that these are not Pre Med majors of quality stock. The frat boys at the public school probably have a fair amount of hick white trash. Not exactly the Waspy Boston Brahmans or LadyMuskie's landed gentry of white privilege.

The University President made a great PR move. And really, who is going to stop him? Not me.

From the article:


The lyrics to the Sigma Alpha Epsilon chant include the N-word and a reference to lynching black people.

Is it racist? Incredibly.

Is it protected by the 1st Amendment? Probably, experts say.


Joey Senat, an associate professor who teaches media law at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater: "I believe these students -- under Supreme Court rulings on 1st Amendment for college students -- would have the right to say the very same thing on the library lawn, so to speak. ... The speech is offensive, the speech is abhorrent, but the 1st Amendment protects unpopular speech."


Robert D. Nelon, an Oklahoma City attorney with the Hall Estill law firm who handles media law: "This is a close case. Perhaps the university has gone a little further than the Constitution would permit in expelling the students. It may be the university would be better in tune with the Constitution if they took to the public forum like President Boren did yesterday and expressed publicly their outrage and meet speech with speech rather than expelling the students."

Kudos to that man, fight speech with speech.


Erwin Chemerinsky, 1st Amendment law professor and dean of the UC Irvine School of Law: "What can be punished is if it could be shown the speech was threatening to another [person]. There’s no right to engage in speech that reasonably causes another to fear for his or her safety. ... it can’t be said that this speech was a threat to somebody. [B]I find this horribly offensive, but I don’t see why this isn't speech protected under the 1st Amendment."


Joe Cohn, legislative and policy director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a student legal advocacy group based in Philadelphia: "The school's a public university. At public universities, the 1st Amendment applies in full force. ... The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that speech, even racist speech, is protected under the 1st Amendment. They have never shied away from that. ... Just because a speech is racist doesn't remove its protection."

The First Amendment doesn't really matter though, because really, who cares? A lawyer interviewed suggested that nobody would take their case.


“I’m the person that gets these calls, and I’d tell you, I wouldn’t touch this case with a 10-foot pole,” said the attorney, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about the incident, which he said disgusted him. “Here’s what I think is going on: I think President Boren knew what he needed to do, and they’re definitely in a gray area when it comes to due process."

But the gray area may not matter. The attorney said that public opinion in Norman was so overwhelmingly against the fraternity that he didn’t think the fraternity students would risk a lawsuit to try to return to a hostile campus.

In other words: Even if the university infringed on the students' rights, it could get away with it.

The State knows they can get away with it. That lawyer wouldn't touch the case, because he doesn't want the wrath of the State either! You can see by some of the name calling on this thread the negative pressure that can be brought to bear. For bringing up 1st Amendment issues you can get labeled a racist. And then even when you can cite a veritable plethora of law professors it doesn't matter, it is all about the name calling.

I have never been a big fan of the State. One reason to support the first Amendment even when you abhor the particular speech is to preserve the First Amendment because you might need it yourself someday.

So am I right that there is a First Amendment issue? It appears that I am right after all. Cue the name calling and sore loseritis. I would respect it more if you took it like a man. (Sexist Trigger Warning!)

Jonathan Haidt is a very interesting liberal professor that wrote a book about progressive vs conservative political mindsets. He conducted an experiment where he had liberals argue the conservative argument and conservatives argue the liberal side. What he found was that conservatives could more easily articulate the genuine liberal position, while liberals could not return the favor.

Say for instance I could say Liberals like universal health care because they think everyone deserves health care and it should be a basic human right. I understand that. I just don't think life works that way. Where as liberals would be much more likely to just say that conservatives hate the poor and don't want them to have health care. Conservatives think that liberals are good people with bad policies in general, while liberals think conservatives are just bad people. That was some of the gist of it. Interesting stuff. And once you know the patterns you can pick it out quite regularly.

[Snipe]

So for those keeping score, Law Professors 5 - 0, pitching a shutout so far on the law professors.

[paulxu]

Fortunately not a law professor I guess.

But I do have a question: can a student voluntarily give up certain rights (perhaps even ones protected in the constitution) when he/she agrees to a code of conduct of an institution, in order to join said institution?

[NY44]

It's really a shame to see the First Amendment thrown around to protect drunk college students screaming a racist chant about how blacks could never be in their fraternity.

[Snipe]

First amendment protects the KKK. Has for years. This is nothing new. Maybe we should get rid of it.

[Pete Delkus]

When I was between the ages of 18-30, I swore that the actions of kids of college years should be treated as if they were adults. A decade past this age span, I realize that while college-aged kids aren’t children, many don’t have the maturity to understand what the collective does ages 30+.

The type of vitriol they sung was some of the worst you could utter. I’m not here to get into a “right’s debate. However, they were spewing exclusion and even worse, without knowing the individual, but basing it only on race. That, in my book is the definition of bigotry.

However, the only bone I would throw to these guys is that they are idiot Freshman, who were drinking and presumably have had little to no interaction with others of a different race. For people to say that they should permanently scared for the rest of their life, is an over reaction by folks bathing in white guilt. That’s your issue to deal with…

Punish these kids as you may, but give them time to grow up and realize the error of their words…as they are just WORDS.

[LadyMuskie]

Lady, men of all races (and women recently) have fought and died defending those freedoms you mentioned above. For them and for you.

What world do you live in Lady? Get out a bit. I work for and with women and men of all races. Seems you need Doc Brown to help you join the rest of us in 2015.

Right. Sure. Because you work with women and men of all races, then there is not any problem with sexism or racism in the work force. Is this like "I can't be racist because I have that black friend"? Sounds a lot like it.

Women have the rights they have today thanks to other women like Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Julia Ward Howe, Betty Freidan and others. You even admit that it's only recently that women were allowed to join the military and actually fight. Men have had that right since the birth of the nation. Why? Why were men automatically granted the right to vote? Women had to wait until the nation was over 100 years old, and then had to fight for decades to get it. Why?

I know it's easier to ignore the hard truths than face facts, but there just some of it is.

I am not oppressed, but I have been at the receiving end of sexism. I was asked more than once on job interviews - before I was married or had children even - how I would handle having a home life and working. My girlfriends have faced the same kinds of questions. I don't know one man who has been asked anything close to that. I once had a car issue and couldn't get the head mechanic at a local Toyota dealer to acknowledge the problem. So, as a test, I had one of my guy friends take the car in and say exactly what I had said, and remarkably, the head mechanic not only checked the issue, but fixed it. I had a boss at Target once tell me that as a girl I couldn't be expected to lift a box because women are weaker than men. And don't even get me started on the comments yelled across a street by strangers when going out to eat or have fun with friends. It goes on and on.

But, I willingly admit that none of that compares to the kind of discrimination I would face if my skin weren't white or if I was into women instead of men or if I was Muslim instead Christian.

If you think discrimination based on race, sex, sexual preference, religion, doesn't exist then you're naive and should really get out more. See what sadness your fellow humans are facing. As a Christian, you really should be concerned with the suffering of others - even if you think it minor.

[LadyMuskie]

And to be clear, I don't hate white men and I don't think all white men are evil or oppressive. I'm married to a white man and I'm the daughter to another white man. I'm sister-in-law to several white men and friends with white men as well. But, as a group, no one has had it better in this world than white men. No one. So, the complaining about being unfairly treated and/or oppressed is ridiculous.

[Xville]

And to be clear, I don't hate white men and I don't think all white men are evil or oppressive. I'm married to a white man and I'm the daughter to another white man. I'm sister-in-law to several white men and friends with white men as well. But, as a group, no one has had it better in this world than white men. No one. So, the complaining about being unfairly treated and/or oppressed is ridiculous.

As a white male, I don't feel that I am unfairly treated or oppressed because of my gender or skin color. Also, to share my opinion on this, what those kids did was disgusting and they were rightfully expelled. There is a lot wrong with this country if those kids are protected by the first amendment..I'm not a lawyer so I don't know whether by the law if they are protected or not, but I will say in my opinion they should not be...racism isn't right and a school should be able to expel kids for not following their rules...period.

I will say on another note though, that in some ways, we have gone way too far on the other side to try to "fix" things. I liken it to what it is now like to get a home loan. Ten years or so ago, anyone could get a loan because of some shady "mortgage companies" and because people didn't read and realize they were actually getting screwed, the housing crisis happened. Now because of that, it is very difficult for people to get a loan, and if you do get a loan, the process is a complete nightmare, and the mortgage companies have to ask for absolutely everything now. They didn't need to go that far to the other side.

[ballyhoohoo]

Same Assholes Everywhere

Beat me to it. That is what we referred to them at Indiana state as.

[NY44]

First amendment protects the KKK. Has for years. This is nothing new. Maybe we should get rid of it.

They got the same treatment any KKK member who referenced violence against a race would receive. Their right to speak has not been infringed on, they can chant that all they want, just not in a college community. It is not a right to go to college.

[xeus]

LadyMuskie, count your blessings and be glad you aren't a stray cat or dog. Those poor little guys really have it rough.

[SemajParlor]

It's really a shame to see the First Amendment thrown around to protect drunk college students screaming a racist chant about how blacks could never be in their fraternity.

Don't forget the being lynched part. Poor kids.

[X-man]

Beat me to it. That is what we referred to them at Indiana state as.

SAE at the University of Vermont, where I did my UG work, was also full of frat-jerks. Often had good parties though.

[Pete Delkus]

And to be clear, I don't hate white men and I don't think all white men are evil or oppressive. I'm married to a white man and I'm the daughter to another white man. I'm sister-in-law to several white men and friends with white men as well. But, as a group, no one has had it better in this world than white men. No one. So, the complaining about being unfairly treated and/or oppressed is ridiculous.

So here is Lady Muskie...speaking in generalizations, about a group of people in which she doesn't belong. Like saying "I have black friends", she says I have white male relatives/husband, so I can speak and judge you collectively.

Bad form

[NY44]

And to be clear, I don't hate white men and I don't think all white men are evil or oppressive. I'm married to a white man and I'm the daughter to another white man. I'm sister-in-law to several white men and friends with white men as well. But, as a group, no one has had it better in this world than white men. No one. So, the complaining about being unfairly treated and/or oppressed is ridiculous.

Louis CK:

Here's how great it is to be white: I can get in a time machine and go to any time, and it would be fucking awesome when I get there! That is exclusively a white privilege. Black people can't fuck with time machines! A black guy in a time machine's like, "Hey, anything before 1980, no thank you. I don't want to go."

But I can go to any time! The year 2. I don't even know what's happening then, but I know when I get there...

"Welcome, we have a table right here for you, sir."

"Thank you. Oh, it's lovely here in the year 2."

I can go to any time--in the past. I don't want to go to the future and find out what happens to white people because we're gonna pay hard for this shit, you got to know that. We're not going to just fall from number one to two. They're gonna hold us down and fuck us in the ass forever. And we totally deserve it. But for now, wheeeeeeee!

Now, if you're white and you don't admit that it's great, you're an asshole. It is great. And I'm a man. How many advantages could one person have? I'm a white man. You can't even hurt my feelings! What can you really call a white man that really digs deep?

"Hey, cracker."

"Uh. Ruined my day. Boy shouldn't have called me a cracker. Bringing me back to owning land and people, what a drag."

[Pete Delkus]

Cue the white quilt and the projection of self loathing on others in 5...4...3...2...

[SemajParlor]

Punish these kids as you may, but give them time to grow up and realize the error of their words…as they are just WORDS.

I was not a perfect college student in any way but uhh no, it's not just words - that's kinda why it's a big story. Saying they would rather hang black people from a tree before allowing them in their society are not just words.

[paulxu]

Cue the white quilt and the projection of self loathing on others in 5...4...3...2...

1 !

http://ak1.ostkcdn.com/images/products/8581400/Lavish-Home-Andrea-3-piece-White-Quilt-Set-eedcaeb7-def6-4a24-86bb-8a5f4b1e5d54_320.jpg

[Pete Delkus]

I was not a perfect college student in any way but uhh no, it's not just words - that's kinda why it's a big story. Saying they would rather hang black people from a tree before allowing them in their society are not just words.

Give me the hate crime murder stats of college kids taking a life of another based on race.

I think what they said was awful due to the exclusionary aspect, and of course the reference to murder. However, do we really think they were planning to lynch someone, or being drunk idiots acting in a way that they thought they were 'cool'?

They weren't planning on killing anyone, I can pretty much guarantee...so they are only words in a song.

[NY44]

Give me the hate crime murder stats of college kids taking a life of another based on race.

I think what they said was awful due to the exclusionary aspect, and of course the reference to murder. However, do we really think they were planning to lynch someone, or being drunk idiots acting in a way that they thought they were 'cool'?

They weren't planning on killing anyone, I can pretty much guarantee...so they are only words in a song.

Yes, because it has to be a matter of life and death to be taken seriously. How about you give the racial demographic of fraternities and sororities?

[Pete Delkus]

NY44 - You really think they were planning to kill someone?

[SemajParlor]

Give me the hate crime murder stats of college kids taking a life of another based on race.

I think what they said was awful due to the exclusionary aspect, and of course the reference to murder. However, do we really think they were planning to lynch someone, or being drunk idiots acting in a way that they thought they were 'cool'?

They weren't planning on killing anyone, I can pretty much guarantee...so they are only words in a song.

Wasn't implying that they meant the words literally. Of course they didn't - well at least not the lynching part. I do however believe that there is clearly a culture of bigotry and hatred that got exposed and that's why it caught national attention. Is it solely the individual kids on the video fault? No, but to say that they are just words with no substance behind seems to be minimizing it. Just my opinion.

[D-West & PO-Z]

NY44 - You really think they were planning to kill someone?

Why would you think he thinks that? He clearly just asked you why it has to be a matter of life and death for it to be serious to you.

[NY44]

NY44 - You really think they were planning to kill someone?

No, I was being sarcastic, but these are the kids in charge of letting new kids in and clearly they planned on never letting blacks in.

Seriously, can we just get rid of fraternities? They are just cesspools of harassment and hatred.

[LadyMuskie]

LadyMuskie, count your blessings and be glad you aren't a stray cat or dog. Those poor little guys really have it rough.

We've done our part here! We've rescued 4 dogs and are looking to adopt another since the first 3 have moved on to that big dog park in the sky.

[fellahmuskie]

My reading of this thread is that Snipe wins the First Amendment debate, while Lady cleans up in the "white male privilege" argument.

I know we like to believe that in America everyone enjoys a level playing field, but while the field is a lot more level here than it is in a lot of places, it's most level for white guys like me.

As to Snipe's point, I think he's right on about free speech, as unpopular as that opinion might be in this situation. Free speech is not something that you can use or discard depending on how it suits you at the moment. It's like someone who's pro-life being a warhawk or a pro-choice advocate crying about the death penalty.

[Smails]

Seriously, can we just get rid of fraternities? They are just cesspools of harassment and hatred.

Does that go for black fraternities as well?

[LadyMuskie]

So here is Lady Muskie...speaking in generalizations, about a group of people in which she doesn't belong. Like saying "I have black friends", she says I have white male relatives/husband, so I can speak and judge you collectively.

Bad form

As usual, your post make zero sense because you're too busy being indignant to actually compile a reasonable response.

It is historical FACT that white men have had it better than any other group in history. I'm sorry facts are hard to deal with and make you angry. Don't worry. White men still have most of the power and most of the money. You're still good.

[SemajParlor]

My reading of this thread is that Snipe wins the First Amendment debate, while Lady cleans up in the "white male privilege" argument.

I know we like to believe that in America everyone enjoys a level playing field, but while the field is a lot more level here than it is in a lot of places, it's most level for white guys like me.

As to Snipe's point, I think he's right on about free speech, as unpopular as that opinion might be in this situation. Free speech is not something that you can use or discard depending on how it suits you at the moment. It's like someone who's pro-life being a warhawk or a pro-choice advocate crying about the death penalty.

I think Snipe is right about first amendment argument too.

[NY44]

Does that go for black fraternities as well?

I'm sure they aren't free of hazing. So yes.

[fellahmuskie]

As usual, your post make zero sense because you're too busy being indignant to actually compile a reasonable response.

It is historical FACT that white men have had it better than any other group in history. I'm sorry facts are hard to deal with and make you angry. Don't worry. White men still have most of the power and most of the money. You're still good.

Lady is on a roll right now.

[Pete Delkus]

As usual, your post make zero sense because you're too busy being indignant to actually compile a reasonable response.

It is historical FACT that white men have had it better than any other group in history. I'm sorry facts are hard to deal with and make you angry. Don't worry. White men still have most of the power and most of the money. You're still good.

If this is a historical fact, how did white males accumulate power and money?

[D-West & PO-Z]

.

Seriously, can we just get rid of fraternities? They are just cesspools of harassment and hatred.

That isnt true for all fraternities. My fraternity did a lot of charity work for ALS. We actually won the community service award one year on our campus for fraternities, beating out the community service fraternity that solely exists for community service.

[kyxu]

That isnt true for all fraternities. My fraternity did a lot of charity work for ALS. We actually won the community service award one year on our campus for fraternities, beating out the community service fraternity that solely exists for community service.

Did your fraternity just so happen to be composed of a rag-tag bunch, including intellectuals and other social cast-offs, and led by two determined, yet conflicted leaders named Lewis and Gilbert?

[SemajParlor]

That isnt true for all fraternities. My fraternity did a lot of charity work for ALS. We actually won the community service award one year on our campus for fraternities, beating out the community service fraternity that solely exists for community service.

Number 1 Community Service Frat in the entire school- Number 2 Community Service Frat on their own campus!

[D-West & PO-Z]

Did your fraternity just so happen to be composed of a rag-tag bunch, including intellectuals and other social cast-offs, and led by two determined, yet conflicted leaders named Lewis and Gilbert?

Ha, no we were obviously pretty bad ass, given I was in it, and we liked to be men for others.

I am pretty much the whole package.

Our big charity event for ALS was a golf tourney and we had a guy who's dad worked for Anheuser Busch so we got a bunch of free booze as well. Great times.

[94GRAD]

That isnt true for all fraternities. My fraternity did a lot of charity work for ALS. We actually won the community service award one year on our campus for fraternities, beating out the community service fraternity that solely exists for community service.


Did your fraternity just so happen to be composed of a rag-tag bunch, including intellectuals and other social cast-offs, and led by two determined, yet conflicted leaders named Lewis and Gilbert?

Were you ever on double secret probation?

[kyxu]

Ha, no we were obviously pretty bad ass, given I was in it, and we liked to be men for others.

I am pretty much the whole package.

Our big charity event for ALS was a golf tourney and we had a guy who's dad worked for Anheuser Busch so we got a bunch of free booze as well. Great times.

False. We have footage of your frat mixer blowout...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XePd71I4ozk

[LadyMuskie]

If this is a historical fact, how did white males accumulate power and money?

You know what? I never thought of it, but maybe the history books are lying. Maybe women and blacks and Hispanics got together and wrote the history books, forged the letters and contracts, renamed landmarks, businesses, etc. to make it look like white men had the power and wealth when really it was women and slaves. Yup. I'm sure that's it. King Henry VIII of England? More like Queen Henrietta, amIright? All those white men who were president? Nope. Women dressing up like men. Those black men chained on boats heading for America? They volunteered for that service as a way to trick the white plantation owners, who really didn't own the plantations. For sure, this is what happened. :ok:

As an aside - you don't let a lot of people know you're an X grad, do you?

[XUFan09]

So here is Lady Muskie...speaking in generalizations, about a group of people in which she doesn't belong. Like saying "I have black friends", she says I have white male relatives/husband, so I can speak and judge you collectively.

Bad form

This critique would only make sense if Lady was then applying these generalizations to specific people simply because they were a member of that group. Generalizations are actually quite appropriate for discussing one's own experience and the history of different groups. Regardless of whether a specific poster is guilty (which, again, wasn't ever indicated and doesn't matter at all in this case), the issues she mentions are pervasive enough that it is her regular experience. And white male privilege is a recent occurence in history from which white men are still benefitting today. Not as much as, say, 1915, but the benefits are still real. They trickle out to individuals to varying degrees (e.g. Poor white men aren't exactly in the same boat as other white men), but when we're talking about societal issues, we're talking about generalizations and statistical averages.

[XU 87]

My reading of this thread is that ... Lady cleans up in the "white male privilege" argument.



Does this mean I should give up some of my land to another woman? My yard isn't that big.

[XUFan09]

Historical quibble:

White men have been the most powerful group in recent history. In all of history? Not really. No group has been the most powerful for the majority of history, and I don't think white men have achieved the plurality out of all groups.

[fellahmuskie]

Does this mean I should give up some of my land to another woman? My yard isn't that big.

I don't think Lady is asking for anything from you. She's just pointing out that, on average, white men have enjoyed more privilege from generation to generation than any other group in this country. I think the idea of "reparations" to any group is idiotic, if only because I don't believe possessions or a check for $5,000 is the key to happiness. If anything, if you're to believe Scripture, the rich are the ones that have the hardest time getting into heaven.

[XU 87]

I don't think Lady is asking for anything from you. She's just pointing out that, on average, white men have enjoyed more privilege from generation to generation than any other group in this country. I think the idea of "reparations" to any group is idiotic, if only because I don't believe possessions or a check for $5,000 is the key to happiness. If anything, if you're to believe Scripture, the rich are the ones that have the hardest time getting into heaven.

She said white males like me need "to share our wealth, prestige, job market, land etc".

So can I keep my yard or not?

What about my job? Do I need to hand some of my clients over to female attorneys? Suppose my client doesn't want to go to a new attorney, then what do I do?

[LadyMuskie]

Historical quibble:

White men have been the most powerful group in recent history. In all of history? Not really. No group has been the most powerful for the majority of history, and I don't think white men have achieved the plurality out of all groups.

Yes. In all of history, it is not true that white men had the wealth and power. Certainly, the Ancient Egyptians, despite Hollywood's portrayal, were not white. China - not white. Xerxes and his empire - also not white. Roman women were educated, which is better than what England, France and Germany did for their women. However, they could not vote and they could not hold public office. However, since Christ and the rise of the Catholic Church, white men have had the majority of the power and wealth allowing them to colonize other countries where the people weren't white, and allowing them to use the Bible and the power of the church to subjugate women. So, for the last 1900 years or so white men - as a group - have had most of the power and most of the wealth, certainly in the western world. If you want to keep it to just America - then it is easy to show that since colonization of this country, white men have had it far better than people with darker skin and women.



I don't think Lady is asking for anything from you. She's just pointing out that, on average, white men have enjoyed more privilege from generation to generation than any other group in this country. I think the idea of "reparations" to any group is idiotic, if only because I don't believe possessions or a check for $5,000 is the key to happiness. If anything, if you're to believe Scripture, the rich are the ones that have the hardest time getting into heaven.

Yes. Exactly. Reparations are ridiculous. I would not advocate for them and I don't know anyone who does advocate for them.

[GuyFawkes38]

We need a South Park episode on this.

[fellahmuskie]

She said white males like me need "to share our wealth, prestige, job market, land etc".

So can I keep my yard or not?

What about my job? Do I need to hand some of my clients over to female attorneys? Suppose my client doesn't want to go to a new attorney, then what do I do?

I went back and read that exchange again. Here's what Lady said:

"It must be so hard [for white men] to be so oppressed. Maybe we can start some sort of support group to help white men learn to share the wealth, prestige, job market, land, and so on."

I think she's saying that white men need a support group now that some of the wealth, jobs and prestige belong to women, blacks, etc. She's not saying that white men need to share the prestige, jobs and wealth they currently have.

[LadyMuskie]

She said white males like me need "to share our wealth, prestige, job market, land etc".

So can I keep my yard or not?

What about my job? Do I need to hand some of my clients over to female attorneys? Suppose my client doesn't want to go to a new attorney, then what do I do?

No one ever said you had to give up anything, and acting as though someone did makes you look silly. If you'd like to have an actual conversation about sexism and racism instead of resorting to some Fox News type outrage about stuff that's only in your head and is the only way you think you can discredit those you know to be right, I'd be happy to comply.

[XU 87]

It must be so hard to be so oppressed. Maybe we can start some sort of support group to help white men learn to share the wealth, prestige, job market, land, and so on.

Here is the actual quote.

By the way, I never said or insinuated that white males are "oppressed.". I said we live in a society of double standards.

Back to my question- what do I do about my yard and job? Do I have to share them to make things right?

P.S. I see you responded before and after my this post. Maybe you explain what you meant by helping "white men learn to share the wealth, prestige, job market, land etc".

[LadyMuskie]

I went back and read that exchange again. Here's what Lady said:

"It must be so hard [for white men] to be so oppressed. Maybe we can start some sort of support group to help white men learn to share the wealth, prestige, job market, land, and so on."

I think she's saying that white men need a support group now that some of the wealth, jobs and prestige belong to women, blacks, etc. She's not saying that white men need to share the prestige, jobs and wealth they currently have.

He knows what I said. He doesn't care. He's already worked himself up into a tither because outrage over things that aren't real is all the rage these days.

[paulxu]

I know all this is true. This reporter was there.

OK, I saw a picture of it, anyway.

[sweet16]

But, as a group, no one has had it better in this world than white men. No one.

Except, of course, for attractive white women.

[fellahmuskie]

He knows what I said. He doesn't care. He's already worked himself up into a tither because outrage over things that aren't real is all the rage these days.

You're right. Shouldn't have bothered.

[Pete Delkus]

You know what? I never thought of it, but maybe the history books are lying. Maybe women and blacks and Hispanics got together and wrote the history books, forged the letters and contracts, renamed landmarks, businesses, etc. to make it look like white men had the power and wealth when really it was women and slaves. Yup. I'm sure that's it. King Henry VIII of England? More like Queen Henrietta, amIright? All those white men who were president? Nope. Women dressing up like men. Those black men chained on boats heading for America? They volunteered for that service as a way to trick the white plantation owners, who really didn't own the plantations. For sure, this is what happened. :ok:

As an aside - you don't let a lot of people know you're an X grad, do you?

WOW!!!!!!

If nothing else, you made me appreciate the women I married, even more.

...and for that, God Bless You, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[X Factor]

WOW!!!!!!

If nothing else, you made me appreciate the women I married, even more.

...and for that, God Bless You, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Hahahaha...that's funny.

[Xville]

Sure. Except what I said is backed up by this nagging thing called historical FACT. To date, white men own most of the power and wealth in the western world, because they made the laws so that it would be so. For centuries white males were the only humans allowed to have title to property, which in some cases included their wives and slaves. 100 years ago women in this country still couldn't vote. 65 years ago women were told to leave their jobs in the factories because the men were returning home and the jobs belonged to the men simply because they were male - not because they were more qualified. This country is over 200 years old and a woman has never been president or vice president. A woman finally made it to secretary of state when Clinton was elected in the last decade of the 20th century. A woman has never been Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Is that because none were qualified or because they were systemically held back because of their sex? And, although we are finally allowed to vote and hold jobs outside the home, we still make less than our equally qualified male counterparts.
Women and minorities have had to and continue to have to fight for every sliver of the pie we get. White males have never had to fight for the right to vote or the right to work.

So, yeah. White males are not going to get any pity from anyone when they're told they're not the only ones who deserve to get paid, who deserve to hold leadership roles, etc. If you're looking for sympathy because as a white male you don't have it as good as white males used to because of all of us uppity women and black folk, you'll need a DeLorean or you can join the local SAE chapter.

Sorry but that is complete and utter nonsense. It may have been that they were fighting other white males, but that shouldn't matter. This isn't accurate at all.

I'm sorry that you are so oppressed, but those same white men that took your job when you were working in the factory 70 years ago are the same white men who kept you from a far greater oppression than the life that you have now.

I'm all for equal rights, equal pay etc but this whole white male guilt I am supposed to have because of things that happened 50 plus years ago and so on when i wasn't even alive is complete crap. We have gone from one side of ideology to the complete opposite in many cases and that isn't any better than the thousands of years that you were personally so oppressed.

[XUFan09]

Who said anything about "white male guilt"? Sounds like a strawman to get in the way of a real discussion of privilege and its historic origins.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Who said anything about "white male guilt"? Sounds like a strawman to get in the way of a real discussion of privilege and its historic origins.

Bingo

[Xville]

Who said anything about "white male guilt"? Sounds like a strawman to get in the way of a real discussion of privilege and its historic origins.

Not really. I am well aware of what happened 50, 100, 2000 or however many years ago and yes the oppressions by white men in many cases were both heinous and disgusting. However, just because white men who did all of those things while I wasn't even alive by the way doesn't mean that white men today can't be discriminated against in one form or another. If you don't think that happens, then I don't know what to tell you.

[LadyMuskie]

WOW!!!!!!

If nothing else, you made me appreciate the women I married, even more.

...and for that, God Bless You, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Hey! I never said there weren't stupid women. Congrats on finding and then marrying them.

[XUFan09]

Not really. I am well aware of what happened 50, 100, 2000 or however many years ago and yes the oppressions by white men in many cases were both heinous and disgusting. However, just because white men who did all of those things while I wasn't even alive by the way doesn't mean that white men today can't be discriminated against in one form or another. If you don't think that happens, then I don't know what to tell you.
Discrimination against white males today pales in comparison to their own privileges and to discrimination against women and minorities. It's such an overblown claim, one that mostly arises because white men get defensive at the questioning of their own privilege.

It's about perspective. Lady has it. She talked about her personal issues as a woman and the societal issues for women in general, but she also had the awareness to appreciate how she had it better off than a number of minorities.

Edit: By the way, this isn't just theoretical for me. I speak as someone who HAS experienced work discrimination as a white male. Still, my unfortunate story is nothing next to the advantages I possess (I can add upper-middle-class upbringing and education to that) and my story is far less common for a member of my group than it is for a member of various less privileged groups.

[Xville]

Discrimination against white males today pales in comparison to their own privileges and to discrimination against women and minorities. It's such an overblown claim, one that mostly arises because white men get defensive at the questioning of their own privilege.

It's about perspective. Lady has it. She talked about her personal issues as a woman and the societal issues for women in general, but she also had the awareness to appreciate how she had it better off than a number of minorities.

I'd love to know today what "privileges" I have because I am a white male...please do tell. Now I am not saying I do not have privileges, because I certainly do, but its not just because I am a white male.

[LadyMuskie]

I don't want anyone to feel guilty because they were born male with white skin. That's ridiculous. I don't feel guilty as a white person for slavery. I think slavery was abhorrent and disgusting, and I cry when I read what some of those men, women and children who were enslaved went through, but I don't hold myself or my fellow Caucasians responsible for it.

That said, we should all be capable of empathy. And we should all be able to look at what went on in this country for decades and try to make it better. No one is asking to build the future on the backs of oppressed white men. There is no future for a society that tries to build itself upon the backs of others, as we have hopefully learned by now. All that is being asked is that the playing field be level. What we want is for our starting blocks to be placed the same distance from the finish line, and for our lane to be free of the same obstacles as yours is. To get to that point, however, there are bound to be times when things that used to be will no longer be simply because they should never have been in the first place.

[Xville]

I don't want anyone to feel guilty because they were born male with white skin. That's ridiculous. I don't feel guilty as a white person for slavery. I think slavery was abhorrent and disgusting, and I cry when I read what some of those men, women and children who were enslaved went through, but I don't hold myself or my fellow Caucasians responsible for it.

That said, we should all be capable of empathy. And we should all be able to look at what went on in this country for decades and try to make it better. No one is asking to build the future on the backs of oppressed white men. There is no future for a society that tries to build itself upon the backs of others, as we have hopefully learned by now. All that is being asked is that the playing field be level. What we want is for our starting blocks to be placed the same distance from the finish line, and for our lane to be free of the same obstacles as yours is. To get to that point, however, there are bound to be times when things that used to be will no longer be simply because they should never have been in the first place.

I agree with pretty much all of this. What I don't like and what I have seen is that sometimes we have gone too far in trying to make a level playing field, that is when I have a problem with it.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I'd love to know today what "privileges" I have because I am a white male...please do tell. Now I am not saying I do not have privileges, because I certainly do, but its not just because I am a white male.

How about not having an stories about how you were discriminated upon because you were a white male? If you have one I would love to hear it. That is privilege enough for me. There arent a whole lot of women or non white males who dont have at least a couple stories of being discriminated upon in some form or fashion throughout their life.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I agree with pretty much all of this. What I don't like and what I have seen is that sometimes we have gone too far in trying to make a level playing field, that is when I have a problem with it.

Explain? What opportunities have you not had because "we have gone to far the other way" and you are a white male?

[D-West & PO-Z]

And dont get me wrong I know that white male's are pretty much the least protected class when it comes to certain issues but that is because they dont usualy need much protection from prejudice.

As someone who has had to be involved in firing a couple different employees in protected classes, you have to give a lot of chances and have a lot of documentation to fire them even when it was completely justified just because of fear of a law suit. That is frustrating and is in a way sometimes going too far the other way.

I am a white male and I have never to my knowledge been discriminated against in any way shape or form.

[XU 87]

How about not having an stories about how you were discriminated upon because you were a white male? If you have one I would love to hear it. That is privilege enough for me. There arent a whole lot of women or non white males who dont have at least a couple stories of being discriminated upon in some form or fashion throughout their life.

White males are at a disadvantage when trying to get into law schools, medical schools and most other schools due to affirmative action.

[D-West & PO-Z]

White males are at a disadvantage when trying to get into law schools, medical schools and most other schools due to affirmative action.

I have heard that but have never seen any statistics on that, I wonder if there are some out there I wouldnt mind seeing them if you have a link. (Not at all saying there arent, genuinely would like to see them)

I do know there are over 200 law schools in the US and it isnt very hard to get in given you have the grades/scores needed. So I dont think there are any qualified white males out there not getting into law school because they are a white male.

I think the same goes for the most part for med school but I am not sure how many exactly there are.

[PM Thor]

I'd love to know today what "privileges" I have because I am a white male...please do tell. Now I am not saying I do not have privileges, because I certainly do, but its not just because I am a white male.

Pay scale. Men, and white men in particular, make more than women for comparable jobs. Census and Labor Statistics say that women make about 80 cents to every dollar a man makes, and white men are the most well paid group when comparing same jobs.

[Xville]

Personally I can't knowingly say it has happened to me, however it certainly could have. Maybe it caused me to never hear back on a job application, maybe it was down to me and one other person to get into a certain school and the other person got in because they weren't a white male. There are certain policies that have been enacted by our lovely government such as affirmative action which means well but causes problems.

[LadyMuskie]

Affirmative Action is a pretty flawed system. Personally, when I was accepted to X, I wanted it to be because my grades were very, very good and I had a lot of supporting criteria to show that I was the kind of student X would want. I didn't want to be accepted simply because I was a female. That diminishes my hard work. However, there was a time when I wouldn't have been considered at all, and there are, sadly, a lot of people who would still pass over a completely worthy minority simply because they are a minority.

I'm not sure what the answer is to that. Affirmative Action is not perfect, but the system in place previously was also seriously flawed.

[bobbiemcgee]

Affirmative Action is a pretty flawed system. Personally, when I was accepted to X, I wanted it to be because my grades were very, very good and I had a lot of supporting criteria to show that I was the kind of student X would want. I didn't want to be accepted simply because I was a female. That diminishes my hard work. However, there was a time when I wouldn't have been considered at all, and there are, sadly, a lot of people who would still pass over a completely worthy minority simply because they are a minority.

I'm not sure what the answer is to that. Affirmative Action is not perfect, but the system in place previously was also seriously flawed.

Since there are more women in college now than men....will the men get a break?

[xu82]

I
Affirmative Action is a pretty flawed system. Personally, when I was accepted to X, I wanted it to be because my grades were very, very good and I had a lot of supporting criteria to show that I was the kind of student X would want. I didn't want to be accepted simply because I was a female. That diminishes my hard work. However, there was a time when I wouldn't have been considered at all, and there are, sadly, a lot of people who would still pass over a completely worthy minority simply because they are a minority.

I'm not sure what the answer is to that. Affirmative Action is not perfect, but the system in place previously was also seriously flawed.

Not perfect at all. My son was declined at his first choice college. A female friend of his with lower GPA and SATs (and similar extra activities) was accepted. We wondered why that might be and happened to meet a guy who interviews applicants for that school. When asked, he volunteered that if he had checked a certain ethnic box (for which he's qualified) he would have been accepted instantly and without question. His grand father would roll over in his grave if my son were to check that box, but because he didn't take an unfair advantage he was excluded to allow for less qualified applicants. THAT is not equality. THAT is broken! I'm certainly not against females (my mother and wife happen to be females!) or minorities (apparently my wife and kids qualify there), but I am against making decisions based on these criteria. I understand why they like to provide opportunity and promote diversity, but how they go about it is broken.

[XUFan09]

Affirmative Action is a pretty flawed system. Personally, when I was accepted to X, I wanted it to be because my grades were very, very good and I had a lot of supporting criteria to show that I was the kind of student X would want. I didn't want to be accepted simply because I was a female. That diminishes my hard work. However, there was a time when I wouldn't have been considered at all, and there are, sadly, a lot of people who would still pass over a completely worthy minority simply because they are a minority.

I'm not sure what the answer is to that. Affirmative Action is not perfect, but the system in place previously was also seriously flawed.
The main issue with affirmative action is that it's just a momentary Band-aid that addresses neither the societal issues that led to the achievement gap in the first place nor the challenges that minorities might face after acceptance. It's just a momentary (and misguided) attempt at reparation for issues far more expansive than college admissions.

That said, I think I've established myself as not being a fan of exaggeration, even for things with I disagree. It's not like women/minorities "only" are accepted due to their status. They are still qualified for acceptance and most of them make it without affirmative action, as it really only affects the borderline candidates outside of the more extreme methods (e.g. UMich's points system that was declared unconstitutional). The whole intent of affirmative action isn't to be a major boost but just a minor one to counteract the minor (yet regular) discrimination that women and minorities face.

Once again, due to the "regular" part of the issue, affirmative action still qualifies as nothing more than a Band-aid to care for a wound that isn't healing.

[OH.X.MI]

Regardless of this whole white male v. everyone debate. What the University did is a violation of the First Amendment. People can say "this isn't what the First Amendment is supposed to protect," but it is. The state should not suppress speech, however uncomfortable it is. I find it odd that may left leaning people, which I consider myself to be, were fully standing behind Charlie Hebdo a few months ago, which published equally hateful messages, but now are ready to throw away the First Amendment in this case.

What the kids did was wrong. It was disgusting. But that doesn't, as the Supreme Court has ruled again and again, override the First Amendment. I doubt the kids will file a lawsuit, they don't need more publicity, but it's still wrong for the University to expel them.

[XUFan09]

I

Not perfect at all. My son was declined at his first choice college. A female friend of his with lower GPA and SATs (and similar extra activities) was accepted. We wondered why that might be and happened to meet a guy who interviews applicants for that school. When asked, he volunteered that if he had checked a certain ethnic box (for which he's qualified) he would have been accepted instantly and without question. His grand father would roll over in his grave if my son were to check that box, but because he didn't take an unfair advantage he was excluded to allow for less qualified applicants. THAT is not equality. THAT is broken! I'm certainly not against females (my mother and wife happen to be females!) or minorities (apparently my wife and kids qualify there), but I am against making decisions based on these criteria. I understand why they like to provide opportunity and promote diversity, but how they go about it is broken.
I was more talking about the other side of the issue, namely how little this actually helps people, but this is the other side of it that I don't like.

[XUFan09]

Regardless of this whole white male v. everyone debate. What the University did is a violation of the First Amendment. People can say "this isn't what the First Amendment is supposed to protect," but it is. The state should not suppress speech, however uncomfortable it is. I find it odd that may left leaning people, which I consider myself to be, were fully standing behind Charlie Hebdo a few months ago, which published equally hateful messages, but now are ready to throw away the First Amendment in this case.

What the kids did was wrong. It was disgusting. But that doesn't, as the Supreme Court has ruled again and again, override the First Amendment. I doubt the kids will file a lawsuit, they don't need more publicity, but it's still wrong for the University to expel them.
Here enters an interesting question: How far does and how far should the First Amendment extend to students (especially after college)? Okay, that's two questions.

Potentially connected with that is the question of whether such actions create a hostile environment, which could be a violation of the code of student conduct.

[PM Thor]

Regardless of this whole white male v. everyone debate. What the University did is a violation of the First Amendment. People can say "this isn't what the First Amendment is supposed to protect," but it is. The state should not suppress speech, however uncomfortable it is. I find it odd that may left leaning people, which I consider myself to be, were fully standing behind Charlie Hebdo a few months ago, which published equally hateful messages, but now are ready to throw away the First Amendment in this case.

What the kids did was wrong. It was disgusting. But that doesn't, as the Supreme Court has ruled again and again, override the First Amendment. I doubt the kids will file a lawsuit, they don't need more publicity, but it's still wrong for the University to expel them.

No, this has nothing to do with the 1st amendment, they broke OUs code of conduct. It might be their right to say such vile things, but as students of the university they accepted the code of student ethics and as such had to adhere to it. They didn't do that, and were expelled. Basically by being a student, they accepted the code as a contract to being a student. They broke the contract.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I have no idea if it violated first amendment rights or not that OU expelled the kids, but it was really a brilliant move by them. It helps them in the PR game given the terrible publicity this puts on their school and they surely knew, even if they were violating rights, that the kids wouldnt be dumb enough to sue and draw more attention to themselves.

[xeus]

Here enters an interesting question: How far does and how far should the First Amendment extend to students (especially after college)? Okay, that's two questions.


Yes, fascinating question - one that has been addressed many times by the courts.

LMGTFY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_%28First_Amendment%29

[XU 87]

Yes, fascinating question - one that has been addressed many times by the courts.

LMGTFY: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_speech_%28First_Amendment%29

Is Wikipedia more or less persuasive authority than O.Jur.?

[OH.X.MI]

"Since the First Amendment leaves no room for the operation of a dual standard in the academic community with respect to the content of speech, and because the state University's action here cannot be justified as a nondiscriminatory application of reasonable rules governing conduct, the judgments of the courts below must be reversed" Papish v. Bd. of Curators of U. of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667, 671 (1973)

"The wide latitude accorded by the Constitution to the freedoms of expression and association is not without its costs in terms of the risk to the maintenance of civility and an ordered society. Indeed, this latitude often has resulted, on the campus and elsewhere, in the infringement of the rights of others. Though we deplore the tendency of some to abuse the very constitutional privileges they invoke, and although the infringement of rights of others certainly should not be tolerated, we reaffirm this Court's dedication to the principles of the Bill of Rights upon which our vigorous and free society is founded." Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 194 (1972)

"The University certainly has a substantial interest in maintaining an educational environment free of discrimination and racism, and in providing gender-neutral education. Yet it seems equally apparent that it has available numerous alternatives to imposing punishment on students based on the viewpoints they express.8 We agree wholeheartedly that it is the University officials' responsibility, even their obligation, to achieve the goals they have set. On the other hand, a public university has many constitutionally permissible means to protect female and minority students. We must emphasize, as have other courts, that “the manner of [its action] cannot consist of selective limitations upon speech.” IOTA XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason U., 993 F.2d 386, 393 (4th Cir. 1993)

[xeus]

Is Wikipedia more or less persuasive authority than O.Jur.?

About the same in Federal Court.

[xeus]

"Since the First Amendment leaves no room for the operation of a dual standard in the academic community with respect to the content of speech, and because the state University's action here cannot be justified as a nondiscriminatory application of reasonable rules governing conduct, the judgments of the courts below must be reversed" Papish v. Bd. of Curators of U. of Missouri, 410 U.S. 667, 671 (1973)

"The wide latitude accorded by the Constitution to the freedoms of expression and association is not without its costs in terms of the risk to the maintenance of civility and an ordered society. Indeed, this latitude often has resulted, on the campus and elsewhere, in the infringement of the rights of others. Though we deplore the tendency of some to abuse the very constitutional privileges they invoke, and although the infringement of rights of others certainly should not be tolerated, we reaffirm this Court's dedication to the principles of the Bill of Rights upon which our vigorous and free society is founded." Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 194 (1972)

"The University certainly has a substantial interest in maintaining an educational environment free of discrimination and racism, and in providing gender-neutral education. Yet it seems equally apparent that it has available numerous alternatives to imposing punishment on students based on the viewpoints they express.8 We agree wholeheartedly that it is the University officials' responsibility, even their obligation, to achieve the goals they have set. On the other hand, a public university has many constitutionally permissible means to protect female and minority students. We must emphasize, as have other courts, that “the manner of [its action] cannot consist of selective limitations upon speech.” IOTA XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason U., 993 F.2d 386, 393 (4th Cir. 1993)

What is this? Am I supposed to find three soundbites where the courts have restricted speech in schools, and post them here? Then we get into facts and stuff?

[OH.X.MI]

What is this? Am I supposed to find three soundbites where the courts have restricted speech in schools, and post them here? Then we get into facts and stuff?

Haha I guess that was not the most efficient way to make a point. And no, these are all cases where the courts held schools cannot restrict speech through a code of conduct or otherwise.

1. Papish - student handed out a "newspaper" showing a police man raping the Statue of Liberty, school expelled him. Court held it was a violation of the 1st.
2. Healy - School tried to ban the Students for a Democratic Society, a violent organization that advocated openly about overthrowing the government. Court held it was a violation of the 1st.
3. IOTA - fraternity was prohibited form holding an "ugly woman contest" and performing racist skits. Court held it was a violation of the 1st.

I don't remember everything from Con law. But the precedent seems pretty clear to me. Good luck finding case law that says otherwise.

[xeus]

Haha I guess that was not the most efficient way to make a point. And no, these are all cases where the courts held schools cannot restrict speech through a code of conduct or otherwise.

1. Papish - student handed out a "newspaper" showing a police man raping the Statue of Liberty, school expelled him. Court held it was a violation of the 1st.
2. Healy - School tried to ban the Students for a Democratic Society, a violent organization that advocated openly about overthrowing the government. Court held it was a violation of the 1st.
3. IOTA - fraternity was prohibited form holding an "ugly woman contest" and performing racist skits. Court held it was a violation of the 1st.

I don't remember everything from Con law. But the precedent seems pretty clear to me. Good luck finding case law that says otherwise.

What are you, a 1L?

[Nigel Tufnel]

What are you, a 1L?

