Posted on 03/12/2015 8:24:47 PM PDT by QT3.14
I believe this was a fraternity function so even if not on scholl grounds it would be school related. As far as threatening, the part about lynching makes a strong case. I think that’s the part that made this so over the top.
Idiots, yes!! The sad part is this was not a one tme occurence, he wasn’t making it up as he went along. This song had been taught to him as he has now admitted.
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.
Unless it can be shown that this was routine behavior by the frat brothers in question, conducted in the presence of targeted individuals, the by OU's own standards ("Simple teasing, offhanded comments and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to abusive conduct"), the bus incident was not actionable.
That sounds kind of silly. If I delivered a rant in Swahili that would disturb the peace in English, but none of my audience understood Swahili... then what?
Some holes need filled, at the least.
Nobody today would understand the jibe about “hanging from a tree” as urging anyone to literally lynch anyone. That went out well before flappers did. On the other hand it was a particularly cruel minded quip.
The general racial oversensitivity of the modern day sadly obscures the actual miserable-minded jibes.
If one wanted to liken it to Civil War attitudes, it would be like singing a ditty talking about someone from Tennessee shooting someone from Ohio today, or vice versa, on account of the Civil War. It would fall like a lead balloon, nobody would see any point to it except gratuitous meanness.
It is not the content which disturbs the peace so it should not matter what language is used.
That is self consistent at least. Not sure how useful it is.
If threatening to hang people from trees is not serious, could you please provide an example of a threat that would be serious?
BYW-the national chapter supports OU and will not stand by or support the OU frat members in any way. In any time of trial, the national organization will be a witness for OU.
The kids in question will be lucky to land jobs as greeters at the Cracker Barrel.
Serious threat: a specific threat communicating a real intent to cause harm to a specific, identifiable individual. Was there some specific nameable person against whom the frat boy expressed a desire to harm? No? Then it's not a threat.
Singing a song which happens to mention hanging is not a threat, any more than your doing a rendition of "I Shot the Sheriff" on karaoke night at the bar would be a threat against law enforcement.
BYW-the national chapter supports OU and will not stand by or support the OU frat members in any way. In any time of trial, the national organization will be a witness for OU.
But the ACLU disagrees with the University's expulsions:
As a state-run institution of higher education, the University of Oklahoma must also respect First Amendment principles that are central to the mission of every university. Any sanction imposed on students for their speech must therefore be consistent with the First Amendment and not merely a punishment for vile and reprehensible speech; courts have consistently and rightly ruled as such. Absent information that is not at our disposal, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which a court would side with the university on this matter.It's not that they like the frat boys -- it's that they fear the precedent if it's allowed to stand.
You are correct. Their future lives appear pretty bleak.
And you think this is an appropriate level of punishment for singing a song, probably while drunk, and while they thought they were among friends who would not care.
Do you believe that Muslim college students should be allowed to hold signs that say, “Death to America,” “Death to Israel” or “Hang the Infidels from a Tree?”
Or, would you stand with the ACLU and claim that it is protected Free Speech?
“And you think this is an appropriate level of punishment for singing a song, probably while drunk, and while they thought they were among friends who would not care.”
We all make decisions that will impact our own futures.
However, OU had nothing to do with exposing the students, so therefore OU did not harm the students.
I believe the First Amendment protects objectionable speech, subject to the limitations of things like false and defamatory speech, and speech which is an clear and present incitement to criminal acts. In the latter context, "Death to Israel" is protected speech, but "Allah demands that you go out and kill Jews" is not.
OU expelled the students based upon their speech, which is a harm to the students.
What about if Muslims in a student organization event start singing a song about throwing Jews in the gas chamber?
Could a public university expel those students?
“OU expelled the students based upon their speech, which is a harm to the students.”
The news and names of these students was out before they were expelled.
A degree from OU or even Harvard would not help them as Google and YouTube are forever and every potential employer will look them up.
It would depend on whether a reasonable person would conclude that the speech was an incitement to violence, meaning that there was a significant probability that the one or more people in the audience of the speech would be thus motivated to commit an act of violence in furtherance of the speech.
Note that I say "in furtherance of the speech". If the speech motivated someone to harm Jews, then the speech would be actionable. If the speech only motivated somebody to punch the speaker, then the speech would NOT be actionable (but the assault on the speaker would). Some universities have banned speakers because of possible violent hostility towards the speaker -- I do not consider that legitimate grounds for restricting speech.
That is immaterial. They were expelled from a government-associated university, on the basis of their speech.
Additionally, yes, the incident will hamper them among employers who care about what they said, or who are in a position where the employer would get problems from employees who objected to working with them.
That does not mean that there are no employers who would hire them (either in the US or overseas), or that the climate will not change down the road.
Their names will be in the internet for 100 years.
That is their fault, not the fault of OU.
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.