Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No, a public university may not expel students for racist speech
Washington Post ^ | March 10, 2015 | Eugene Volokh

Posted on 03/10/2015 9:20:42 AM PDT by C19fan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last
To: C19fan
All this hand-wringing over antiquated concepts such as "freedom of speech" is so overwrought. Everybody knows that singing juvenile, racist chants on a bus is the worst possible crime imaginable. We should convene Nuremburg II immediately! Let justice be done!



































[/sarc]
61 posted on 03/10/2015 10:33:05 AM PDT by Milton Miteybad (I am Jim Thompson. {Really.})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
They didn't have a lease. They had, at best, an agreement with SAE to live in the frat house for a specified rent.

That, least under the torturous California law, is established residency which requires formal eviction to force someone to leave. Don't know Oklahoma law, but suspect that every hotel in Oklahoma carries a notice that rooms may not be rented for more than 30 days in a row to prevent establishment of residency.

And it's not like they're on the street. The university has said that they can contact the Dean of Students if they need special arrangements for housing.

Then I wonder who at the university made the statement that no aid or assistance would be given to these students, as "we don't help bigots" - it was the tag line for yesterday's NBC Nightly News story.

62 posted on 03/10/2015 10:36:48 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Ouderkirk

“Such things were unheard of 20 years ago. Nobody did these things because it was considered rude. Now it’s an “up yours” sort of response.”

From my personal experience that’s just not true.
I travel a lot and am always still a bit surprised
at the things people will say even in front of strangers as long as the strangers aren’t visibly different.


63 posted on 03/10/2015 10:38:43 AM PDT by snarkybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Title 42 section 1983

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.


64 posted on 03/10/2015 10:38:53 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
The Supreme Court said otherwise in Papish v Board of Curators and Healy v James (per Volkhov at the link earlier in the thread)

We'll see. Regardless I'm not losing any sleep or shedding any tears for what happened to these guys.

65 posted on 03/10/2015 10:39:02 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: 1Old Pro

In the MSM there is.


66 posted on 03/10/2015 10:45:19 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

I’m not losing any sleep over them, particularly them anyways, either. They deserve many of the consequences that are headed their way.

What I do lose sleep over are cases where, under governmental authority, Constitutional rights are abridged. Even cases where I find the exercise of those Constitutional rights abhorant. I may disagree with what someone says, even (as in this case) find it uncivilized and repugnant, but as a general rule I’ll support the right for them to say it.


67 posted on 03/10/2015 11:01:06 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

Naggers????


68 posted on 03/10/2015 11:02:19 AM PDT by Stand W ("Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

If these kids get expelled and face financial consequences for a racist rant, I want to see La Raza and black student organizations face the same consequences for “hate crackers”.

Inverting a social structure from 60 years ago that had whites on top so that they are now on the bottom is not progress, it is not justice, it is just as wrong as before.


69 posted on 03/10/2015 11:18:49 AM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

Thats just it. The laws and standards have to be applied evenly, without regard to factors like demographics. Per the 14th Amendment.

Like I said earlier, if these racist twerps have a good lawyer that lawyer will have PIs digging through OU’s trash to find situations where other students have made similar comments. Each example they find adds to the evidence that OU violated their 1st Amendment rights. Per SCOTUS precedent, it doesn’t take much and these punks are probably looking at a nice chunk of money and court-ordered reinstatement.

Which is why I think Boren will ultimately finagle a settlement, once things have cooled off.


70 posted on 03/10/2015 11:29:48 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: snarkybob

In my experience it was generally the case where that sort of racialist thing was not spoken in public. It doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, it just seems that these days it’s more public. I had never been a party to such s large thing as what went on in this instance. There were private conversations such as this but nothing lik as was the case here


71 posted on 03/10/2015 12:06:23 PM PDT by Ouderkirk (To the left, everything must evidence that this or that strand of leftist theory is true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
On a parallel note, why does a muslim organization at UC Irvine get away with painting swastikas on Jewish fraternity houses and avoid the same national news diatribe or consequences to the perpetrators? Make them famous.

Link to article

72 posted on 03/10/2015 12:14:15 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson