Breaking: U. of Oklahoma Expels 2 Students Over Racist SAE Chant

Brazen, impulsive, unconstitutional


The University of Oklahoma has expelled two Sigma Alpha Epsilon students who were involved in the racist chanting caught on video recently.

OU President David Boren announced the expulsions on Twitter:

Embedded image permalink

Gawker obtained a copy of the expulsion letters, which state that the students have been expelled "because of your leadership in a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others."

The identities of the two students are not yet known.

This is a brazen, impulsive move from Boren. As I wrote not half an hour ago, the students' offensive speech is certainly constitutionally protected.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's Peter Bonilla told Reason that his organization still believes "this is a matter of protected speech under the First Amendment, no matter how repugnant it might be." The speed with which the students were expelled is also a potential issue, he said.

"In addition to the free speech issues we raised, the expulsion also seems to present pretty serious concerns for due process and makes us wonder if there really was any at all. We're disappointed, to say the very least."

Stay tuned.

NEXT: Talkin' Paranoia, Homeland Security, Anarchy, and More

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The “leaders” of the chant are to be blamed for other people sharing the chant over social media? Why do these idiots make us defend racists?

    1. Kill the rooster, frighten the monkey.

      1. Wut? Are you spanking the monkey’s chicken?

        1. In this world gone mad, we won’t spank the monkey – the monkey will spank us.

          1. But only in Soviet Russia.

            1. In a Soviet Russia gone mad – *you* spank the monkey.

          2. In Putin’s Russia, chicken choke *you.*

            1. In Putin Russia, Putin Kill YOU. Then Putin investigate.

              1. …and blame chicken.

          3. Beaten to death with our own dicks? Some people will surely be fine.

            1. The micropeen shall inherit the earth

          4. As a primate myself I feel threatened by this conversation.

            1. I’m sorry Archbishop.

      2. Wasn’t this from the first season of ‘Heroes’?

      3. +36 Strategies

    2. Why do these idiots make us defend racists?

      I think you know the answer to that.

      1. Oh, oh, I know! Because we’re racists?

        1. Jesse Jackson turned me into a newt racists!

          I got better.

      2. Why do these racists make us defend idiots?

        1. Thanks for proving the point.

    3. The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
      – H. L. Mencken

      1. But thanks to regulatory capture, scoundrels eventually become the ideal law enforcers.

        1. Correction-lawmakers.

    4. If you say something outrageous and controversial on video, I don’t think your blameless when it gets spread.

      1. If you’re being blamed for “triggering” an entire campus for comments made within an environment with an expectation of privacy, then yes, you are blameless for the impact said comments have had on legions of people who were not the intended audience.

        1. I don’t agree with that. I’m not supportive of the move to expel them, but there’s no sort of right to have no one besides your intended audience hear your speech, and I don’t think it’s unfair to hold you responsible for it if it gets leaked beyond that space.

          1. but there’s no sort of right to have no one besides your intended audience hear your speech

            Tell that to the RIAA/MPAA.

      2. If a woman fraternity takes nude photos of herself video of them singing an offensive chant for sharing with her significant other other members of the fraternity, she they should have the expectation that it would not be shared with the entire internet!

        1. Well anyone who sends nude pictures to other people is putting themselves at risk, so I wouldn’t say that have no responsibility for the situation, though I would mostly put the fault on the person who violated their trust. That said, I think comparing sending a nude picture to your significant other is not exactly equivalent to a racist group chant on a bus that was caught on video. Crossing words out and substituting others in doesn’t mean they’re analogous.

          1. What was your opinion on the Donald Sterling secret recording?

            1. I don’t really agree with a law banning someone from recording a conversation they’re party to without disclosing it. Regardless, I think the NBA had every right to force Sterling out since they weren’t the ones who taped it. I also think this case isn’t quite the same since they were videotaped right in front of them.

              Ultimately, I don’t think Sterling has anyone to blame besides himself for his situation. He said and did dumb racist shit and it finally caught up with him. His girlfriend doesn’t sound like a saint and from all accounts did it out of self-interest and to spite him, but I’m not gonna feel as bad for Sterling as I do for a girl who sends a nude pic to her boyfriend who proceeds to spread it around the Internet despite her wishes.

              1. So, in short, you think it’s OK for someone who says racist stuff in private to be deprived of his business if what he says is made public. Is it OK for him to be deprived of his job and education as well?

      3. 1. They did not realize they were being recorded, right?

        2. They’re being accused of creating a hostile learning environment. Maybe they’re guilty of that, but what they were doing amongst themselves in a private environment isn’t evidence of it. If the chant qualifies, wouldn’t any blame be with the party that shared it with the now frightened students? Maybe it’s fair to say that the chanters are not blameless, but they’re not responsible for scaring other students. That wasn’t their intent, nor did they have a reasonable expectation that their chant would cause such a thing.

        1. Don’t get me wrong, I think expelling them goes too far. I’m just saying that holding them blameless for the public reaction just because they didn’t intend for everyone to see it is stupid.

          1. The problem with your argument is that the spread of their speech was not mechanical. It required volitional action on the part of other moral actors.

            Had their speech spread thru an instrument that was mechanical with no intentional moving parts then you could better make your claim.

            1. And I’m saying that they have no one to blame for other peoples spreading their words (is there even evidence the original leak was malicious and not simply a dumb mistake by one of the brothers?) than themselves. And I don’t think it was somehow immoral for people to spread the video.

              1. And I don’t think it was somehow immoral for people to spread the video.

                Not even if they knew (or should have known) that it would cause the stupid frat boys’ lives to be ruined?

      4. But what are you arguing, exactly, when you’re talking about “blamelessness”? I haven’t listened to the video, I assume it’s some variation of white kids saying “nigger” a lot and feeling very naughty. No matter how shitty, outrageous, or controversial speech is, it is nevertheless protected by the 1st, no matter how many people hear it. So there’s no “blame” involved, if you see what I mean.

        1. I’m not talking about legal blame. People are free to judge them for their words, and they have no one to blame but themselves.

    5. First, I don’t see how you came to the conclusion that “The ‘leaders’ of the chant are to be blamed for other people sharing the chant over social media.” I see no blame in this article for those who exposed the racists. Even if they were members of SAE.

      Second, we are not defending racists. We defend free speech. That includes defending those who use speech that show they are bigots, homophobes, or Muslims who’d use the force of government to abolish free speech if they could.

      Next up, will the university expel Muslims who don’t believe in free speech, believe in female genital mutiliation, don’t believe in equality for women, and who believe non-Muslims shouldn’t be equal to Muslims before the government? That they won’t shows their hypocrisy.

      1. I wasn’t talking about the suspension, I’m not sure where you got that. I’ve said I think it’s probably unconstitutional.

        I’m talking about the blame for the public uproar in general. They have no one else to blame for that besides themselves.

  2. Of course the unversity did. It’s only taxpayer and student dollars that will go to pay the lawyers who will have to defend the explusion once the students file a lawsuit.

    Eugene Volokh just posted a column predicting that if the university expels, the students have a first amendment case for sure.

    1. Of course they do. And the left has totally lost its way on speech, as we’ve seen many times before. It was a point of pride once to defend Illinois Nazis, despite despising everything about them. Now if the speech is distasteful, no one wants to defend the rights of the people they don’t like. But speech battles are almost always about speech most of us don’t care for.

      Whether this is all hardcore racism or just asshole behavior (or, most likely, a mix of the two), how is it anything more than speech? The school can use this sort of thing as evidence of discrimination, but that should require other evidence of discriminatory misconduct, and that’s not what they’re doing here.

      We have 320 million people in this country, many or most of whom are assholes in one way or the other. It’s probably best that we tolerate the shit they say and stop freaking out about words. Illegal conduct is another story, though even that can be troubling, given how many things are crimes or otherwise actionable these days.

      1. Hell, we elect the thousand or so biggest assholes to office.

        1. It’s almost like it’s constitutionally required.

          1. Commerce clause?

            1. Pursuit of happiness clause.

              1. Well if you ever caught happiness, you’d likely be disappointed, so feature, not bug?

                1. That’s right. The government has to make sure we’re never happy to ensure the pursuit continues.

      2. The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
        H. L. Mencken

        Lest we forget.

      3. You know that you’ve gone chugging around the bend, when neo-fascists won’t defend Nazis.

        Embace the approved and sanctioned hate, ProL.

        1. What’s the point of the left if they don’t defend civil liberties? Really, they suck on everything now. Even areas where I agree, like toleration, they go totally fascist on.

          1. What’s the point of the left if they don’t defend civil liberties

            You watch your mouth or your chocolate ration will be given to someone else this month.

            Sadly, it’s not just the left. The default setting for the status quo any more seems to be “COMPLY.”

          2. “Left” and “right” don’t mean that much any more. We use the terms, but really it’s to describe various types of statists and totalitarians and what their particular obsessions are. That’s who we’re actually talking about on a daily basis, because those are the people who are constantly trying to control others, ban things, steal as much as possible, and just interfere maximally with the lives of others.

            1. Of course. One is totalitarian on the left side, the other on the right. As BP wisely illustrated.

            2. a good Goldwater-era Reagan quote:

              You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream ? the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order ? or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.

              1. There is free, less free, and not free. We’re much closer to the last than we once were.

                It really all comes down to whether one sees everything as under the state’s purview or whether one sees the individual as the focal point. Really, history is on the side of the former viewpoint rather than the latter. We’re the aberration, sadly.

              2. Not that Ronnie actually practiced that. Remarkably statist presidency.

          3. Wait. Did I miss something here? Are they being charged with a crime?

            1. A government body is taking something away from them based on words they spoke without due process of law.

              1. Then this is a very bad hill to die on libertarians.

                1. They said the same thing about those Nazis in Skokie, you know. And about all of the other offensive people upon whom many of our liberties were formulated and codified. It’s assholes all the way down.

                2. Thank you for your utterly fake concern.

                  1. It’s not fake. And I’m not wrong.
                    If the libertarian position is that these kids are somehow Constitutionally protected from negative consequences due to their actions then that’s both sad and pathetic. OU is not the government, and public schools have expelled kids for far less than threatening to hang black people.

                    1. If the libertarian position is that these kids are somehow Constitutionally protected from negative consequences due to their actions then that’s both sad and pathetic.

                      Well, when you find a libertarian who feels that they should not face any consequences, do let us know.

                      Run along now! I’m sure you can find one on some corner of the Internet.

                    2. Fair enough. What WOULD warrant expulsion in this case?

                    3. Well, I’m going to go out on a limb and say hanging a black student from a tree for seeking to pledge SAE ought to be an expulsion offense. (I know that Boren thinks the two offenses are pretty much equivalent.)

                    4. Legally speaking, a public university most assuredly is the government. The government doesn’t get to stop being the government because it runs schools, hospitals, whatever. Public universities are no less bound by the Constitution that any other state agency or actor.

                    5. Serious question to the Esquires: So if OU is the government, and bound by the Constitution, someone help me understand how they are legally obligated to handle this situation…not just how they ought to handle this, but what their options would be under constitutional law.

                    6. Well, they can’t act at all solely based on speech. What they could do is go through whatever due process is required to kick someone out of school, which likely requires a reason other than mere words. They might have a better case if this had been done right in the middle of a public square in campus, though even then, they’d need more than offensive words.

                      Another angle is that the fraternity is discriminating against other students, and this could serve as evidence of that.

                      The law in this area is actually pretty well settled, but, of course, governments are increasingly acting outside of legal and constitutional limits. Schools quite regularly do this sort of thing, and also get sued for doing so. It’s a real mess.

                    7. Thank you Pro L. I stand corrected. I also found this site which corroborates the Public University / Government entity link:


                      *Wishing I could delete some of my downthread derp*

                    8. Hold up. State school, right? That’ll be the kind that’s funded via tax revenue, n’est-ce pas? Sounds like a public, not a private, institution, which means it doesn’t have the right to expel students for exercising their rights to speech, no matter how shitty the speech might be.

                    9. Except (if the chant I read in an article yesterday is correct) they didn’t threaten to hang black people.

                    10. Eric|3.10.15 @ 3:47PM|#
                      …”OU is not the government”…

                      It is a government agency; hence it IS the government.
                      I argued yesterday that a university should be allowed to expel those who ‘tarnish the image’. I was wrong; it is not ‘a university’. It is a government agency.

          4. Name me one example of a perspective widely shared on the left that isn’t attenuated by preconditions, caveats, or hedging. Name me one principle held by the left that obtains to everyone of every stripe, one defining characteristic they champion, like liberty, that inheres to humans qua humans and is not negotiably revokable by the collective.

            They adulterate every good idea they trip over with self-serving political bullshit. Gay marriage isn’t simply a manner of upholding inclusivity, it must be a barbed hook with which to drag down conscientiously opposed Christians. Drug legalization doesn’t mean ending prohibition but rather bringing it under the purview of the intrusive administrative state. Speech must be protected but selectively. Cops must be held up to scrutiny for their purported racism, not because they wield violent authority. Corporatism and cronyism are major problems?when laid at the feet of the GOP.

            1. Will you accept a meta-principle like FYTW?

            2. Most leftist groups have lost any high ground on which they once stood. It seems that since they’ve (mostly) won the culture war, they couldn’t just put down their arms and go home like good soldiers.

              1. Or they could defend the high ground instead of fighting their way down?

          5. I anxiously await Bill Maher’s principled civil libertarian condemnation of this action.

            1. I’m having a tough time seeing how this is a violation of their civil rights at this point. Being expelled from school seems about right for getting caught on video for chanting that you’ll lynch a rather than let them join your frat.

              I believe firmly in the right to freely associate. This is a bit trickier since OU is a quasi governmental organization. However, if my local librarian/cop/teacher/postal carrier, etc, was caught on video singing this song, I wouldn’t have a problem with them being fired.

              I know….slippery slope and all, but not in this case.

              1. First, a public University is not “quasi” anything, it is government.

                Second, a student is not an employee. Government is entitled to terminate its employees, as an employer, for publicly racist comments. It is much more constrained in how it can punish a student for the same conduct.

                That’s not to say that OU could never expel a student on these grounds, but there must be due process and a clear 1A exception present.

              2. “You can hang him from a tree, but he can never sign with me.”

                That’s not even close to them chanting that they’ll lynch a black person.*

                *I would add some sort of mea culpa, but fuck it, any sane person should be able to understand that just because someone defends a racist asshole doesn’t mean they are racist assholes themselves.

                1. Nope. Not buying it. And all those people who spoke up in the 50s for the free speech rights of members of the CPUSA–they were all Commies too.

      4. And the left has totally lost its way on speech, as we’ve seen many times before. It was a point of pride once to defend Illinois Nazis, despite despising everything about them. Now if the speech is distasteful, no one wants to defend the rights of the people they don’t like. But speech battles are almost always about speech most of us don’t care for.

        There are about 5.7M Jews in the US (a little under half in NYC!) while there are about 38.9M African-Americans in the US.

        There are far more cities and counties dominated by African-Americans than by Jews so the left has far more to lose defending the SAE students than the Nazis?

        1. shocking as it may be, some of those Jews defended the Skokie Nazis right to speech.

      5. While this frat seems popepultaed by racist assholes, they are not even close to as racist as Traitor Obama and his evil cabinet of racist commie traitors.

    2. It’s only taxpayer and student dollars that will go to pay the lawyers who will have to defend the explusion once the students file a lawsuit.

      Most likely. Even if they name Boren individually in the lawsuit, he’ll certainly be indemnified by the U.

      If he gets tagged with a big enough personal judgment, even if its covered by the U, it will severely damage his career.

    3. Not only might they have a cause of action for getting expelled, I think they have a better case for being evicted on a half-day’s notice. There might be some exception that I don’t know about, but I don’t think a landlord can evict a residential tenant without notice like that.

      1. That’s a good point. I think most jurisdictions have to give between 24 and 72 hours notice to evict.


        What do you know, they totally violated the State’s eviction process. (I highly doubt they got a court order for Summons and Complaint in Forcible Entry and Detainer before kicking them out of their house.)

        1. You must get an eviction order in court before you can actually put someone out. I evicted a renter once. It took several weeks to even get the first court date. They did not show up so it was simply a matter of giving them a 24 hour notice after that but there was at least two weeks, and as many as four, before we got to go to court.

  3. It’s fucking astounding to me that a story of some obnoxious idiotic fratboys being racist is being treated like a, you know, actually important story. “Breaking”? Holy fuck, are you serious? We need real-time updates on this oh-so important story?

    I’m sorry, but this is such a perfect example of what is wrong with people’s focus on what goes on in the world. This is dumb, “you fucked up, morons” stuff. It’s not world-shaking, it’s not going to change anything, it’s just fucking dumb. It’s something for the frat and the university and the people involved to handle. But now it’s front page. Why? Why is this so much more fascinating and mesmerizing to people than something actually important?

    1. Epi, GOD DAMN IT!!! This is the most important fucking thing in race relations in the US since that Selma thing…whatever…50 fucking years ago! It’s THAT important!

      Fuck I don’t know what is wrong with people’s priorities!

      *surfs back to Vox.com*

      1. *surfs back to Vox.com*

        Ah, so “Real Women as Superheroes” it is.

      2. I just hope the two expelled students don’t decide to get gay married. There may not be another news story reported for the rest of time.

        1. Especially if they have a Mexican baker make them an edible cannabis cake!

          1. Especially if they have use the threat of violence to coerce a Mexican baker make them an edible cannabis cake!


            1. With foreskin ganache

    2. Come on Episiarch, some elderly fraternity house mother in Oklahoma got drunk and sang some racist rap lyrics with her drunken charges. This is a big fucking deal.

      Now that a state university has expelled students for purely private speech away from the classroom, the story is at least somewhat news worthy. If OU can get away with doing this, college students no longer have first amendment rights even in private.

      I doubt, however, they will. The taxpayers of Oklahoma will be writing these students a large check to pay for Boren’s being a jackass.

      1. The taxpayers of Oklahoma will be writing these students jackasses a large check to pay for Boren’s also being a jackass.


        1. Don’t worry Hetero, your PC street creed is fine.

          1. You seem defensive.

          2. Pointing out that racists are inherently jackasses doesn’t exactly rise to the level of PC, John.

      2. Come on Episiarch, some elderly fraternity house mother in Oklahoma got drunk and sang some racist rap lyrics with her drunken charges. This is a big fucking deal.

        No, they weren’t racist rap lyrics because they were written by a black man and black people can’t be racist.* I do find it funny though, young kids of all races these days can casually drop the term “Nigga” with reckless abandon and no one bats an eye, even and including their black friends. Yet granny singing a song with such lyrics is somehow evidence that a Birth of Nation remake is imminent.

        *I actually had a buddy in college who would continually tell me this. He was black himself.

    3. That’s right. Why look for assholes at some obscure school when we have them right here?

      1. What’s that supposed to mean?!?

        (looks in mirror)

        1. Wait, is this our universe’s Episiarch or Mirror-Image Universe Episiarch? Both are assholes, of course, but in precisely opposite ways.

          1. You can always tell by the hair, which one it is.

            One lasers down there, the other doesn’t.

            1. “Oh, that’s gonna be a problem. I laser. It’s like a turtle shell down there.”

              Which one is Evil Episiarch? And which one is Evil-er Episiarch?

              1. Both! Neither! Now you’ve gotten me all confused!

                1. The Doppelg?nger effect.

              2. I have found you to be an excellent commenter. Our threads together have been both successful and profitable. However, I shall not permit your aberrations to jeopardize my position.

                1. Is that a threat?

                  1. I do not threaten. I merely launch truth torpedoes.

                2. +1 Spock

                  (Thus making two)

              3. Trick question, as they’re both evil. Just opposite kinds of evil. You know, like that whole lawful evil/chaotic evil thingee. Except that’s not it. And I think one is tan on the left side.

                1. Technically, ProL, my complexion on that side is “olive”. Though it does get tan.

                  Besides, I’m more neutral evil. OR AM I?!?

                  1. Again, it depends which universe we’re talking about. Though the one commonality in the infinite variations upon you is the evil part. And you like Futurama in each iteration, even if it doesn’t exist in your universe.


                    2. another classic sci-fi tv show cancelled before its time.

                2. Few things are more evil than liberal democrat 10th level Vice President..

      2. Assholes, assholes everywhere
        And not a one to think

        1. “I’m surrounded by assholes!”

          1. “My God – we’ve gone plaid!”

          2. Keep firing.

        2. I know it’s tired and dated, but this is clearly another case of #nogoodguys.

        3. Assholes, assholes everywhere
          Too many drops did they drink

        4. Assholes to the left of me, jackasses to the right
          here I am
          Stuck in the middle fringes with you.

    4. It is ridiculous. Dollars to donuts, the next time you hear about an instance of police or bureaucratic misconduct (issues affecting most of the people in this country) will be on some site full of crazies like us. But, God forbid, your alma mater have some idiots make up a moronic chant (an issue which affects no one), you bet your ass you’ll see that on the front page of every major newspaper for the next couple of weeks, followed by soul-searching articles about what this says about America and castigating the US for its sins.

      Because it’s IMPORTANT and a SERIOUS ISSUE, dammit.

      1. They had to have something to get Hillary’s emails and Obama wanting to sign a deal with Iran off the front page. This entire thing is nothing but bread and circuses for the boobs.

        1. I read that as “bread and circuses and boobs”…I think that’s better.

          1. If only there were boobs involved. Why couldn’t this been a film of some half naked sorority girls doing some racist initiation right?

              1. Thank you Puddin. You are truly doing Science’s work.

              1. +1 Breasts and Circuses

            1. Rome was an awesome series. Wished it had gone on a while longer.

              Speaking of awesome series’, how does everyone like the new series of Vikings? I’m impressed with it so far and what’s not to like about Kathryn Winnick?

              Also, I think Archer got off to a slow start but last weeks episode made up for that. I can’t believe what they get away with.

              1. You know who was behind Rome? That’s right, John Milius.

                1. I did not know that. Very cool.

                2. I thought it was Romulus and Remus?

                  1. Wrong, sir, wrong! It was Aeneas.

                    1. I thought the Greeks were behind Anus….

                    2. Aeneas was Trojan, sir.

              2. I also liked Rome, but I was disappointed when they recast Octavian. SPOILER ALERT

                1. It wasn’t exactly the greatest as far as historical matters go, but it was entertaining in its own way.

                  1. HBO regretted cancelling it too. There was a ton of juicy history they skipped over to get to the Cleopatra ending. Fulvia’s (Antony’s second wife) Civil War and the Parthian War were both skipped.

                2. I had always assumed that the recasting was due to the character ageing from a boy to a man. Max Pirkis, the original Octavian, was like 16 during the production. Simon Woods, the replacement Octavian, was 26 at that time.

                  Plus, I’m not sure that cast changes count as a spoiler.

                  1. SPOILER: Julius Caesar gets stabbed by a bunch of Senators, who then go write a nasty letter to the Parthian Empire.

                    1. After much consideration, I’m convinced that Marcus Junius Brutus did the right thing. Caesar had it coming.


                    2. “Caesar had it coming.”
                      Et tu, jcr?

                  2. I had always assumed that the recasting was due to the character ageing from a boy to a man.

                    Yeah, that was the reason, but I found the first actor more interesting. But they did accelerate the time line to get to the end before cancellation date.

      2. The degree to which a lot of people seem to actively seek out pointless, fluff issues to agonize and obsess over instead of things which actually affect them or all of us amazes me. It’s so blatant that I have to wonder if there’s a major avoidance component to it. People focus on fluff issues because the real issues are hard and difficult.

        Of course it also hamstrings and undercuts any effort to focus on bigger issues, so it also works out very well for the politicians and special interests.

        1. That is exactly what it is. Focusing on this kind of fluff bullshit does two things. First, it allows people to feel good about themselves by picking some indefensible other to contrast themselves to. See how great we are Episiarch? We are not like those evil, racist Oklahoma frat boys. Second, it allows people to avoid really hard issues and see the world in simple cartoon terms. Racism is needless to say a really difficult subject for most people to face. So most people would rather face it in cartoon forms where there is a clear villain and the only thing required to be right is to condemn the villain.

          1. Well said, John.

          2. They sure as hell don’t want to have to explain how they believe in evolution but that it somehow stopped at the neck.

        2. Eh, I’m sure that’s not it. If it were, you’d surely see it happening in politics more often.

          Now let’s all go to a gay marriage rally (pro- or anti-, doesn’t matter), where I’ll be sure to ask any governors attending what they think about the theory of evolution and pontificate on what kind of message it sends to elect politicians who chose not to complete their undergraduate degree in the 80s.

        3. The degree to which a lot of people seem to actively seek out pointless, fluff issues to agonize and obsess over

          Exactly, just like Rotherham.

        4. This is just a continuation of the Michael Brown meme, which had nothing to do with cops and everything to do with the non-existent scourge of racism. If we let people believe anything other than “whites are evil oppressors”, we won’t get nearly the level of support for our SJW causes.

        5. Lets see talk about 3rd world moslems gang raping 1700+ indigenous white little girls in Rotherham UK with the cops & social workers afraid to say anything because it fits the racist stereotypes or a bus video?

          1. It’s amazing the lengths they will go to defend their narrative about humanity.

      3. Look, what’s important here is that the correct social signals are sent to the other members of the tribe. You don’t want university presidents to have to grovel for social approval, do you?

        We can’t have social anarchy, you know.

        1. The correct terminology is: this isn’t the Wild West anymore.

          1. Or Somalia, for that matter.

            1. RAAAAACISSSSTT!

    5. All well and good. On the other hand, this too will pass. It will barely be remembered by next week, and I doubt we’ll see many more posts here on Thursday or Friday, unless there is news of a lawsuit.

      Is it all that outrageous to be focused on an insignificant event for a couple days? Sure, it is mostly about signaling, but that’s part of most big stories. And it does tie into FIRE and colleges’ poor record on free speech.

    6. Why is this so much more fascinating and mesmerizing to people than something actually important?

      Well, Kim Kardashian hasn’t released a sex tape today so what the hell else do you think people are going to follow?

    7. “It’s something for the frat and the university and the people involved to handle.”

      I agree.

      Also – Happy Birthday Epi: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7why8Xo_RQ

      I hope that cheers you up.

      1. Wrong video.

        Why has no one posted that yet?

      2. You mean I’m gonna STAY this color?!?

    8. It is important. Stupid frat chants are equivalent to Mohammed cartoons.

      It’s important that we notice just how much Americans hate their freedoms and want them taken away.

      1. This.

        There is no right to not be offended.
        There is an absolute and fundamental right to offend.

        1. Sticks and fucking stones! Words CAN. NOT. HURT. ME.

          It simply amazes me that people do not teach their children these simple and true rhymes.

    9. This is dumb, “you fucked up, morons” stuff. It’s not world-shaking, it’s not going to change anything, it’s just fucking dumb.

      But if I, as a major media outlet, can convince you of this story’s importance, I can guarantee an almost endless supply of news stories to fill the 24 hour news cycle.

      People are stupid.

    10. Its not like 2 weeks after the Ferguson liquor store robber was killed a black moslem serial killer, Mohammad Ali Brown, of gays in 3 states was caught or a moslem set fire to a packed Seattle gay bar but didn’t make national news, oh wait they didn’t get covered. What about the 3 male neighbors of the Boston Marathon brothers that got beheaded a year before they became famous?

      The same reason Rolling Stone had to go with a fake gang rape by whites hoax when there where 3 non-Asian minority on white campus gang rape cases going on at the time. Only stories that fit the narrative will be told.

      1. Fuck off Merkin

        1. If these are true (I haven’t looked into the other campus rape cases nor the beheadings of the Boston bomber neighbors nor a gay bar being bombed by a Muslim in SEA), then simply telling a man to fuck off for pointing out inconvenient items that not only don’t fit the narrative but outright refute its validity is pretty stupid. Like knee-jerk SJW stupid. You’re better than that my good man.

          1. Well according to my googlefu, the gay bar thing actually did happen.

        2. Glad I’m not alone in suspecting that. This story would be the perfect bait for American to swing by again.

          1. Oh, it’s him. You could tell from the very first post.

    11. Yeah, this.

      When I was in the Marines I went to Okinawa and in the barracks, you got whatever room was open when reported in. At one point, one half of the barracks was all black (with one exception) and the other was all white. Everyone got along great and we started making jokes about the “ghetto” and “uptown” and taunting each other.

      At one point we had a party where all the white guys brought malt liquor and the black guys brought wine coolers. During the party someone took a picture of the one white guy who lived in the ghetto surrounded by all the black guys with a noose around his neck.

      The white guy thought it was great and tacked the picture up on his mirror. The next time we had an inspection the officer threw a shit fit when he saw it. It took about an hour of investigation from our CO and XO to determine that we didn’t have a racial disaster going on. They held a formation, called us all a bunch of dumb shit heads and made us field day the barracks on a weekend. End of story.

      Today, you know that no one would have dared to have let that pass on the off chance that some reporter would see that pic and all hell would break loose.

      1. I was never in the military, but I’ve been led to believe that race hasn’t been much of an issue there since Truman stepped up and overturned FDR’s vicious, racist segregation policy.


        1. Is this sarcasm or are you genuinely unaware of occurrences such as the 1972 race riot on the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk?

    12. “Why is this so much more fascinating and mesmerizing to people than something actually important?”

      because it provides assholes the opportunity to announce how outraged and offended they are, and then declare all those who appear unconcerned to be Racists?

    13. If the progressives were all face down in landfills, it wouldn’t be a story. We need to focus on that.

  4. So, the University made the call to expel the students to gain favor with the SJW crowd, or to placate them knowing full well they will be writing a check to the stupid frat bros when they bring a lawsuit. I hate everyone involved.

    1. Honestly, the University made the call to expel the students to save their football program.


      No one in Oklahoma gives a shit what the SJWs think. The football program however is a bigger deal. The media blowing this thing up is going to kill their recuirting if they are not lucky. Every competing school will paint Norman as a racist hell hole and every hoodie wearing, Trayvon Martin saluting black recruit will say thanks but no thanks.

      1. In that case it may be a good investment.

      2. Rolling over and letting Clemson wipe the floor with them in the Russel Athletic Bowl should have killed their recruiting.

        1. Big Game Bob.

          1. You left out an o.

        2. Especially since Clemsons D cant stop the option, something OU used to excel at.

      3. That’s a great point, John, and the checks they will have to right can easily be paid for out of the cash the football program generates.

      4. Yeah, I just recently made my escape from that area, back to the Mile High City (now with 75% more cannabis!) OK has no NFL team, so college ball rules there. The entire state is divided between OU and OSU. It’s kinda weird. OT: Norman was hit by a large tornado just days before the largest recorded tornado ever hit where I was living (El Reno).
        I’m kinda surprised by the racism; I didn’t notice much of it when I was there. Of course, being a middle-aged white guy, I wasn’t an obvious target for the N-word.
        Ah, Oklahoma, how I don’t miss a single god-damned thing about you: not the pretty girls who aren’t pretty once they smile, nor the mud, nor the lack of reasonable liquor laws, nor the roadways filled with people who have no fucking clue how to safely operate a motor vehicle.

    2. Or the University is pretty sure the courts will carve out another safety exemption to the Bill Of Rights.

  5. Time out: The only reason this created a hostile environment was because it was broadcast BY PEOPLE OTHER THAN THOSE MAKING THE CHANT.

    He’s therefore arguing that these people are being expelled because the racist chant was broadcast outside of the bus by a third party. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that reasoning won’t hold up to a First Amendment challenge in the near future.

    1. Huh. How is it threatening behavior, as the president suggests? That only works if there were people who heard the nonsense who might be threatened by it. Not to mention that mere words don’t work–some sort of imminent lawless action is required.

      I’m not sure how this would work under discrimination law, but you’d think they need to apply some due process to go there, which would have to include connecting the dots from this to actual hostile environment/discrimination.

      1. In fairness, Boren is a former Democratic Senator. So that whole Constitution thing is not one of his better subjects.

        IT is complete horseshit. A threat has to be public and the person being threatened has to hear the threat. Moreover, it has to be such that a reasonable person would conclude they meant it.

        1. Moreover the song was never a threat.

          The lyrics were “you can hang em from a tree”, if anything it’s a tacit allowal of someone else’s agency to act in a criminal manner, not a petition for such.

      2. That’s what I remember about from law school, but that was a long time ago. Anyway, I think Bo feels threatened.

        1. The first case in Torts class is the one from the middle ages where the guy leaves an axe stuck in his enemy’s door. The court rules it wasn’t a threat because it wasn’t immediate.

          1. Unfortunately, I learned the hard way that modern American courts don’t accept medieval precedent when Judge Schneider threw me in prison even though I was just trying to see if the witch would float.

            1. +the weight of 1 duck

      3. His argument is that it’s threatening behavior because the chant was eventually broadcast in a way that non-white students could hear, but it was broadcast by people other than those doing the chant.

        So something can now apparently be considered a threat if it’s broadcast by a third party and was never intended to reach anyone who could conceivably be threatened. Brilliant.

        1. TRIGGER WARNING!!1111!!!!!!11!1!!

        2. By that logic, if you bug my phone without my consent and tap me saying “Episiarch and his kind are trans human assholes”, I am responsible for the resulting public disorder as him and the rest of his species get offended.

          yeah, that makes sense. We are now to consider all of our statements, no matter how private, to be public on the off chance someone is recording it and later will make it public without our consent.

          1. Isn’t that Hilary’s defense?

          2. I heard that John! My species and I will see you in court, you bigoted asshole! I hope you have a terrible lawyer!

            1. God Damn it, that was supposed to be private!!

              1. That’s what this blog needs. Cones of silence. That would be so awesome. Not only cones that would allow private conversations, but something that indicates that the speakers are in the cones. There are commenters here who couldn’t stand that.

            2. Up yours Epi. Up wherever your species traditionally crams things.

              1. Ha! Shows what you know. He has no orifices.

                1. Yes, I use your mom’s instead. But you already knew that.

            3. I never knew you were trans Epi.

              You planning on switching sides in the deep dish/thin crust battle soon too?

          3. I would love to be called a transhuman asshole in earnest. *sigh*

          4. In that case you are insulting assholes.

        3. And as others have pointed out, it’s not temporally connected to a real threat of violence so “incitement” and “fighting words” doesn’t even apply. This was just a wave to the SJW masses and PR damage control.

      4. The threatening part of the behavior is that people might wonder how kids this stupid graduated high school let alone got admitted to OU. It looks pretty bad for OU that their standards are so low – but standards for the educational system as a whole are abyssal.

        1. OU diploma’s are not recognized in Oklahoma and surrounding states as valid handicapped parking placards for nothing.

        2. No asshole left behind.

        3. Isn’t the ‘threatening environment’ in this case committed by the individual that released the tape?

  6. The prayer circles worked?

    1. I swear to God, I LOL’d

  7. “This is a big fucking deal…..”

    /Joe Biden

    1. Embassy staff killed, possibly preventable…. What difference, at this point, does it make?

      Some 19 year old frat boys do a stupid, racist chant on a private bus in the middle of Nowhere, Oklahoma….. Everybody investigate! We need a national conversation! Someone must pay!

  8. Devil’s Advocate: Did those students sign any documents, as a condition of being accepted as students at the school, specifically prohibiting such behavior? If so, would the First Amendment apply and void those documents?

    1. Even if they did, the documents wouldn’t be legal. The state can’t make your receiving a state benefit contingent on waiving your rights. Otherwise, the university could make them sign away their 4th Amendment rights or right to a jury trial as a condition of admission. Or they could make everyone sign away such as a condition of receiving social security.

      What screws the University here is that this conduct was done away from class at a private party and was publicized without the students’ consent. So, the university can’t claim any interests in preserving the good order and discipline of the campus as justification for doing this. IF these clowns had done this as a public stunt, the University would probably be on much more solid ground, since that kind of thing tends to cause riots and be disruptive to the operation of the university. No way, however, does that interest extend to purely private speech.

      1. “Oh, you want this driver’s license, hmmm? Well, you just put pen to paper right here. What’s that? Oh, ’tis nothing. Merely a waiver of your 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights in the likely event we pull you over for, you know, fuck all.”

      2. Even if they did, the documents wouldn’t be legal. The state can’t make your receiving a state benefit contingent on waiving your rights.

        Thanks. That’s the point I had been missing.

    2. speech isn’t conduct. They’re not being punished for being bad singers. They’re being punished for the content of their speech. That violates the First Amendment. End of story.

  9. The punishment does not fit the crime. Getting expelled can seriously damage your future prospects. Getting plastered and chanting racial slurs shouldn’t mean your life gets ruined.

    1. Getting expelled from Oklahoma might actually be helpful to your future prospects.

    2. a video on the internet will do far more damage than an expulsion.

  10. So, when these students get paid handsomely after their lawsuit, will the SJW’s realize that they have in effect offered an incentive for assholes to act like assholes? I’m guessing no.

    1. If progs understood incentive, they wouldn’t be progs.

      1. Comment of the Year contender

    2. Doesn’t matter, Hetero. It will reinforce their world view that “the system” is utterly racist. They’ll be rolling around in piles of psychic dollars.

    3. Hmmmmm……….Back to college for me! Or maybe I canget kicked out of a college per year to rack up those settlement checks! I’m pretty sure I can come up with some far more drunken offensive shit than these douchebags.

  11. University of Oklahoma has expelled two Alpha Sigma Epsilon students

    ASE? So students from some other racist frat?


    Also, I’m not sure about the constitutional questions in this case. I realize that U/O is a ‘state’ school, but this is a totally voluntary relationship between school and student. The school should be able to end that relationship based on a simple code of conduct. If the school doesn’t properly have or follow their own set of conduct rules, then the students have recourse to settle this in civil liability lanes.

    I feel the same way about sexual misconduct. My real problem in this area is that the federal government is mandating that schools hold kangaroo courts under the auspices of Title IX, in order to bypass the actual legal system. Schools should be able to kick out anyone they want for posted policies, like “no drinking and fucking”.

    1. Agree. Seems like a nebulous extension of “due process”. No crime. No fine. Just a school ending it’s association with some stupid kids.

      1. Going to a state school is a state provided benefit. You can’t take away a state benefit without some measure of due process.

        1. Probably technically true, but all I get out of this is that state benefits getting in the way of voluntary association. It’s a better argument against state benefits than for the extension of the 1st Amendment into voluntary association.

          1. I don’t. the taxpayers of Oklahoma built that school. They should be able to attend it and the school shouldn’t be able to arbitrarily expel anyone it doesn’t like. The government doesn’t have a right to free association or the power to discriminate against people for arbitrary or illegal reasons.

            Think about it. Without this rule, a University President could unilaterally expel every student from the wrong political party or because he didn’t like their family.

            1. Right. Which is why I said technically true. I’m saying that without state schools this would be a simple matter of voluntary association. The root problem is the state, not how far the 1st Amendment should bend voluntary association.

              Arbitrarily might be a stretch also. Pretty sure at every school I’ve gone to I’ve had to sign a “code of conduct”. There’s probably 3 or 4 things in there the school could use as cause for expulsion in this case.

              1. It still might matter as a contractual issue. Every school has a student code of conduct and handbook. Courts generally read those as contracts and do not allow schools to violate their terms. Unless a school just stated “you have no rights and we can throw you out for any reason, including just because we feel like it”, the student is going to be entitled to some level of due process.

              2. Quick review finds:

                Free Speech and Academic Freedom
                Members of the University community enjoy significant free speech protections
                guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This
                policy is intended to protect members of the University community from
                discrimination and is not designed to regulate protected speech. No provision of
                this policy shall be interpreted to prohibit conduct that is legitimately related to
                course content, teaching methods, scholarship, or public commentary of an
                individual faculty member or the educational, political, artistic or literary
                expression of students in classrooms and public forums. However, freedom of
                speech and academic freedom are not limitless and do not protect speech or
                expressive conduct that violates federal or state anti-discrimination laws.

                1. And their grievance policy suggests that they did not follow their own procedures in expelling the students.

                  1. Oops, here’s the catch-all

                    With respect to students, the University Vice President for Student Affairs
                    and Dean of Students or other appropriate persons in authority may take
                    immediate administrative or disciplinary action deemed necessary for the
                    welfare or safety of the University community.

                    1. 1/4 cup “welfare,” 1/4 cup “safety,” bake 25 minutes = unilateral state action.

                    2. appropriate persons in authority may take immediate administrative or disciplinary action deemed necessary

                      Why would *anyone* consent to this? It’s almost as bad as most TOS.

                    3. TOS was pretty bad and obviously TNG was superior.

                    4. Interesting. Ok……..DS9, or Voyager?

                    5. Which should be facially invalid, since “immediate” means FUCK YOU, DUE PROCESS. That’s traditionally frowned upon in our system.

                    6. Scruffy Nerfherder|3.10.15 @ 2:19PM|#
                      ‘Oops, here’s the catch-22’

                  2. Nerfherder,

                    They are totally fucked in the resulting law suit. And those things pay attorney’s fees too. Lawyers are lining up to get this case I am sure.

                    1. Yep, that’s the clause I imagined Nerf. Either way, it’s going to be a shitstorm as you say John.

                      Ironically, this turns those who are typically against freedom of association (bake me a wedding cake or go to jail people) into staunch supporters of it.

          2. This assumes that governmental entities have free associated rights, which they don’t.

            1. *association

    2. The first amendment doesn’t cover drinking and fucking. It does, however, cover speech, even repugnant racist speech.

      1. The first is there to prevent the government from curtailing speech, and looking at the school as a purely state entity makes them 100% wrong. However, my contention is that voluntary student/school relationship makes this more like an employer/employee relationship.

        Ideal libertarian answer is that O/U should be completely divorced from the state and live or die on their own capabilities, which make any constitutional questions in this case moot. It would come down solely based on the contract between student and school.

      2. Also, drinking and fucking are protected by the 2nd amendment. At least at my house.

        Something to do with a ‘well regulated militia’.

    3. Also, I’m not sure about the constitutional questions in this case. I realize that U/O is a ‘state’ school, but this is a totally voluntary relationship between school and student. The school should be able to end that relationship based on a simple code of conduct.

      So UCI should be free to expell the students that voted to discontinue flying the American flag?

      1. If it falls within the contract laid out between the school and student, then yes?

  12. Want to know how stupid this situation is becoming?

    The Daily Kos published an article about how the entire SAE nationally must be totes racist because a black pledge died in a hazing ritual at a completely different college in another state. There is no evidence this was racially motivated, of course, and in all likelihood was just a tragic accident, but this must mean all SAE members are racists.

    Then the New York Times tweeted an article from 1984 where an SAE branch in Cincinnati got suspended for a racist party.

    Got that? SAE must be an unremittingly racist fraternity on a national level because of 3 incidents over 30 years, one of which wasn’t even race related.

    Stop this country, I want to get off.

    1. Dude, it’s basically the Racism Reality Show. Some people have become so abjectly obsessed with racism as a complete proxy for being a good person that it consumes them. Decrying racism and proving it for the world to see is how you are a “good person”. And that’s all that’s necessary.

      It’s social signaling at FULL RETARD. You never go FULL RETARD.

    2. My fave is that they point out that SAE was founded by a bunch of ex-Confederates, so it must still be racist.

      A frat accused of racism over a chant about how they will never have a black member, is proven to be racist because a black member died? Really?

      1. Yes. I saw that article and laughed my ass off. He died during a fucking HAZING STUNT. I’m sure all the pledges had to undergo this stunt, it was probably ill-advised and stupid, and he just happened to be the unlucky guy who paid the price.

        He was black though and a different chapter of the frat did something racist, so this must be race related.

        1. Anytime anything bad happens to a black person it’s because of racism. Duh, everyone know that.

        2. In fairness, if the hazing ritual was “How to Escape when Dangling in a Noose” I do see how it could be argued that it was discriminatory impact.

    3. Stop this country, I want to get off.

      You probably never said that before Obama, now that a black man is president you want to get off? RACIST!!!!!11!!!1111!!!!

    4. Some dumb shit is always going to say something dumb. And in the age of the 24 hour news cycle and opinion bloggers/journalists posing as reporters, we continue to see this more.

      The problem is that we focus on the trainwrecks and not the majority of trains that arrive at the station without issue.

      Just because some dipshit says something I will not implicate the entire side of that that person’s political aisle as complicit. Libertarians and Conservatives especially should be sensitive to this type of fallacy.

    5. I doubt every chapter is like that (in fact, I know a guy who isn’t white and goes to a state school here in Cali and is in an SAE chapter that is pretty diverse) but SAE has that reputation at many schools around the country. Their chapter at USC (which recently got kicked off for sexual assault allegations) was widely known for being the most racist frat at the school and rarely, if ever, letting non-white guys into their fraternity. Apparently, the Oklahoma chant was also sung by brothers at Texas (according to a Reddit post about a month before this video came out) and possibly many Southern chapters (was claimed in another comment – not as much proof, but if UT and OU both knew it, I doubt they’re the only ones) and I know people from other states who said that the SAE chapters where they’re from have a similar reputation.

      Again, I don’t want to tar every SAE chapter and certainly not SAE brother with that label, but this isn’t an isolated incident by any means.

      1. The more pressing issue is why you aren’t involved in the semi-random socal reason meetups.

        1. I don’t have a car at the moment so transportation is a bitch. I should be getting one in the next few months, and I’d be glad to go to a meetup once I do.

          1. Ya, those carbon-emitting assholes never seem to care enough about mother Gaea to hold these events in a central location of L.A. easily accessed via the subway system, i.e. my part of town.

    6. Just exterminate the progs. Problem solved.

  13. So do these kids get “due process” because this is a state school? If this were a private school, this would be a non-issue correct? Either way, I’m sure there’s some little gem in the student handbook or whatever that says the school can expel for less than this.

    1. They should get due process in both. Federal law requires private schools to give students due process as a condition of accepting federal aide.

      1. “They should get due process in both. Federal law requires private schools to give students due process as a condition of accepting federal aide.”

        But I thought the government couldn’t take away your rights as a condition of a federal benefit. How then can they justify disallowing a private college’s freedom of association in exchange for federal aide?

        1. That is an interesting way to look at it. It is however not how the courts see it. The reality is that your right to association and right to do business with who you choose and kick people out of your school and such is not treated with the same sanctity as other rights are. Therefore, the government can place strings on them in ways it can’t when it comes to other rights. Indeed, in light of the CRA, it is pretty clear that your right to free association doesn’t extend to public accommodations at all.

        2. Irish, it’s awfully cute how you think the federal government considers freedom of association a right of the people.

          1. Fuck the government. Whether they recognize my rights or not, I still have them.

            1. (nodding vigorously in agreement)

              (now listening for stormtroopers coming up the stairs)

              1. Well, they certainly have the ability to kill me or imprison me. They just don’t have the right to do so.

                1. You need a better arsenal.

                  1. I’ve got the entire asteroid belt and Kuiper belt at my disposal. Though maybe you’re right, I should get the Oort cloud, too. Auric! Get on that.

        3. So Hillsdale would be the only school in the country that could outright expell them just because.

          Oh the irony.

      2. Really? Probably true. Federal money always has them strings attached. Seems like bullshit though. The state connection makes this less clear I suppose.

        1. How do you think they are stomping all over schools over how they handle rape?

  14. If you look carefully at the video, the guy who was in the close up, the ugly one, is looking at a career as an assistant night manager at Denny’s. At best. If he was one of the ones suspended, he just won the fucking lottery.

  15. I predict eleventy billion comments over this. Begin!

  16. Popehat lays down some history regarding Boren:

    Popehat @Popehat ? 50m 50 minutes ago
    That would have been considered perfectly acceptable when David Boren was in Congress. 2/2

    Popehat @Popehat ? 51m 51 minutes ago
    And so we come full circle. In Congress, David Boren attacked O.U. for allowing socialists to speak. Today he expels students for speech 1/2

    Popehat @Popehat ? 56m 56 minutes ago
    Worth noting that in Congress David Boren was on special committee investigating O.U. for allowing a socialist (gasp!) to speak on campus.

  17. Does anyone know what they did? I realize they perhaps chanted something racist. What was it exactly?

    I’m asking because I’ve heard comments being made about racial subjects being called racist, when in fact they weren’t.

    “90% of Ferguson cops stops were black people.” “Well, Ferguson is 70% black.” “Yeah, but then they should be 70%, not 90%.” “Not necessarily, since more than 90% of crime in Ferguson was by black people, it could make sense 90% of the stops were of black people”. “You’re a racist.”

    1. Of course, if you only arrest black people, then your conviction rate is going to be 100% black people.

      Regardless of how many crimes white people committed.

  18. Thank heavens the social justice warriors and their allies have found another issue this week. They can’t depend on the latest police shooting of a violent (but unarmed) black male teen to pan out the way they hope. Turns out he’s a convicted armed robber who was assaulting people just before he was shot. Oops. Never mind.

    But don’t let’s that distract us from The Most Pressing Issue of Our Time: Racism. Perhaps the most Evil of all Isms, it must be stamped out everywhere. We must all be on the alert, because it can hide anywhere, but of course it mainly manifests itself among white males, especially in white male fraternities. And we all know the incredibly malignant social influence of white male fraternity members, and their participation in the vicious cycle of poverty, crime, and unsustainable entitlement spending. Once we have stamped out every bit of racism in every heart and mind, we will have achieved social justice.

    Well, at least in part. There are other Evil Isms to be stamped out, and we’re inventing more all the time! Do you think a bearded guy in a dress is creepy, and don’t want him in the restroom with your kid? You are guilty of transphobia, and will be dealt with shortly. Social justice marches on!

    1. They never seem to do anything except harm and destroy people they see as this week’s enemies. It is all they know. They seem to have lost the ability to even try and convince someone of their position or change minds. Everything is always about destroying some designated other.

    2. I bet one of the SAE guys is a member of the College Republicans.

      1. I am sure Gawker and Vox have teams of douche bags scouring the campus trying to find out as we speak.

      2. Lena Dunham’s rapist was in SAE. Probably. Let’s just stipulate it, anyway.

        1. And the rapists at UVA were SAEs, right?

          1. Heck, why not?

            1. Was Bush in a fraternity?

              1. Skull and Bones right, SAB? Close enough for MSM work

                1. That’s not a fraternity, it’s a secret society devoted to the destruction of the American republic and a return to the British Empire. Or maybe I made that up.

                  He was a Deke. As was his father before him.

    3. Do you think a bearded guy in a dress is creepy, and don’t want him in the restroom with your kid?

      [cite needed]

      There are arguments to be made against trannies using the ladies’ room but making shit up isn’t one of them.

      1. I live in San Francisco. Bearded guys in dresses aren’t uncommon in certain neighborhoods.

        1. “I live in San Francisco. Bearded guys in dresses aren’t uncommon in certain neighborhoods.”
          I’m happy when they wear SOMETHING!

  19. “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

    No you fucking wouldn’t.

  20. WARNING: gawker link ahead highlighting the left’s misunderstanding of the 1A:

    Asher Langton
    @adamsteinbaugh Made mistake of reading Gawker comments: “1A only applies to FedGov!”, “There’s a Code of Conduct!”, “Can’t say fire in…!”

    Asher Langton ?@AsherLangton 6m6 minutes ago
    @adamsteinbaugh This thread in particular:
    http://gawker.com/cue-the-1st-…..1690548176 ?
    And I forgot: “But 1A doesn’t protect you from consequences…!”

    1. But 1A doesn’t protect you from consequences…!”

      So I guess that means the state could throw them in jail consistent with the 1st Amendment. It doesn’t protect you from consequences you know.

      It is unfair to the retarded to call these people retarded. They are the are their own special level of stupid.

    2. Of course they don’t understand. They don’t understand a fucking thing except what they can see through their special, government-issued glasses. If it doesn’t exist in their political spectrum, it doesn’t exist at all.

    3. In the world of SJWs, we’re always in a crowded theater, and anything they can consider “hate speech” is “crying ‘FIRE!'”

      1. GAH! I hate that case. It was about govt censorship of anti-war leaflets. There was no fire, no theatre. GODDAMNIT!!!!

    4. 1A doesn’t protect you from consequences

      So you have the right to say anything you want, but the government can punish you if you say something they don’t like… I don’t even… WTF!? There’s no word in the english language to describe how stupid this fucktard is.

    5. “1A only applies to FedGov!”,

      I’m sure they’ll be happy when the USSC overturns a century and a half of precedent on incorporation…

      1. Whether you count the incorporation doctrine as having been proclaimed in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897), or in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), you still pretty far away from a century and a half.

  21. My guess is that they figure the students won’t want to sue because it would cause them to be identified. Better to be expelled but anonymous, I guess.

    (which work right until the point the students cite the death threats sent to the fraternity as justification to file the lawsuit anonymously)

    1. Guaranteed they’ve already received multiple.

      And yet none of the people sending said threats quite understand how these frat bruhs could view that is vindication of the underlying chant they’re being tarred and feathered for.

  22. This is the kind of thread that would make Postrel shake her head…

    A few points:

    1. Expelling the students, especially this quickly, does cross a Rubicon here IMO.

    2. The ‘nothing to see here, why so much focus’ by the Offended White Guys brigade here is both disengenous and unsupportable. Many of the same saying this will spend dozens of posts analyzing what some stray commenter on a liberal website posted and didn’t have the same response when PC shenanigans by left leaning knuckleheads are reported here. You wouldn’t know it from most posters here, but we’ve spent a good chunk of our history trying to overcome the ugly reality and consequences of anti black racism. That such sentiments could be captured today, not among some backwoods Deliverance types, but among college students is worth reporting on.

    1. That such sentiments could be captured today, not among some backwoods Deliverance types, but among college students is worth reporting on.

      I love it when your elitist slip shows below your skirt. It’s so titillating.

      1. *plucks banjo*

      2. I’m sure backwoods men everywhere appreciate you going to bat for them Restoras. Now if you could do the same for blacks…

        1. Oh, but I have. On multiple occasions. On these boards.

          But, you knew that already. Nice try.

          1. Everyone on here has. Reason has a “police totally fuck or kill a black man” post, what? Five times a week?

            And other than Tulpa and Dunphy, I have never heard anyone on here stand up for the cops.

            1. Exactly right, but since that doesn’t fit Bo’s narrative he ignores it. He doesn’t wish to apply rights to everyone equally but only in a way that reflects past wrongs and grievances. He is nothing more than your typical progtard SJW masquerading as a libertarian. Everything for Bo is all about feelings and emotions, not about facts and logic.

              John Titor did nail it. Bo is just using these comment boards to solidify his opinion of libertarians to burnish his street cred with the SJW crowd.

            2. Yes, those threads where people denounce the cops and of course the ‘race hucksters’ for making it about race. That really supports you John. Now tell me how you have a black friend…

              1. No, those threads contain all sorts of language about how racist the drug war is and how racist cops are. Have another post of mine on the Garner case

                John|12.5.14 @ 3:43PM|#

                I agree with you. And even where there isn’t racism, cops tend to pick on poor people more than black people and that because blacks are poorer disproportionately affects blacks.

                Here is what I think both sides don’t get. Middle and upper class white people live in denial of how lousy it is for black people dealing with police in this country. Blacks live in denial of how lousy it is for poor whites to deal with the police in this country.

                The only difference between blacks and whites is that if you are white, you don’t have to worry too much about the cops fucking with you as long as you are middle class or higher. If you are black, the cops will fuck with you no matter how much money or status you have.

                It took me all of five minutes to find that. There are dozens of them where I make similar arguments. Stop projecting your racism on us.

                1. John,

                  At some point, people have to recognize the futility of arguing with Bo and just ignore him.

                  If he lies today about what you said last week, he will lie next week about what you said today.

                  Since he’s shown up here, people with varying degrees of exasperation and patience have tried to teach him the incredibly lax rules of etiquette that govern our conduct here. He has failed to ‘learn’ them, not because he is incapable of understanding them, but because he doesn’t care to.

                  His rude manners, his condescending and misleading restatements of his opponents’ positions, his obsessive ‘othering’ or people who don’t follow his highly personal and emotionally derived system of libertarianism all point to a person who has no respect for anybody else.

                  I think his libertarianism is entirely predicated on social signaling that he is more intelligent and edgy than the people he interacts with to their faces.

                  It’s really a waste of time to interact with him. Because tomorrow he will lie about today. Because tomorrow he will act like today didn’t happen. Because tomorrow he still won’t understand what you told him today. Because tomorrow, he won’t care to listen to what you are saying tomorrow, just like today he didn’t care.

                  1. He is a special kind of troll, but in the end just a troll.

                  2. He has failed to ‘learn’ them, not because he is incapable of understanding them, but because he doesn’t care to.

                    I’m tempted to say it’s a little from column A and a little from column B at this point.

                    Also: BODOR!!! BODOR!!! BODOR BODOR BODOR!1!111!1!!!!

        2. That is right because we never defend people regardless of who they are. We only defend the rights of people we like.

          Apparently Restoras didn’t get the memo about that and thinks white people have rights or something.

          1. Yes John, you and the Brigade people are right on top if white people’s rights! No worries there

        3. And the mendacious comment of the year month day award goes to…

      3. I wonder if any of them have been to a Tractor Pull?

        1. +1 MNG reference

    2. It is terrible how the people on this board constantly demand that liberal students be unilaterally expelled from school. It happens at least ten or twenty times a week.

      1. You’ve done a lot more than object to the expulsions (which were just announced). Your entire routine has been ‘whys everyone picking on these poor white racists!’

        1. I know Bo. I am guilty of the horrible thought crime of defending undesirables. I am a regular wrecker i tell you.

        2. Some people believe that racists have rights too. I oppose the entire notion of thoughtcrime.

      2. Well, to be fair, it’s because they’re typically seen demonstrating that the school is doing them no benefit. Expelling them would be in both parties benefit.

    3. Also the naivete. That’s the lace on the bottom of the slip. Just beautiful.

    4. And even worse than that, the website nor its commentators never once have stood up for the rights of a black man. I mean, no one on here even cared about the Garner case in New York. And any sort of coverage of police abuse is only a big deal if white people are the victims.

      Yeah Bo, you have us nailed dead to right.

    5. You heard the man. For calling this story a waste of time you’re all racists. Still.

      Better luck next time.

    6. Your post contributed nothing.

      1. He never has. Not once. I’ve learned something, anything, from just about every long-term poster. Not Bo. Has anyone learned anything from any of his posts, other than that he’s an asshole? Name something.

        1. I’ve learned how to write deflective and spinning like a whirling Dervish posts when I get called out on something, or when my logic is incoherent. I’ve also learned how obfuscate and be obtuse. And to ignore posts that don’t agree with my tender sense of social justice and pre-teen girl view of the world.

          1. pre-teen girl


        2. It was pretty obvious that this was the way it was going to end. There is no other way.

        3. I’ve learned not to expect him to debate honestly. Although I guess that kinda falls under the asshole thing.

          1. Defending racists, telling people to kill themselves, that’s not being an a&&hole; but ‘not debating honestly’ is.

            You know, I can see why so many posters here were all worked up over the Gamergate thing..,

            1. You really are gonna be the “former libertarian” writer at Salon aren’t you? When John Titor posted it I laughed, but damn it makes sense the more of your juvenile shit I read.

              1. Titor pretty much called it.

                1. Agreed. Bo’s SJW tendencies and pre-teen girl view of the world don’t make him resilient enough to last as anything but a grievance monger.

              2. “Why would I form a bad opinion of libertarians from talking to you guys?”

        4. Warty learned from me the true meaning of Christmas. No, it’s really true.

          1. Christmas came early. I expected this to go on until at least mid-summer. But he managed to irritate every single commenter here ahead of schedule.

        5. You think this is the beginning of the grand huffy exit, ala Joe, Urban Planner extraordinaire?

          1. We can only hope.

          2. fat chance

          3. nah – he has no shame and apparently doesn’t learn very well either.

          4. The world is a cruel place, full of liars, cheats, and other assorted dishonest people, and Bo will remain to remind us with his posts.

        6. Of course we all learn so much from Warty, like how much ya bench!

    7. You are such a disingenuous little asshole that I can scarcely believe it.

      You want me to link to the initial post regarding this subject, when everyone was saying it was bad and these guys were idiots? Because literally everyone was talking about how idiotic these racist little morons are.

      Today, we’re talking about how idiotic it is that the left turned what is, after all, a pretty minor story into The Most Important Story of All Time and how a University should not have the right to expel students over this. In Bo’s Majestic Mind of Social Justice this is the equivalent of Reason hating black people.

      “Many of the same saying this will spend dozens of posts analyzing what some stray commenter on a liberal website posted and didn’t have the same response when PC shenanigans by left leaning knuckleheads are reported here.”

      You want to know what never happens when we make fun of a commenter on another website? The leftist idiot never gets reported about on CNN. Solid analogy as always because clearly there’s no difference between making fun of a commenter in another comment section and fucking NBC news reporting on some dipshit college kids while the New York Times breathlessly reports on the entire history of a fraternity because of one chapter’s stupidity.

      1. You are such a disingenuous little asshole that I can scarcely believe it.

        Can’t you? It’s taken you this long to come to that conclusion? Come on, Irish. I used to think you were cool. Well, not cool-cool, but…you know what I mean. How’s your mom?

        1. Pissed you won’t return her calls. It got a little awkward when she started making me call you ‘Daddy’ but then you never came back.

          I didn’t really care though, since it’s not like you’re my first father figure to disappear when you went out for smokes.

          1. For the record, I wasn’t going out for smokes. I was going out for more cocaine and Anal-Eze, and I got distracted. By anything else.

            Can you sneak my gimp suit out for me though? For old time’s sake? Those things are expensive.

          2. Don’t worry Irish. Episirach was a pretty good boyfriend for my mom. It was only when he showed up and was putting the moves on her body at the funeral home that things got out of hand.

      2. Forget it, Irish. It’s Bo-town.

      3. I get the feeling that in a decade or so Bo’s going to be one of those people on Salon talking about how they’re a former libertarian and how terrible all these libertarian types are. Probably because I see the same kind of narcissistic, pat-on-the-back-for-the-correct-opinions social signalling present in both.

        1. Whoa…good call. That’s exactly what will happen. Approval is so much more important than principles, amirite?

          1. “Confessions of a former Libertarian”

        2. He’s not smart enough to write for Salon, and that’s pretty dumb. However, he is a master at circular logic, so maybe you are right.

        3. “I get the feeling that in a decade or so Bo’s going to be one of those people on Salon talking about how they’re a former libertarian and how terrible all these libertarian types are. ”

          Why would I form a bad opinion of libertarians from talking to you guys?

          1. And as usual you fundamentally lack the self awareness to recognize that that the problem here is your childish self-centered ego stroking, not the people around you.

            1. Aspie indeed.

      4. “You want me to link to the initial post regarding this subject, when everyone was saying it was bad and these guys were idiots?”

        Please do, because I was on that thread and pointed out the excuse making already going on then.

        1. Of course in any thread you may find some divergence in opinions on the matter. The nice thing about our humble little community is the wide berth of opinions you’ll find. I am one of those that’ll defend the chant, but I hardly represent all libertarians or even a significant chunk. I’m merely one person who continually jokes, even really dark jokes alluding to shit like the holocaust, lynchings, the crusades, spanish rape and conquest of indigenous Mezoamericans with a variety of friends of Jewish, black, Muslim, or hispanic ancestry. And they all give me their best “stupid whitey” barbs back. None of it is serious and I treat every human I meet IRL as a unique individual, not some checklist of various group identities. I say some things in settings where I have an expectation of privacy that would make me look like a mouthbreathing troglodyte if taken in a snippet without and broader context and plastered across tv screens nationwide. But the reality is that I’m a far more layered person than that shows. And I imagine these kids, who apparently listen to rap music and probably are big fans of Sooner football and probably have actual friends and acquintances that are minorities, are too.

          A stupid 11 second chant gets trasmitted the whole world over and every damn person thinks they know everything about these fucking kids and their “prejudice” and not a goddamned soul feels that irony burning into and branding their fucking skin.

        2. Please do, because I was on that thread and pointed out the excuse making already going on then.

          Bo Cara Esq.|3.9.15 @ 1:44PM
          Tony, why the generalization? These people are cretins, but there’s lots of greek organizations that do a lot of good or at least no harm. To take one example, there’s a long history of minority fraternities that provided mutual aid and voluntary assistance to blacks at a time when things were pretty rough toward them. Why toss them out over this?

          Bo Cara Esq.|3.9.15 @ 1:54PM
          I don’t think I’d generalize about what are hundreds of organizations with thousands of chapters.

          Bo Cara Esq.|3.9.15 @ 2:17PM
          Then why make such a negative generalization that includes them? Not very friendly, if you ask me.

    8. You wouldn’t know it from most posters here, but we’ve spent a good chunk of our history trying to overcome the ugly reality and consequences of anti black racism.

      And we, as a society, have overcorrected.

      Here’s the gist of what I get from the commentariat:

      (1) Its collective punishment, and thus wrong, for the U to evict all frat members and revoke the charter. Its possible that, if you can show the chapter officially supported the no-blacks/lynching thing, you could justify corporate/collective punishment, but that hasn’t been shown.

      (2) The national frat can do what it wants, and closing this chapter may be a good PR move for them.

      (3) Its a violation of the 1A to expel students from school for pure speech.

      (4) What a pack of morons. The civil/social punishment to be rained down on their heads following the posting of the video is probably all that’s really called for.

      Side note: OK is a one-party consent state for wiretapping. If it was a two-party consent state, then whoever made and distributed the recording would have committed a crime. Imagine the uproar if one of the chanters filed a criminal complaint. But, we will be spared that particular spectacle.