Damn you, xeus. Please take no offense OH....but this made me chuckle. i didn't even read the back and forth...you are likely legally correct. but as a 16 year grizzled practioner, xeus' response does touch a nerve. The cynical, Supreme Court means nothing and has no affect on my practice, snort at the guy who cites the Supreme Court kind of bitter dicks we are. Damn you, xeus.

[Strange Brew]

Great article on a good movie and how it predicted the nonsense of today.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/14/pcu-20-years-later-5-ways-the-film-predicted-the-future/

[RealDeal]

Hey! I never said there weren't stupid women. Congrats on finding and then marrying them.

Just did a spit take with my coffee on this fine morning. Thank you.

[xu82]

I was more talking about the other side of the issue, namely how little this actually helps people, but this is the other side of it that I don't like.

I get the big picture, but our view is of course from where we sit. It's hard to give to one without having taken from another. My white male son was passed over because the school wanted more females and minorities, even if they were less qualified. The same son had the opportunity to interview for an internship with a person VERY high up in Coca Cola. He was told very early, "I hope you don't actually expect to get this internship because last year we had eleven openings and only one went to a caucassion male". They want their young talent to represent their global customer base. It's not like the world isn't trying to change. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it's ill-conceived and unfairly executed. In some cases the pendulum has swung to far, beyond the point of fair and "equal". Isn't that part of "equality"?

[Strange Brew]

Right. Sure. Because you work with women and men of all races, then there is not any problem with sexism or racism in the work force. Is this like "I can't be racist because I have that black friend"? Sounds a lot like it.

Women have the rights they have today thanks to other women like Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Julia Ward Howe, Betty Freidan and others. You even admit that it's only recently that women were allowed to join the military and actually fight. Men have had that right since the birth of the nation. Why? Why were men automatically granted the right to vote? Women had to wait until the nation was over 100 years old, and then had to fight for decades to get it. Why?

I know it's easier to ignore the hard truths than face facts, but there just some of it is.

I am not oppressed, but I have been at the receiving end of sexism. I was asked more than once on job interviews - before I was married or had children even - how I would handle having a home life and working. My girlfriends have faced the same kinds of questions. I don't know one man who has been asked anything close to that. I once had a car issue and couldn't get the head mechanic at a local Toyota dealer to acknowledge the problem. So, as a test, I had one of my guy friends take the car in and say exactly what I had said, and remarkably, the head mechanic not only checked the issue, but fixed it. I had a boss at Target once tell me that as a girl I couldn't be expected to lift a box because women are weaker than men. And don't even get me started on the comments yelled across a street by strangers when going out to eat or have fun with friends. It goes on and on.

But, I willingly admit that none of that compares to the kind of discrimination I would face if my skin weren't white or if I was into women instead of men or if I was Muslim instead Christian.

If you think discrimination based on race, sex, sexual preference, religion, doesn't exist then you're naive and should really get out more. See what sadness your fellow humans are facing. As a Christian, you really should be concerned with the suffering of others - even if you think it minor.


I was going to leave this comment alone but I can't.

Uh, I guess the white men in Congress and the State Houses had nothing to do with voting in the amendments spreading the rights around to woman and minorities.

I've been asked about work/life/family balance in many interviews. The companies I've worked for are very demanding and they want to ensure applicants know what to expect. So, I doubt it's sexist but of course you'd see it that way.

I'll grant you that white dudes had it pretty awesome in the West but so does everyone in the richest countries in world history. Luckily for you you're not a woman in the Middle East or Asia. Those non-white guys have it pretty sweet over woman and ethnic/religious minorities.

Also, as a Christian. Do you believe in abortion?

[bjf123]

Does discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc., exist? Of course, it does. However, I think too many people go looking for it, and claim it is present, when, in fact, it is not. If you're not a white male, it's become too easy to claim discrimination instead of acknowledging that maybe you were just wrong, unqualified, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LadyMuskie]

I was going to leave this comment alone but I can't.

Uh, I guess the white men in Congress and the State Houses had nothing to do with voting in the amendments spreading the rights around to woman and minorities.

I've been asked about work/life/family balance in many interviews. The companies I've worked for are very demanding and they want to ensure applicants know what to expect. So, I doubt it's sexist but of course you'd see it that way.

I'll grant you that white dudes had it pretty awesome in the West but so does everyone in the richest countries in world history. Luckily for you you're not a woman in the Middle East or Asia. Those non-white guys have it pretty sweet over woman and ethnic/religious minorities.

Also, as a Christian. Do you believe in abortion?

I was going to type out this long response, but I've thought better of it. Why waste more time trying to change the minds of those happily entrenched in their own little world?

[Strange Brew]

I was going to type out this long response, but I've thought better of it. Why waste more time trying to change the minds of those happily entrenched in their own little world?

I agree Lady. That's why I'm keeping this response short.

[LadyMuskie]

Does discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc., exist? Of course, it does. However, I think too many people go looking for it, and claim it is present, when, in fact, it is not. If you're not a white male, it's become too easy to claim discrimination instead of acknowledging that maybe you were just wrong, unqualified, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree. I think a lot of people claim racism or sexism when it isn't there. I'd point to the shooting of Michael Brown as the perfect example of this. I don't think Brown was shot because he was black although that is the belief of many. His being a minority didn't help to start the situation, but I think he was shot because his actions came across as life-threatening to Wilson. I didn't think it was sexist when voters chose Obama over Clinton. However, as you state, that doesn't mean sexism and racism (among other types of discrimination) aren't happening. The problem is too many cry wolf and then when it really happens, people are too desensitized to it and/or think it's another false alarm.

[LadyMuskie]

I agree Lady. That's why I'm keeping this response short.

Don't let me stop you from typing out some more of your fantasy and re-imagining of historical fact. People love fan fiction.

[Strange Brew]

Don't let me stop you from typing out some more of your fantasy and re-imagining of historical fact. People love fan fiction.

No worries Lady. Nothing I've typed is fiction. Feel free to refute anything I wrote. Go ahead, give a go.

[Snipe]

This SAE chapter may have just said farewell. There is dumb......but this goes beyond that.

Heard also that one football recruit has already walked away because of this.

http://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/17460757-video-university-of-oklahoma-sigma-alpha-epsilon-singing-racist-chant

This was a stupid thing to do for sure, but now looking back maybe this was our salad days. Some guys at SAE were caught on a bus in a private conversation, and that was the national scandal! After 11 police officers got gunned down in Dallas, I pine for the simpler days when a pimply faced Parker Rice can sing some racist song in isolation of an SAE bus. Maybe it didn't mean that much after all.

I am not an SAE. Don't care who is, I went to Xavier. I don't care about OU either. Just thought about this incident tonight in reflection of Dallas, Sanford, Ferguson and Baltimore. Now maybe you want to blame Parker Rice for that too, but that would make you look stupid.

I think we had it made just months ago when this was the actual scandal, instead of killings.

Pine for the days already. I wonder what the future may hold.