Racism

Frat Brothers Make Execrable Racist Statements, America Forgets First Amendment

A school is exactly the kind of place where evil views should do battle with moral and logical views.

|

tylerphotos / flickr

Outrage over racist chanting at a Sigma Alpha Epsilon event at the University of Oklahoma is spilling over to other campuses, prompting concerns about systemic racism at that fraternal organization and within college Greek life as a whole. At the same time, lots of people who should know better—who purport be legal scholars, even—seem to have forgotten that offensive speech is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Higher education reporters are now hard at work digging up every instance of racial insensitivity perpetrated by any SAE chapter. The full list, which contains 8 occurrences stretching back to 1981, is actually shorter than one might have expected.

Still, many members of the OU community, activist groups, students at other campuses, some former SAE brothers, and national commentators are all saying that this fraternity—and possibly its national organization—have allowed a culture of lingering racism to fester. And although it's difficult to tell how widespread that problem is, I think it's fair to say the videos demonstrate the complicity, to some degree, of a significant number of people in the fraternity.

So while the problem shouldn't be overstated—it should not be construed as evidence that racism is worsening, for instance—it shouldn't be minimized, either. There is something pernicious in the fabric of this organization. The university community is justified in wanting to have some kind of dialogue about racism, show of support for racial equality, or educational campaign about the history of racism in America and its modern descendants.

Unfortunately, University President David Boren has done every single wrong thing imaginable. Expelling the students for offensive but constitutionally-protected statements without so much as a hearing is a violation of the school's own policies, to say nothing of the Bill of Rights. His rash and brazenly unconstitutional actions have probably birthed a free speech and due process fight with serious implications for students' rights. That's definitely not in the best interests of efforts to confront racism on campus, because now the college has to reckon with its own illegal policies as well as its students' racial insensitivity.

Even if the students don't contest the expulsions—at least one has already decided to withdraw from the university—Boren's decision will have a chilling effect on the campus speech climate. Students will internalize the lesson that they have no legal protections if they run afoul of the administration.

Despite all this, many have hailed Boren's actions, and many who should know better have turned a blind eye to obvious illegality.

Joey Jackson, HLN's resident "legal expert," responded to concerns raised by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, The Washington Post's Eugene Volokh, and me by opining, "Hate speech is not protected by the Constitution as it has no social value."* (This is false, of course; hateful speech is fully protected, except under circumstances that don't seem to apply here—i.e., the speech was likely to provoke a fight, or could reasonably be construed as a threat of violence.)

At one of the Gawker sites, Elie Mystal criticized Volokh in unkind terms for going "all old white man on us" and refusing to recognize the chant as a call to violence. "Now, I get how a white listener wouldn't take the threat as a true threat. They weren't threatening Eugene Volokh," Mystal wrote. "Yes, the lynching song was a 'true threat.' The fact that I have to argue about it makes it all the more terrifying." (But it wasn't a true threat, because it lacked any of the specifics necessary for it to rise to the legal definition of a true threat. Sometimes white people are right, in spite of their skin color.)

And the American Civil Liberties Union, shockingly, has failed to denounce OU, instead patting the university on the back for how it's handling the situation. (That's disappointing.)

Even if expelling students for expressing racist views were constitutionally permissible (and again, it's not), it would not be the smart course of action. Slate's Jamelle Bouie explains why:

As far as the University of Oklahoma is concerned, I should say I'm not thrilled with the punishment. Disbanding the fraternity might be justified, but expelling students for hate speech is an extreme response that runs afoul of free-speech norms, if not the First Amendment.

Education would be better. The University of Oklahoma is two hours away from Tulsa, which in 1921 was the site of one of the worst anti-black race riots in American history. More than a thousand whites stormed the black district of Tulsa and razed it to the ground, killing hundreds and leaving thousands homeless and destitute. Black Tulsa never recovered, but memories of the attack live on among descendants of the victims.

Don't expel the boys. Bring them to Tulsa. Have them see the memorials and talk to the children of survivors. Give them a chance to see what their words actually mean, and whether they want to be the kinds of people who sing about lynching for fun.

A school is exactly the kind of place where evil views should do battle with moral and logical views, and lose. We have everything to gain by confronting racism head-on in the intellectual setting that a university purportedly provides, and a lot to lose by trampling students' rights in a misguided rush to do the opposite.

*UPDATE: The HLN article appears to have been altered. Jackson is now quoted as saying, "Hate speech is protected by the Constitution despite its limited social value. If the speech is chanted in a confined environment, as here, amongst people of a similar mindset, it may be vulgar and distasteful, but it's remains protected. If, however, the chant if re-broadcast or otherwise directed toward African Americans, then—to the extent that it may have the tendency to become so inflammatory as to incite violence or otherwise encourage imminent lawless action, then such speech may well lose its constitutional protection." This change is unacknowledged in the post, as far as I can tell.

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.

Please to post comments

433 responses to “Frat Brothers Make Execrable Racist Statements, America Forgets First Amendment

  1. Racism is dumb, but it’s dumber to be giving these idiots @ OU as much attention as they’re getting.

    1. Of course it is, but the media can’t help itself when it comes to white racists because only white people can be racist. Which is racist, but never mind that.

      1. Wait a second, the media is very careful not to give attention to certain kinds of speech that we really don’t like. For example, find me a single editorial or news account containing any kind of information whatsoever about the underlying accusations of plagiarism and unethical academic conduct lying behind America’s leading criminal satire case, documented at:

        http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

        We’ve seen plenty of nauseating news items about the case, but they are all very careful not to include a word about the actual underlying scandal, which has nothing to do with satire or “criminal impersonation,” and everything to do with serious allegations of plagiarism and other forms of misconduct at NYU. This you will not find anybody discussing, arguably because our intellectual elite is comprised largely of cowards who choose to remain absolutely discreet, rather than to speak out about something that could end up harming their own careers…

      2. I really wonder where you guys get that: “The “Media” (and at this point what the hell is the “Media”) says only whites can be racists.” There is tons of “Media” that reflect your view. You sound like a wailing toddler with a dirty diaper.

      3. Good point OU student Joe Mixon: punched a white girl so hard he broke four bones in her face and knocked her unconscious?not expelled by David Boren. That’s nothing as bad as words said on private property.

      4. I make up to USD90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around USD40h to USD86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link
        Try it, you won t regret it!.

        http://www.jobs900.com

    2. And so, as a busload of frat boys singing lynching songs rumbles past a black frat house lit by the warm glow of hit masters brandishing red hot branding irons, we bid a fond farewell to Oklahoma’s ivory towers of academe.

      1. This is the second time you’ve posted this nonsense.

        It’s no less stupid than it was the first time.

        1. Go easy on ol Dr Sietz.

          *He* at least understands the difference between mocking people for congential disabilities (good) and their skin color (bad).

          Also, he’s a tenured professor from Harvard University which makes him, in his mind, much better than you.

          1. Public school systems must have gotten the idea of rubber rooms from Harvard.

    3. What is you rank in the Offended White Guy Brigade, mfckr?

      1. What is you rank in the Offended White Guy Brigade, mfckr?

        I’m neither offended nor a white guy, so I guess my rank is nil?

        1. Despite what you may hear, the Offended White Guy Brigade does not discriminate. And the mere act of suggesting that this issue has received far more attention that it deserves makes you an automatic member.

          Feel free to appoint yourself to any position beneath that of Colonel. Assignment to the upper ranks is the sole responsibility of one of the biggest douchebags to ever grace this forum.

          1. actually roger, the mere fact of saying this:

            “Despite what you may hear, the Offended White Guy Brigade does not discriminate. And the mere act of suggesting that this issue has received far more attention that it deserves makes you an automatic member.”

            makes you an automatic member of the PC witchhunt brigade.

            like many of the perpetually offended class, you are precisely what you purport to hate.

            1. lurk moar

            2. the price of having one’s own speech be free is allowing others the same right.

              this price does not go away just because they say things you do not like.

              i find the way these students chose to use their speech to be despicable, but i find even more despicable the taking of rights because of a dissenting view.

              the guarantee of free speech exists precisely to protect unpopular speech. (popular speech does not require protection)

              the best way to take on a view which which one disagrees is to dispute it on the merits, not attempt to censor it. that is the course of tyrants and demagogues.

              this article nailed it in the subtitle:

              “A school is exactly the kind of place where evil views should do battle with moral and logical views.”

              to prevent the expression of such views is to lend them stature. we ban what we fear. to take them on and show them up as disgraceful bigotry is how you take away their bite.

                1. if i dare what?

                  you appear to have no content to add here.

                  feel free to join in the substantive conversation anytime, roger.

                  1. Feel free to lurk moar. It’s actually a fun place once you learn the language. But not a place for the easily offended. Most around here gleefully battle for the title of Biggest Asshole.

                    There’s also an unusual adherence to the standards of the printed word including capitalization. Just don’t be a jerk about pointing out typos like Ted S.

                    1. i daresay that you appear to be the one exhibiting signs of being offended.

                      you seem to try to duck people’s issues through ad hominem and i have yet to see you contribute anything substantive apart from proof of your inability to see that possess in abundance those attributes you attack in others.

                      your comments seem to rotate between unsophisticated personal attacks, gibberish, and orthogonal blather.

                      i have no interest in the “biggest asshole” competition.

                      i prefer meaningful discourse.

                      so, i must ask again, do you have any to offer?

                      if not and you prefer “poo flinging” and pretense to authority as your metier, then let us part ways as this is a waste of my time.

                      ps.

                      the irony of someone who has repeatedly used the phrase “lurk moar” and sentence fragments like “But not a place for the easily offended,” demanding adherence to the standards of the printed word is quite rich.

                      this comment: “Just don’t be a jerk about pointing out typos like Ted S” is a similarly awful sentence construction. it would read a reader to believe that ted s is a form of typo.

                      were i you, i would look to getting my own house in order before criticizing the prose of others. your writing is terrible.

                    2. Morgan – I have responded to you as I have because your first post indicated a complete misinterpretation of what I wrote. We are in near complete agreement on the issue and I have little interest in putting much effort into discussing topic of such little import to me.

                      If you are looking for meaningful discourse, you will find it here. But you will have to wade through a lot of inside banter and gratuitous insults.

                      I’m mostly here for the laughs. You did not disappoint. Don’t ever change.

                    3. so that would be a “no” on meaningful discourse then?

                      thanks for clearing that up.

                      you really ought to take a look at the fact that you appear to be precisely why you profess to dislike. if you were a bit more intelligent and therefore able to see it, it would embarrass you deeply.

                      strive a bit, and you might begin to see what a prime exemplar of unintentional self parody you are.

                      happy trolling.

                    4. Morgan – Your initial post was a personal attack based on a misrepresentation of my remarks. I suggested that you misunderstood and that understanding would come to you if you would just hang out a while. You responded with a well constructed argument about the original post with which I mostly concur. I then provide a link to the discussion thread from a couple of days ago that would explain my original post. You misunderstand the intent of the link. I then again suggest that you hang out on the H&R boards to get a feel for the discussions, hoping that you would understand that you are continuing to misinterpret me.

                      I fear that we have got off on the wrong foot, you and I. This issue at OU is not one that has really piqued my interest or outrage. The comment boards have been more entertaining. Perhaps on another thread we can have the substantive discussion you desire. Do you like to discuss Mexicans, marijuana, or ass sex? Those are frequent topic on the H&R blog. I hope to see you in the comments!

                    5. You need to chill out.

                      Roger’s first post was pretty clearly sarcasm, which was made even more clear by the link he posted @ 1239.

                    6. Thanks for ‘metier.’ I had to look that one up. I learned something today.

                    7. I thought bath house Barry had the biggest asshole after renting his bottom to old white guys, as reported by gay Chicago reporter Kevin DuJan. Soros’ hand fits up it easily when he plays puppeteer.

              1. “In the name of tolerance and diversity, we will only allow opinions which agree with our own”

          2. Feel free to appoint yourself to any position beneath that of Colonel. Assignment to the upper ranks is the sole responsibility of one of the biggest douchebags to ever grace this forum.

            …..excuse me?

            1. Here.

              I thought it was He Who Shall Not Be Named who bequeathed the title to RC. My apologies to RBS who granted the title as an honor.

              You, you’re just a hop-on.

          3. I will be the Dreaded Rear Admiral.

    4. Yea OU didn’t get any attention from lame stream to the 4 black felons on the football team attacking whites.

    5. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

      http://www.work-cash.com

    6. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

      http://www.work-cash.com

  2. Where’s Botard to tell us that we’re all racist for not excusing racists of color?

    1. Oh, he’ll be along.

        1. I know it is hard to avoid responding to his clever little schtick but now that we all know what the True Bo looks like, it should be easier to just not respond to it, right?

          1. You’d think so, but you’d be wrong…cough John cough cough…

          2. We all have to do our part. I’ll be nagging people when I see them take the bait.

            1. Or he can just change his handle like he did below. PCH101 smells a lot like Bo.

              1. That was my first thought as well

              2. Yes, it does have that look and smell.

              3. So when someone interrupts your groupthink festival, your response is to claim multi-handling.

                This is the first time that I have posted here. But thanks for reminding of why doing so hasn’t been a priority of mine.

                1. That retort sounds so familiar.

                2. Given your performance both here and on a couple of the other places I’ve seen you pop up, the commentariat wasn’t missing out on much.

                3. This is just sad.

                4. Altered moniker
                  Same conduct and demeanor
                  Bo spotted tout suite

            2. You mean the tasty bait of all the black felons on the OU football team who committed crimes against fellow students that the university is tolerant of?

          3. Should I read the 600 comment thread?

            1. Yes. It’s really quite fascinating. You’ll never reply to him again.

            2. Yeah, it’s a good lesson on why some of us have refused to engage with Bo for quite some time now.

            3. Playa and WTF have it right.

              1. Tony is a more worthy person to discuss the merits of policy with. Let that marinate for a moment…

            4. No just the part about how OU is willing to tolerate 4 black felons on its football team that harmed fellow students, but bad words in private are worth breaking the 1st amendment.

  3. Huh. So in the grand scheme of things, racist white frat boys are worse than Illinois Nazis.

  4. ” And the American Civil Liberties Union, shockingly, has failed to denounce OU, instead patting the university on the back for how it’s handling the situation. (That’s disappointing.)”

    While it is disappointing, its hardly shocking.

    1. Comparing that to the situation in Skokie and the ACLU’s behavior then is very instructive for seeing how far away the left has moved from caring about fundamental rights. I mean, come on, people calling themselves Nazis wanted to march in a town full of Jews and Holocaust survivors. And the ACLU and others correctly fought for their right to do so. Successfully so, because assholes have the same rights the rest of us do. . .or none of us do.

      I did legal intake on a volunteer basis for the ACLU decades ago, and the organization then was probably most concerned about speech rights. Now, not so much. Obviously. And if they feel that way, what does that say about the rest of the left?

      1. Like I say below, taking the ACLU at its word, the SAEs could have dressed up like Nazis and marched past a Synagogue and the ACLU would have defended them but won’t for singing an offensive song in private.

        I think a lot of it is that the ACLU likes defending Nazis. Seriously. Defending Nazis makes them look pure and willing to defend anyone. At the same time, since Nazis are hated and are not a threat to do much of anything except offend people, it is a very safe thing to do. Most importantly, Nazis are considered to be on the right by most of the public. So, defending their free speech rights has the added bonus of helping to discredit and embarrass the right.

        This case is totally different. Defending these people requires the ALCU exhibit some actual courage and defend the right of people to express views that the ACLU not only hates but might actually be held by more than just a few fringe nuts. And the ACLU doesn’t have the stomach for that.

        1. I don’t think today’s ACLU is the same ACLU of the Skokie, IL case.

          If the same case happened today, the ACLU would be arguing that the Nazi rally made local residents feel unsafe and therefore violated their civil rights.

          1. I am not so sure. The ACLU still defends Nazis today. And they are always proud of how they do so.

            1. Two things at work. First, Hazel is right. The ACLU in the Skokie case was a different animal entirely, usually holding close to an absolute position on speech cases. That’s not been the case for years, as the ACLU clearly values identity politics and the laws around them far more than any other rights.

              Second, the current case involves racism, which is something the ACLU seems more uncomfortable with, for the reasons I mention above. I suppose there might be some of the odd antisemitism we see from the left from time to time at play here, but that’s not anything obvious, at least not from what I’ve seen.

              1. The old ACLU had to get the camels nose under the tent any way possible. They only wanted free speech to serve their purposes. Its funny that OU is willing to tolerate 4 black felons on its football team that have harmed fellow students. OU student Joe Mixon: punched a girl so hard he broke four bones in her face and knocked her unconscious?not expelled by David Boren, you cant argue she could do anything to deserve that.

            2. Given the context, it’s a wierd abberation. Like some vestige of their noble past that they cling to to remind themselves of hwat they once were, while everywhere else fighting the progressive fight for the new kind of civil rights and the new kind of justice.

        2. That hypothesis is consistent with their treatment of 2A as well.

        3. Defending the Illinois Nazis is actually pretty easy. Hateful as they are, they have no political power and no realistic means of gaining any.
          Defending white, southern, racist frat boys, on the other hand, is difficult. It is an article of faith among progressives that anti-black racism is deeply imbedded in the American psyche, and that only constant vigilance, political activism, and giant puppets are holding back the return of Jim Crow (and to be fair, Jim Crow is still within living memory) So for them, the OU glee club is not merely ugly, it is a representative of a movement that may return to power and start putting the words of that song into action. That sort of speech, being both both repugnant and potentially popular is the most tempting for a political movement to ban. Shame on the ACLU for giving in to temptation,

          1. It’s such bullshit. You can find hate, contempt, prejudice, whatever in this country if you look hard enough for it, and everyone has at least some prejudice in favor of people like them. That’s natural. But racism is a big problem today? Maybe in some places and in some situations, but generally, no effing way. I haven’t personally witnessed any overt racism in many years.

            1. If there’s no overt racism in the U.S., Obama, Holder and many of the congressional Democrats will have nothing to campaign against

      2. I kind of think there is an evitable process by which activist groups eventually get taken over and co-opted by people working in the interests of established powers. The progressive left with all it’s identity politics and victim culture is very much the established power that controls the mainstream popular culture. They’ve been working a long time to turn civil liberties into rights to be protected from offensive speech. The ACLU has basically done a complete 180, from the position that freedom of speech is sacrosanct, to now that minority students have a civil liberty to be protected from offense. It’s been a long time, but the left has spent decades building up the idea that minorities have a civil right to exist in a “safe” (i.e. offense-free) environment.

        1. It’s been a long time, but the left has spent decades building up the idea that minorities have a civil right to exist in a “safe” (i.e. offense-free) environment.

          Which dovetails nicely with their general view that minorities and womyn are fragile snowflakes that need to be protected from the big bad meanies of the world instead of treated like functioning adults with the mental maturity to handle people saying mean stuff about them.

          Which then leads to infantilization of the protected groups as some begin to realize that all they have to do is claim offense and they can have the big meanies silenced. Which then reinforces the left’s view of the protected classes as infants, and round an round we go in an endless loop.

      3. 100% agree. The ACLU is dead.

  5. if a race-baiter like Jamelle Bouie thinks the punishment is too severe, then it could be too severe. Credit to him for recognizing that the First Amendment is largely about protecting one’s right to say offensive and stupid things.

  6. Higher education reporters are now hard at work digging up every instance of racial insensitivity perpetrated by any SAE chapter.

    Uh-oh. Is rape culture news going to the back burner?

    1. They rape with their WORDS!

    2. Is rape culture news going to the back burner?

      Every cloud has its silver lining, and I think you just found this one…

  7. The full list, which contains 8 occurrences stretching back to 1981, is actually shorter than one might have expected.

    Sure, if you buy into the stereotype that all fraternity brothers are spoiled, racist white kids.

  8. The full list, which contains 8 occurrences stretching back to 1981, is actually shorter than one might have expected.

    Sure, if you buy into the stereotype that all fraternity brothers are spoiled, racist white kids.

  9. Joey Jackson, HLN’s resident “legal expert,” responded to concerns raised by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, The Washington Post’s Eugene Volokh, and me by opining, “Hate speech is not protected by the Constitution as it has no social value.

    He doesn’t state the above in the article. Did he redact his statement?

    1. I clicked on the link and the quote I saw from Joey Jackson was, “Hate speech is protected by the Constitution despite its limited social value.”

      1. It’s better to know who the crazies are rather than shut them up and just force them into underground cabals. Just as great a social value, if you ask me.

        1. The one great benefit of social media is it has allowed me to learn which people in my life I no longer have to take seriously.

        2. I like racists and bigots like Lt. Aldo Raine liked his Nazis: in uniform. Makes ’em easy to spot. Since they don’t wear uniforms (except Klansmen), then I say let them be as loud and obnoxious as they want to be*. That way you know who the assholes are.

          *Short of actually causing harm.

          1. A thousand times yes. Do not force the assholes underground. Carve a swastika on the foreheads and then hand them a double dose contempt right back.

    2. I wonder if an earlier version of the page had the quote wrong.

    3. That’s NOT what it said yesterday. They must have changed the quote. Thanks for pointing this out; I’ll make a note of it.

      1. ” “Hate speech is protected by the Constitution despite its limited social value.””

        Awesome, he’s admitting hate speech does have some (limited) social value. Let’s put that one in the vault.

        1. If you do a Google search for the entire “no social value” quote from this article, you get two hits: this article and the HLN article. That leads me to believe an earlier version of the HLN post had the line and they changed it for some reason.

    4. That might be the stupidest statement ever made by an attorney, assuming he is one, on TV. It is dumb on multiple levels. Not only does it wrongly state that “hate speech”, whatever that is, is not protected under the 1st Amendment, but also, it implies that whether speech is protected under the Amendment is dependent on its “perceived social value”. So if something doesn’t serve the collective, you have no right to say it I guess.

      1. I’m not a total speech absolutist, given that I accept some of the limits on speech (e.g., criminalizing perjury), but I’m pretty danged close. I think people should be free to say pretty much anything, with a very few exceptions. Hate speech not being one of those.

        1. I think you can be a speech absolutists and still believe in criminalizing perjury. In the case of perjury, you are not criminalizing the speech, you are criminalizing the act of deceiving the court. It is not that I can’t say “Sugar Free fucks sheep”. It is that I can’t deceive the court into thinking he fucks sheep at his sheep fucking trial. It is a subtle distinction but I think a valid one.

          1. It’s not even subtle. The distinction is grand canyon-like in its separation.

          2. I agree, but there are similar arguments for speech we likely agree should be protecting, like burning the U.S. flag you bought last week to protest farm subsidies.

            1. We agree entirely. I just had a thought. A large segment of the population who would insist that burning the US flag is entirely a protected form of speech/protest would nevertheless try to criminalize the burning of a Koran or the cartooning of MoMo. And conversely (inversely? contrapositively?) a different large segment who would want to criminalize flag burning would demand free speech protection regarding destroying the Koran or insulting a prophet.