      1. re: (3) Its a violation of the 1A to expel students from school for pure speech.

        oh the irony. Yes, Yes 1A applies but consider the plot twist if the education was a wedding cake and the university was a baker with a religious objection.

        1. You recognize the divergence of opinion on that matter has primarily been one of public accommodation, right? And if we’re splitting hairs on which should be considered a public accommodation, be it privately run bakery or publicly chartered and funded university, well, I think you have your answer.

    9. Is anyone really surprised that the college student who’s never seriously worked in his life (to the point where he tries to lecture people in high security fields on the nature of email security) and spends his time obsessively foot-stomping over Scott Walker’s biology grades believes that this worth reporting on and speaks to some higher truth? Might as well start reporting on massive amount of racism on 4chan and reddit pages.

      ‘Offended White Guys brigade?’ Coming from the ‘Offended Narrowminded Juvenile College Student’ that doesn’t mean much.

      1. And since when are white guys not allowed to be offended?

        Hell, everybody else can. Why not us?

        1. RC Dean, Colonel of the Offended White Guys Brigade.

          1. Thanks.

            [polishes monocle]

            There’s a lot to be offended about. Happy to lead the charge.

            1. RC Dean, Colonel

              Now I’m seeing RC in a white suit with a black string tie, sipping mint julips on the front porch and selling fried chicken.

        2. Because white people are superior more powerful, according to Bo, and the rest of the world inferior less powerful, so white people should just shut up.

        3. “And since when are white guys not allowed to be offended?

          Hell, everybody else can. Why not us?”

          This seems to the operating motto for a lot of people here, actually.

          1. You don’t find it repugnant, philosophically if not personally, when a public institution runs afoul of the Constitution?

            You don’t have to be incredulous to the point of personally taking offense to find something someone somewhere does worth remarking on. Critical remarks, even.

      2. I’m still laughing that Bo pretends he was actually around reason.com during the Postrel days.

      3. I’ve worked since high school smart guy. But keep on with your generational war if it makes you feel better.

        1. Yeah, because your credibility is just outstanding. I totally believe a dishonest, childish liar who constantly tries to construct strawmen to slay to sooth his fragile ego. Regardless I’m sure your part time duties at McDonald’s makes you far more qualified to lecture people working in the defense industry or federal bureaucracy on email security (do you see a pattern here? Perhaps something about shutting the fuck up when you fundamentally lack the knowledge or skills to comment on a technical matter? Probably not given your lack of self awareness).

          1. Respect your elders, and get off my lawn!

            1. If you haven’t learned to respect your elders, you can at least learn to respect your betters.

              1. “t learn to respect your betters.”

                See, it’s me that’s arrogant.

            2. I love how you just construct whatever strawman you think is easiest to fight and just run with it. Yep, I’m an old guy, I couldn’t possibly be in my mid-twenties and calling you out for acting like a spoiled, self obsessed teenager. It’s always the other people Bo, you could never be the problem.

              1. And I love how you’re so insular that you think that appealing to an argument ad populem referencing the people who post here is supposed to be some kind of epiphanous argument.

                OMG, a bunch if posters on this site who seemed to have formed a quasi-psychopathic conservative clique on this discussion board dont like you!!! you should probably ignore the fact that in every other interaction in your life people find you like able and well mannered and realize the problem is you!

                1. Yep, just keep constructing those childish delusions Bo. The problem is never you, the problem is other people and imaginary cabals of evil psychopaths. Don’t hold yourself to any kind of standard of behaviour. You can have as many childish hissy fits and lie all you want, it’s the other people that are the problem and the cause of that behaviour. Being self-critical is just not necessary for someone as great as you.

                  You’re going to make some therapist very happy someday Bo.

                  1. You’re going to make some therapist very happy someday Bo

                    And at least one divorce lawyer.

    10. “Bo Cara Esq.|2015/03/10 14:13:09|#5143683

      This is the kind of thread that would make Postrel shake her head…”

      You read Reason back in grade-school, Bo? amazing.

      1. It’s where he learned that an appeal to authority was apparently a good start to an argument.

        1. “Appeal to authority”

          I skipped over that and straight to the “You’re racist and i’m not, so _______“-part

          1. So we’ve gone from teaching kids that defending Nazis’ rights is a great thing to teaching that defending the speech rights of obnoxious, racist kids is THE WORST THING EVER.

            1. Defending the rights of these racists against government punishment is one thing.

              Being unable to equivocally denounce them and their speech but instead engaging in hand waving ‘nothing to see here, they’re just joking, the REAL problem are the people reporting this’ that’s the problem.

              1. They have only been denounced about a thousand times on here and never with a single qualification.

                They were morons who made an offensive video and are likely racists. The very first post I ever made on this subject and I think the third post over all said

                I think it is fair to say the people who made that video are racists. Should it be the case that racists should not be allowed to attend public universities or form organizations while there? I guess you could say they can but they have to keep their racism to themselves. I don’t really see that as a very good answer however. We only kick out the dumb racists? Either racists shouldn’t be allowed to attend or not. If they can, then why don’t they have the right to express their racism?

                Remember, we are talking about a video here. There was no criminal acts or intimidation going on that I can see. So, why shouldn’t they be able to make their video and the rest of the campus be able to react as they see fit by condemning them and refusing to associate with them?

                This is why people hate you so much. You don’t just lie about facts, you lie about what people on this board said.

                1. One sentence of “I think it’s fair to say they’re racists” followed by paragraphs of “what they did is no big deal, won’t somebody think of the racists here?”

                  Yeah, that’s real unequivocal. Where would someone get the idea you’re more worried about anti racism than racism?

                  1. And the nd the rest of the campus be able to react as they see fit by condemning them and refusing to associate with them?

                    And the rest of the paragraph is explaining why we can’t kick these people out of school even though they are racists.

                    Everyone on this board can read that post and see it as an example of what you claim doesn’t happen. You are only making it worse by pretending people can’t read.

              2. What the hell are you talking about? Just about everyone here said they were assholes and racists when this broke. But it’s not an indictment of American society that we have racists, jerks, or any other kind of unpleasant person in our midst. What’s an indictment is that a government actor is violating the First Amendment and likely due process protections–which takes this from trivial to important at light speed–and that we have people in this country that try to make hay out of everything, important and unimportant, for the wrong reasons.

              3. lol

                and he studies law.

                1. He studies law not because he loves law or the idea of a society based on the rule of law but because he wants to use law to advance SJW causes

                  1. I love it when Restoras, who I caught here saying he supported the right of a community to prohibit consensual adult activity (gambling), questions my libertarian bona fides!

                    1. And the mendaciousness continues…too no one’s surprise.

                    2. You didn’t say that? I have that discussion bookmarked.

                    3. I have that discussion bookmarked.

                      Totally not surprising. Do you also have the discussion where I acknowledged you were right, and I was wrong, bookmarked? And the discussion where I admitted that I come here to refine my libertarian thoughts?

                      I’ll bet you don’t. Very childish, Bo.

                    4. ” my libertarian bona fides!”

                      please, don’t change the subject – we were discussing how you were a dishonest douchebag, not your political beliefs.

                    5. GILMORE|3.10.15 @ 4:10PM|#

                      ” my libertarian bona fides!”

                      Bo really is here to burnish what he thinks are his libertarian bona fides and street cred. He’s bookmarking posts of commenters so he can refer to them later and say “See! This is what they think! They are really just snokone conservatives masquerading as libertarians so they can force their worldview on everyone around them!!!”

                      Well done, John Titor, for nailing this.

                  2. No, he studies law because he likes to argue, especially about arguments.

                2. And not fashion law!

                  But don’t worry, I’ll never be a big shot on the Independents thread line you Gilmore. That’s for winners.

                  1. Don’t sell yourself short Bo = you arrived @ Reason a little more than a year ago, and in that brief period of time managed to create a bullet-proof reputation as an intellectually dishonest, pedantic, petty, juvenile, irrational and incoherent loser. Your name is the hallmark of stupid, meaningless, poorly-reasoned, petty tete-a-tetes. Its a genuine accomplishment. It took people like Tony a decade to even get half as far.

                    The reason for the Lulz over the lawyer part is…. well, you do the math. If you can’t *ever* (despite constant effort) carry a single point here, i doubt the ‘real world’ will be any more generous to your mendacious rhetorical appeals than your (*so-called!) libertarian peers.

              4. I don’t think Bo is defending the rights of these racists vigorously enough. All I’ve seen is some kind of equivocal statement to the effect that the university probably stepped over the line.

                In fact, Bo hasn’t spent much time condemning the racists’ actions, either.

                He seems to be spending all his energy condemning people for having the gall to claim that this isn’t a very important story in the grand scheme of things, and so they’re the real racists.

                He may have a future at Salon.

      2. She commented recently on how awful the commentariat here was. That would give most non-juvenile Gamergate style psychopaths pause, finding the woman who helped create this site being dismayed. But, see the adjectives I just used.

        1. Suggesting that people are racist for defending free speech is one hell of a way to “elevate the discourse” there, counselor.

        2. Shorter Bo: “Your social betters have spoken and therefore it’s true! It couldn’t be that both I and Postrell are oversensitive or childish! Now I’m going to start name-calling after calling you racists!” .

          Fortunately, some of us aren’t pathetic enough to require Postrell’s approval to engage in debate. It’s this little thing called having a spine.

          1. I think VP’s issue was with the incivility and coarse discourse, not with the political positions being taken. She is, after all, a libertarian. Unlike others.

            1. Indeed, if I recall Postrel called the commentators ‘jerks’. I don’t think most commentators would disagree with that label. Nothing to actually do with political arguments, she’s just somewhat thin-skinned about the coarseness and more brutish qualities of the internet debater. Bo, as usual, is putting words into other people’s mouths.

              1. So, most people here would identify with being course, rude jerks but I should take their opprobrium to mean there’s something wrong with me?

                1. I love how you’re so self-obsessed that you don’t realize that you yourself are a massive jerk who views himself as the most morally right and pure individual here. Say what you want about the commentators who recognize the fact they’re jerks, at least they have a degree of self awareness and aren’t so egotistically self-centered and convinced of their own superiority. Those coarse jerks? Massive step up from the neurotic personality type you represent.

                  1. JT, remember that scene in Gran Torino where the old Polack tries to teach the slope kid how men talk to each other? Yeah.

                    1. Shut up Warty, you’re a jerk. Now I’m going to try to make fun of you by implying that you don’t lift weights or are stupid for doing so.

                      /Bo not being an ass at all.

                    2. TEENAGE GURL

                  2. Well, I, for one, don’t think I’m a jerk. Perhaps I’m deluded.

                  3. Say what you want about the commentators who recognize the fact they’re jerks, at least they have a degree of self awareness

                    Seconded. John’s a jerk, Epi’s a jerk, Warty’s warty, etc. (NTTAWWT.) But the last thing I would accuse any of them of is a lack of self-awareness.

                    Bo is disliked as much by jerks as by non-jerks (let’s take RC, for example). He should take their opprobrium to mean there’s something wrong with him. But he won’t. He doesn’t have any clue why people dislike him. He really thinks it’s because everyone else is either mean or just scathed by his wit and superior argumentation.

                2. Bo Cara Esq.|3.10.15 @ 4:04PM|#
                  “So, most people here would identify with being course, rude jerks but I should take their opprobrium to mean there’s something wrong with me?”

                  Yes, and get fucked with a rusty fence pole.

            2. Which is why I referenced “Gamergate style psychopaths” and not the also bizarre but different conservative groups here. There’s some overlap but not exactly the same.

              1. Keep constructing your childish delusions Bo, they highlight your maturity.

              2. You do know that most of the Gamergate people aren’t psychopaths.

                But after reading through this thread, it’s obvious to me that you are an SJW retard who would think that.

        3. “Recently” being 2 years ago?

    11. ” not among some backwoods Deliverance types, but among college students”

      Yeah, I’ve met these students, and, dude, its OKLAHOMA. I might not have witnessed a lot of racism there, but I definitely witnessed a whole state worth of red-neck, ignorant, “Deliverance”-type ignorance.
      Yes, they were mostly very nice people, but not exactly what one might call the modern, enlightened type.

      1. That’s the entire state, then?

        1. Yes, but only if you are a social better in the shining city on a hill that is Denver.

          1. lol, ok I had that coming.
            My apologies to the people of the great state of Oklahoma.

          2. Denver is objectively better than Oklahoma City. In every way imaginable.

            1. Or any part of Oklahoma, for that matter.

            2. Denver is objectively better than Oklahoma City. In every way imaginable.

              OKC has a better basketball team.

    12. This is the kind of thread that would make Postrel shake her head

      Bo, it’s only 1:30 out west and I’d have to go all the way down to the parking lot at work in order to get the flash of scotch in my golf bag. Please cease and desist from providing Reason-mandated drinking comments.

  23. Yawn. Big deal.

    What I’m waiting for is the article by a certain “libertarian constitutionalist” on how negotiating with a foreign power is left to the executive branch and any old article on how negotiating with countries that don’t pose a threat is preferable to going to war with them . Is that article in the works?

    1. That whole “advise and consent” language is just racist and no one knows what it means anyway.

      The separation of powers is just a racist plot to keep right white men in power or something.

      And why aren’t you on here complaining that these people weren’t shot? If you are going to adopt a murderous and evil ethos, you should at least be consistent about it.

      1. Advising and consenting means sending a letter threatening to abrogate the treaty? I thought libertarians were all about peace, but it’s beginning to look just a little bit like 2003 around here. I sleep peacefully knowing that ayatollahs run Iran. I suggest you do the same.

        1. american socialist|3.10.15 @ 4:35PM|#
          …”I thought libertarians were all about peace,”…
          Which, of course, is true, regardless of your feigned socratic ignorance, fuckhead.

    2. Fuck you, scum. Maybe you should round us all up and shoot us in the back of the head or something, you disgusting murder-worshiping piece of shit.

      1. For the record I don’t want shot in the back of the head or anywhere else really. I’m not on board with this suggestion.

        1. It’s collective punishment. You don’t get a say.

          1. But I’m not really a joiner.

            1. That’s why you’re getting the Box as a permanent cell, rather than one of the reeducation camp barracks.

      2. This is Warty, not only not an a$$hole but the leader of the self styled anti-a$$hole patrol around here.

        It’s like a teenage sociopath convention around here. Shouldn’t you guys be playing Call of Duty?

        1. This is Botard. He agrees with the trolls more than the regular posters. Yet believes that’s an indictment of everyone here BUT him.

          1. “This? This is ice. This is what happens to water when it gets too cold. This? This is Kent Bo. This is what happens to people when they get too sexually frustrated.”

            1. + a thousand naked women screaming and throwing little pickles at you

          2. Yeah, silly me, I’ll take a ‘troll’ over one of the regular darlings who just referred to someone as “disgusting murder-worshiping piece of shit.”

            See, that’s the kind of honest, non-a$$hole style you guys like, I mean what’s wrong with me not to join in indeed?

            1. Poor, poor insufferable twit! The whole word finds Bo to be a tedious asshole and it’s the world’s fault!
              His mommy told him!

            2. What would you call someone who is an avowed supporter of socialism AND walked out on their mortgage?

    3. negotiating with a foreign power is left to the executive branch

      Sure. Has anyone around here argued otherwise?

      Of course, negotiating with a foreign power is not the same as entering into an agreement with a foreign power. I negotiate all kind of things, but my boss the CEO is the one with the authority to actually enter into the final agreement.

      negotiating with countries that don’t pose a threat is preferable to going to war with them

      Umm, duh? Who around here has said we should go to war with countries that don’t pose a threat?

    4. Needs more Stalin apologia.

      1. Look, Stalin didn’t know everything. How could he? But he cared, deep down.

        1. *american socialist nods wistfully*

          1. Deep down. I mean, he’d have horrible dreams that he couldn’t quite remember when he woke up.

            1. And he did make the trains run on time!

              1. Especially the ones that stopped at the camps. Just like the national socialists.

              2. I thought that was Mussolini?

                1. Nah, he didn’t really do that, either.

                2. “I thought that was Mussolini?”
                  Seen one thug dictator, you’ve seen ’em all.

      2. “He was going through a rough patch.”

      3. “It was his first day.”

    5. any old article on how negotiating with countries that don’t pose a threat is preferable to going to war with them

      As opposed to your favourite totalitarian regime, which overthrew governments it didn’t like and installed puppet governments on those it ‘liberated’ right?

      1. But it supported anti-colonial movements.

        1. Well, *some* anti-colonial movements, until it colonized the place.

      2. Is that like the CIA or the KGB? I got those confused growing up.

        1. I got those confused growing up.

          That seems unlikely, since you support one of them.

        2. And again, a Whataboutism (especially when I’ve said nothing positive about the CIA) is not an actual argument. Of course, your sycophantic defense of a brutal totalitarian regime’s equally brutal foreign policy shows rather clearly how much you actually value the position you stated. That is, you don’t, it’s just a position used to beat you ideological enemies over the head and ignored by groups you like. No principles, no integrity, yet attempts to lecture like he has both. Classic piece of shit personality.

          1. He disliked the KGB. He felt they softened into pussies as compared to their Stalinist NKVD days.

        3. american socialist|3.10.15 @ 4:05PM|#
          “Is that like the CIA or the KGB? I got those confused growing up.”

          Isn’t that cute? Little shitstain makes a funny!

    6. Re: American Stolid,

      Yawn. Big deal.

      “Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice.”

      Vladimir “American Stolid” Lenin.

      Is that article in the works?

      American Stolid feels entitled to an article, folks. Will wonders never cease?

  24. the expulsion also seems to present pretty serious concerns for due process

    Due process… how quaint. There’s no time for due process, people’s feelings have been hurt! Besides, “due process” and “freedom of speech” are just old outdated concepts that racists like to hide behind. /Prog

  25. Paging derpetologist! Can you give us a “Spot the Not” featuring Botard comments? Cause I bet that would be CHALLENGING!

    Paging derpetologist!

    1. Hmmm. I’ll think about it, but he seems to be under a pretty big dog pile already.

      1. It’s for a good cause.

        “he seems to be under a pretty big dog pile already.”

        How do these things keep happening to him? He has the worst luck.

        1. “How do these things keep happening to him? He has the worst luck.”

          The world just doesn’t understand the awesomeness of his intellect! It’s not his problem that we’re blinded by his brightness!

        2. Could be worse. The dog pile could’ve been at Abu Ghraib.

      2. That is just common Derp. We need you to save your efforts, because you can go find extra-hazardous, refined, weapons grade Derp.

  26. OU President David Boren announced the expulsions on Twitter…

    Can’t we at least agree that this is the true evil here?

    1. You can’t make this shit up.

    2. Who follows David Boren on Twitter?

      1. He’s trending up now, I’ll bet. Can’t wait for more of his pearls of wisdom.

        1. My guess is the Board of Regents has his account before he says too much more.

    3. It opens him to public ridicule for trampling the 1A which is a net positive.

      Adam Steinbaugh ?@adamsteinbaugh 57m57 minutes ago
      Hi! I’m @UofOklahoma President Boren. Are you a racist idiot? I’d like to give you money by way of a ?1983 lawsuit!

      1. Public ridicule is perfect for all people in positions of power. I guess Twitter is good for something after all.

      2. Hilarious.

  27. The 1A tweet debate is one-sided:

    SpeedRacer ?@Prez42O 44m44 minutes ago
    @NotPeoriaMayor @UnforgivableM @Popehat @sackobooks on a side note. Students do have a set of rules to follow which they probably violated

    Popehat ?@Popehat 33m33 minutes ago
    @Prez42O Question: can a University ban any speech it likes, so long as it couches them as a “set of rules”?

    SpeedRacer ?@Prez42O 30m30 minutes ago
    @Popehat its not like they’re being kick out of the country or tongues cut out. Just not allowed back in OU. Ya know what I’m trying to

    Popehat ?@Popehat 10m10 minutes ago
    @Prez42O I do understand. But that’s not the law. State school can’t impose a speech condition.

    SpeedRacer ?@Prez42O 6m6 minutes ago
    @Popehat agree to disagree?

    .@Prez42O Agree to disagree about what well-established law says? Sure.

    1. Sure they can because like RACISM and stuff.

      These people are children.

      1. They are, they have the same reaction to not getting their way that my two year old has when I won’t give a Popsicle.

        1. Poor reasoning skills and lack of emotional control is pretty much all they have.

    2. LOL.

      “That’s against the law.”
      “Well, agree to disagree.”

      1. It’s straight from a Ron Burgundy scene.

        Now if they want to argue a law is unjust, then I’ll certainly engage but they’re denying the law even exists.

        1. Raston Bot, we will just have to agree to disagree about whether the sun rises in the east.

    3. Why am I cowering in laughter that SCOTUS will be tweeting each other on their dissents once Ginsburg is gone?

  28. There are due process considerations in expelling a student, especially at public institutions. Considering it involves speech, unless actual violence was threatened (which cannot be legitimately argued), I don’t see how this expulsion will be upheld.

  29. Colleges and universities generally operate under their own rules, and are not expected to honor First Amendment rights or due process rights. We see that in speech codes, as well as policies that deal with sexual assault. People may point to these strict policies, designed to protect students and create an unthreatening atmosphere, as a good thing. Robby Soave has been consistent, on the assault issue in particular, in saying that abridgment of rights on campuses may _not_ be a good thing. Precedent favors university officials who want to expel students for serious violations of campus policy, independent of other laws or rights.

    One interesting, and rather legalistic question: do officials at public institutions face more constraints in these matters than private institutions? That is, can private institutions expel students more readily than public insitutions can, without paying attention to constitutional restraints?

    1. Precedent favors university officials who want to expel students for serious violations of campus policy, independent of other laws or rights.

      Not in this case it doesn’t. FIRE has won case after case overturning university decisions to discipline over speech. And those cases involved actual public speech. This was private speech. The university does not have a legal leg to stand on here. They just don’t.

      As far as your other question, it is answered up thread and the answer is no they do not. Between federal regulations that come as a condition of receiving federal aid and the contractual nature of student handbooks and codes of conduct, private and public school administrators are subject to the same constraints.

    2. Colleges and universities generally operate under their own rules, and are not expected to honor First Amendment rights or due process rights

      That statement could not be more deceiving or untrue.

      1. and are not expected to honor First Amendment rights or due process rights

        Are you making a general observation about behavior of college administrators or are you stating this as some sort of settled law? Because I can understand the sentiment if the former but if the latter, then know that you could not be more wrong.

        1. ^to OP, not directed at John

    3. “an unthreatening atmosphere”


      This is a place that actually hands out “grades”, right?

      1. Nothing says “unthreatening” like expelling students for songs they sing in private gatherings.

    4. Colleges and universities generally operate under their own rules, and are not expected to honor First Amendment rights or due process rights.

      That is completely, 100% false.

      1. I can’t figure out if this guy is a concern troll or just really that stupid.

        1. I thought he was saying that in practice they operate under their own rules, which often seems to be true.

          1. I don’t think so. I think he was saying they can do that legally. But it is hard to tell either way.

      2. Of course it is. It’s not like state universities aren’t being constantly challenged on constitutional grounds, because they are. Yes, they’re abusing the shit out of their power, but they also get in trouble for doing that.

        Nothing says that government should be out of providing any services, be it education, medicine, whatever, than these kinds of abuses.

  30. People may point to these strict policies, designed to protect students

    I think you misspelled “punish”.

  31. Just listened to Hillary talking about the emails.

    She cleverly went on the offense. However, it is very easy to parse out her disingenuousness.

    I predict she’s going down.

    1. Look, as long as she’s not a racist she’s the only qualified person for the job in her mind.

    2. You and I are probably a minority of two on here in thinking that, but I think you are right. This is going to stick. It is just too blatant and too indefensible for even Hillary to survive.

      1. The email scandal will not sink her campaign because they will be overtaken by her personality disorder.

      2. She’s already been fact checked. That was quick.

        1. Read the quotes below. She promised she “just deleted her personal emails about her daughter and mother’s funeral” before she turned over the others to the DOS. Only a sexist would not believe her. Right?

          1. That’s so transparent. Ye gods is she awful at this. Not to mention criminally incompetent and dishonest.

          2. You calling me a sexist?

            /everyone posting here

    3. She’s really a shitty politician. Totally unlike her husband.

      1. It’s her turn! Get out of her way!

        1. Based on her vast experience and competence? Fuck, maybe we should’ve elected Bob Dole.

          1. Maybe we still can?

            1. Even he’d be an improvement over this multi-decade amateur hour we’re in.

    4. “I thought it would be easier to carry one device for my work,” Clinton said during a news conference.

      Everyone in the fucking world carries a work smart phone and a personal one. No one is going to buy that horseshit.

      And get this

      “Looking back, it would have probably been smarter to use two devices, but I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the hands of the State Department,” Clinton said.

      Clinton added that she deleted all of her personal emails from her private account of the more than 60,000 emails in total that were sent and received. About half of them were personal emails, she said. Some of those emails pertained to her daughter Chelsea’s wedding, her mother’s funeral arrangements, and her yoga routine.


      That is such a blatant fuck you that is why I am pretty sure it would make Obama blush.

      1. Yep, that’s a total non-excuse excuse. And it won’t work, because we all know it’s bullshit. And, as a matter of the crime she committed, it’s not going to work at all.

        She really should be prosecuted, as should other people who’ve merely lost their jobs for doing this shit.

        1. It is one thing to do some public work on a private email. That is bad but something many people have done. It is something else to just refuse to use a public email and set up your own email system to ensure the public and Congress only sees what you let them. It is just unbelievable that she would do that and even more so that a good number of people would think it was okay.

          1. I’ve had to do it (in the military) – funnily enough, I had to do it because its us *lower level* peons who don’t get to snap our fingers and make IT drum up a remote solution, even as a temporary loaner.

            But I’m pretty sure that if my Company Commander (0-3) could get our *civilian* IT department to give him a loaner laptop with remote access credentials to our email server then the freaking head of the State Department could get a suitable solution.

      2. Gee whiz – I have TWO email accounts – work and private – on ONE phone! Technology, how does it work?

      3. The most unbelievable part?

        yoga routine

        Code for e-mails to Markie Post?

        1. Clinton banged her? Wow, I didn’t expect that.

          1. Rumored that Hill was busy with her, didn’t care what Bill was up to…

            1. Hillary shtupping Markie Post!?!?!

              That allegation alone has killed a bit of my childhood!

              1. I was just kidding! Did I make this real by saying that? Oh, dear.

                1. It’s too late!

                  You killed it… you murderer!

                  1. I also sold the Statue of Liberty to the Planet of the Apes. Did I do wrong?

                    1. You maniac! You sold it! Ah damn you! God damn you to hell!

      4. “I thought it would be easier to carry one device for my work,” Clinton said during a news conference.

        One device, ten, a device the size of a mid-sized sedan, doesn’t matter – we know you’re not carrying the damn thing anyway. That’s what freaking interns are for.

    5. No mention of her private email server in her 4 minute “speech”.

    6. I love that she used a personal e-mail address “for convenience.” Convenience seems to be a theme. She’s conveniently leaving out the fact that this e-mail and server system was apparently set up right before she become Secretary of State.

      1. It is just so convenient to buy an entire server and set up your own email domain. I mean that is just so much easier than using your office email account.

        1. She really is telling the American public exactly what she thinks of their level of intelligence.

      2. “convenience” is the latest poll-tested, focus group approved word.

        1. And you can imagine how inconvenient it would be if she were charged with breaking the law!

  32. I’m still looking for a defense of the expulsion on the same professional level as Volokh Conspiracy’s condemnation.

    1. Um, racists are bad, m’kay?

      1. That and

        “Its not like they are being thrown in jail or anything”.

        1. You know, if the university had reacted properly, I’d wail a bit about the left making hay out of this, but that would be it. Now I’m pissed off at yet another government actor.

          1. Looks like the Offended White Guy Brigade is out in force…

            1. It was offended white guys who ended slavery, you know.

              1. Careful or you will light the Liberty Mike lamp.

                1. I think I’d rather Liberty Mike show up than Bo shit all over everything.

                  1. I have to admit a soft spot for Liberty Mike. The guy has passion.

                    I found his description of his dad breaking down and sobbing when they had to go on food stamps very moving.

                    Sure he is an asshole, but I have a lot of compassion for him.

                    1. I like Liberty Mike too. He is a bit of an eccentric nut but in a good way. I don’t agree with him at all on a lot of things. But he is a fearless and honest advocate. He is worthy of respect for that reason no matter what you think of his opinions.

                  2. Too late.

              2. I’m just imagining Bo thinking that was such a clever thing he came up with.

                1. Nothing is more pathetic than a white guy calling people white guys…. as an insult. Its just a poor-man’s elitism.

      2. white racists are bad. Black racists get to skip paying their taxes for a decade.

  33. I think everyone should learn from the example of Albi the Racist Dragon.

  34. Never go full retard. We all know who I’m talking about.

  35. There ought to be a Shriek-Read Day on campuses across the country requiring clamorous readings from acclaimed but highly ‘threatening’ works that can be checked out from the local college library- I’d start with Hassan’s Rumpus Room.

    Nothing like a good collegiate mass-threatening voiced from the lines of forgotten literary genius.

    1. Have a public reading of Huck Fin, complete with the N words.

      1. Uncensored Mark Twain. Hell yes!

        1. Not only was he a racist in writing Huckleberry Finn, he was also a racist for fighting for the Confederacy and in being a white guy.

          1. Well, fighting might be the wrong word. Being in its army for some hours.

            1. “Well, fighting might be the wrong word. Being in its army for some hours.”
              All our heroes have feet of clay; pretty sure he headed west on the stage coach to avoid being shot at. Or shooting at people, comes to that.

      2. “The fact that people here are not universally denouncing the racism in Huckleberry Finn is the Real Problem”

        1. What amazes me is that there are a good many people who think the book itself is racist. The initial objections about the book were, at least, based on the use of the word, “nigger,” and not based on the totally backwards view of the book as racist. In fact, of course, it’s remarkably anti-racist, especially given the time.

          1. “there are a good many people who think the book itself is racist.”

            And Tess of the d’Urbervilles was a sexist rape-fantasy.

            About these ‘good many people’….

            1. Perhaps “good” is the wrong word. In any case, I’m quite confident that most who object to Huck Finn have never read the book.

              1. My mom taught English for 40 years… 7th-12th grade, probably most of the years on the lower end of the age spectrum. At one point she mentioned that they were taking Huck out of the reading material over the “N” word… not because of ‘racism’ so much as that – to paraphrase =

                people these days are so @*()#&$ immature that they will spend half the class debating the N-word and rather than digest the book as a whole

                Which is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy of the “Politically Correct Brigade” – ‘universal denunciation’ is so reflexively required that it crowds out people’s ability to discuss any other issue. In fact – daring to ignore the ‘racially charged’ element and just move on to the broader context is considered a crime by itself….

                (*see: Bo)

                …this same sort of thing happened in college with Faulkner and Flannery O’Connor – that every single course where they appeared, there was almost a requirement that the only aspect that could be discussed about them was the “racial” element, and why blacks were either treated badly in their books… or (worse!?) – not included at all! – as both writers almost exclusively deal with the lives of *poor white people*….

                i always thought this was a shame, given that the 2 above are among the finest, least-read American writers

          2. The thing is the word “nigger” was not in the time and place of the book a pejorative. It was a term used to describe a slave. It only became pejorative later. Using it was a way of telling a now free black person that they were still a slave in your eyes. Calling someone Nigger Jim in 1850s Missouri is not the same as calling them that after slavery ended.

            1. That actually doesn’t matter. The story is about Huck learning that his personal morality trumped the accepted immorality of his society. A lesson many in this country could stand to learn. To show that process, we had to see what slavery and racism was.

              1. It is a little hard to show the evils of slavery without actually you know showing slavery. Yet, that is exactly what these idiots expect.

            2. “Nigger Jim” doesn’t appear once in the text. Mark Twain never, ever calls him that. It’s a seemingly small thing but it seems important to me. Even then, Mark Twain knew the word was powerful, and he quite liked black people.

              1. There’s a bit about “Miss (whatever her name is)’s nigger, Jim”, but that’s as close as it gets.

                1. Wow. Thanks Warty. I didn’t realize that. I guess I got infected by the idiocy as well.

                2. Wow. Thanks Warty. I didn’t realize that. I guess I got infected by the idiocy as well.

                  1. Apparently the name is an invention of his incompetent literary executor. I’m not surprised.

                    (The words “nigger” and “Jim” appear side-by-side only once in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, in Chapter XXXI, in a letter Huck writes to Mrs. Watson, but they are not used as a name. After “nigger Jim” appeared in Albert Bigelow Paine’s 1912 Clemens biography, it continued to be used by twentieth-century critics, including Leslie Fiedler, Norman Mailer, Ernest Hemingway, and Russell Baker.)[citation needed]

                3. People insulting Twain piss me off. Now I’m all angry.

  36. my confidant’s relative makes $65 hourly on the PC . She has been unemployed for seven months yet a month back her paycheck was $17046 basically wearing down the PC for a few hours. pop over to this site http://www.TradeValt.com

    1. Oooooh! A “confidant” you say? Dish the deets on these confidences and I’ll click your link.

  37. some good news:
    ATF Temporarily Pulls Proposal to Ban AR-15 “Green Tip” Ammunition

    1. What kind of response was BATFE expecting?

      1. Exactly this kind.

        There’s been the outrage, now they pull the proposal and let the outrage die down.

        Then they re-instate the proposal and when people complain they’ll get labeled as ‘wingnuts’ bringing up ‘old shit’. And there’ll be nothing between the ATF and its goal except a very deferential judiciary which will not have to struggle too hard to find a reason to justify allowing the ban as 5.56 mm is now, *technically*, a pistol rounds and well, you know . . . the law is the law and even when the law is an arse we’re gonna kiss it.

  38. Dumb.

  39. Was OU really going to risk its brand by fretting over this? “Ah gee I dunno the racist fucknuggets have free speech and in the marketplace of ideas we just haven’t figured out yet whether lynching niggers is a good or bad idea.” Swift, merciless action was the only thing on the table.

    1. Hi Tony!

      I guess we found out which fraternity you were a part of!

    2. Yes Tony, of course you support this. How could you not support illegal government action against people you don’t like? If you didn’t support the government punishing thought criminals, you wouldn’t be Tony. What would you have left?

      1. I support these students’ right to sue David Boren for wrongfully expelling them on first amendment grounds. I would actually hope they win such a suit. Now make some more assumptions and piss your pants some more.

        1. Man, John, you really got Tony’s number there.

          Even when he thinks he is rebutting you he implicitly admits it.

    3. “Swift, merciless action was the only thing on the table.”

      You know, cops and criminals caught on tape actually KILLING someone get a trial. Why can’t these racist white kids get their shot at due process? If colleges can set up campus Kangaroo courts to condemn “rapists”, they can forego zero tolerance.

      Do you know why hate speech laws in France is a bad idea? Because throwing Muslims (fathers, workers, students, ordinary people) in jail for making pro terrorism remarks will only make a volatile situation even worse. A lot of non white college kids make racist remarks. Think about that for a minute.

      Why not have these kids put on academic probation, force them serve community service or participate in some sensitivity training? They don’t WORK for the government.

      No one goes to college for their “brand”. If angry liberals refuse to apply to this schools, the Asians and international students will swarm whatever decent tech programs the schools may have. EVERYONE wants to go to college.

  40. I see 400+ posts and figure Bo is somehow responsible. [Skims.] Yep.

    1. Some men you just can’t reach.

    2. … And then Tony come along to pile on more troll wisdom. sigh

      1. You know what I find tedious? Having a conversation with people who all know the same things and all agree about everything. Perhaps one day one of you will explain what you find so appealing about ignoring other viewpoints. Is it comforting? Are you insecure and need constant reassurance?

        1. Perhaps one day one of you will explain what you find so appealing about ignoring other viewpoints.

          Well, Tonykins, when one of us actually does that, we’ll let you know.

          Oh wait, was that intended for an angry email at Barrack Obama? If so, I’d be happy to append my signature to yours.

        2. You know what I find tedious? People who argue in bad faith and fish for comments. I.e. – trolls. E.g. – you.

          1. I never argue in bad faith and people don’t have to respond to me. I hold relatively conventional liberal views, and you guys react as if an alien landed. I’m going to stick with my theory. Your views are so rejected by mainstream institutions that you’re insecure about them, and so retreat to a bubble in which they are constantly and arrogantly reinforced.

            1. Tony|3.10.15 @ 4:42PM|#
              “I never argue in bad faith”

              Yeah, right, and you never lie, either.
              Ha and ha.

        3. Having a conversation with people who all know the same things and all agree about everything.

          That would be tedious. That’s actually why I hang out here. To avoid the tedium.

  41. When Bo showed up, some posters said give the kid a chance. Don’t be a bunch of ass hole libertarians, he’s asking questions and may be here to learn. But I immediately found him tedious and irritating, including the unearned Esquire in his handle. I guess what I’m saying is, I was right and I want a cookie.

    1. I admit to being one of those and will gladly bake you a dozen of your favorite cookies for being exactly right.

      1. I also admit to being one of those, and fully support Restoras baking you a dozen of your favorite cookies.

    2. I am owed several cookies.

      1. And a puggle

    3. You were right. BUT NO COOKIE.

    4. Bo is Blue Tulpa. Every once in a while he says something of merit that would otherwise be worth responding to, but he has so thoroughly poisoned the well and is so completely in love with himself that it’s impossible to have a meaningful discussion.

      1. Also, do you really want a cookie? That’s how “they” spy on you, you know.

        /adjusts finfoil hat

    5. On a completely unrelated topic:

      Popehat: @thelegalartist QED: people who feel the need to put “Esq.” after their names are the LAST ones you should trust for legal advice.

      1. Its kind of a regional thing, I believe. When I practiced in the South, it was pretty universal, and regarded as a kind of “fair warning”. Although it could just be outdated now, because that’s been awhile.

        What I see now, that just grinds my gears, is people putting “JD” after their name. Pfeh.

        1. Weird. For me, a letterhead saying “ATTORNEYS AT LAW” would be fair warning enough.

    1. We should call this thread “The Great Bo-Down of 2015”.

      1. Wasteland Wanderer|3.10.15 @ 10:57PM|#
        “We should call this thread “The Great Bo-Down of 2015″.”

        Your presumption is that Bo has enough self-awarness to realize that he’s been trashed.
        He has nothing of the sort. Bo is the equivalent of peak derp; his mirror keeps telling him something and his mommy tells him to ignore that nasty thing! Peak Bo/Derp is not finite.
        Nope. Bo is a long ways from accepting that he is a despicable asshole. He will be back, blaming you, me, him, her and anyone else for the fact that he is universally reviled.
        The world despises the insufferable twit, and therefore the world is wrong! Mommy said so!

        1. I was making a pun on “hoedown”. I wasn’t presuming anything. Bo is, as always, imperviously un-selfaware.

  42. The swift action is probably about football recruiting.

  43. The SAE chapter definitely should have been kicked off campus. However, the university failed to recognize the rights of the individual students involved to be racist douchenozzles.

  44. HOT HOT HOT!!! Big news just launching new kayads same admin with kayads join now & start earning

    go to link……….. http://www.Jobs-Fashion.Com

  45. Could they be expelled for discriminatory behavior ? Basically saying no black will ever be in our fraternity sounds to me like a civil rights issue.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.