              1. People need to stop worrying about what other people say or in most cases do.

                1. I’ve always thought that was one of the more brilliant consequences of Ayn Rand’s advocacy of selfishness. If people would spend more time taking care of themselves, they’d have much less time or energy to stick their noses in other people’s business.

                  1. We’ve really lost something in the focus on collective groups rather than on individuals. Groups aren’t happy, sad, hungry, uncomfortable, what have you. Only individuals feel those things. Furthermore, by the state intervening in everything, we’ve gone from a society where family and community were the foundational groups to one where it’s all about the state. So instead of taking care of our own, which used to be common, we look to DC to provide assistance. Insane.

                    1. We’ve really lost something in the focus on collective groups rather than on individuals.

                      Yes we did; our civilization. The entirety of Western civilization was built on the concept of the dignity and value of the individual and the rejection of collective guilt.

                    2. It’s not a big jump from “the Body Politic” to I AM THE STATE.

              2. Perhaps it can be treated as a property rights issue as well. IE — I’ll burn my own flag, Koran, Eric Clapton album, etc., as I see fit.

                1. That’s that’s the only way any sane person would treat it. These are material objects: cloth, paper, ink. They are not people. They have a utility or they are trash as the owner sees fit. At some point in the future, all of these objects will cease to exist. In some cases, the owner may decide to hasten the process. What sane person would give a flying fuck?

      2. That’s like one of those really easy multiple choice bar exam questions…that apparently he got wrong.

        1. Yes.

          A. Bob’s speech is protected and he can’t be punished by the university
          B. Bob’s speech is protected but the university can punish him as long as they give him notice and an opportunity to be heard.
          C. Bob’s speech is not protected under the First Amendment because it is hate speech and has no social value and the university can punish him immediately.

          1. On the computerized version of the test, if you choose C, a trapdoor under your chair swings open and dumps you back in remedial ConLaw. Or onto the UC Berkley faculty. I think there is some sort of random number generator.

  10. It’s about time Americunts join the civilized world and understand that freedom of expression has limits!!

    /every Eurotrash fucknugget on the internet

    1. Rather its the reverse that’s true here…same for the SA.

  11. And the American Civil Liberties Union, shockingly, has failed to denounce OU, instead patting the university on the back for how it’s handling the situation. (That’s disappointing.)

    They land on the right side of things, what? Fifty percent of the time?

    1. I’m starting to believe its mostly by accident, like a coin toss.

      1. They actually have manatees who toss the coins.

    2. If that’s the ACLU’s official response I’m disappointed, they have usually been staunch defenders of the FA.

      Now the SA….just awful.

      1. How does an ACLU lawyer count to ten?

        1. If he’s a coin tosser, I guess in base 2?

          1. 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Har!

            1. It actually goes 1, 10

    3. The same organization that has spent nearly forty years patting itself on the back for helping a bunch of Nazis taunt Holocaust survivors in Skokie, now is happy to see the state expel someone for offensive speech made in private.

      Think about that for a moment. if the SAEs had wanted to put on Nazi uniforms and marched past a Synagogue on a Saturday morning, the ACLU would go to the mattresses for them. They got drunk and sang some idiotic song in private and the ACLU joins the mob to have them run out of society.

      1. The same organization that has spent nearly forty years patting itself on the back for helping a bunch of Nazis taunt Holocaust survivors in Skokie, now is happy to see the state expel someone for offensive speech made in private.

        This.

        But blacks are the untouchable race. No ills can be spoken of them, nay, even thought of blacks as a group in the aggregate.

  12. Jesus fucking Christ Reason. This is a stupid hill to die on. Getting expelled is not being sentenced to prison. There is no constitutional right to attend a state school. This is another example of why the government shouldn’t be running schools. But, insisting the school can’t expel students for being assholes is a loser.

    1. They most certainly cannot legally expel you for have having incorrect views.

    2. Because principles matter Warren. This won’t end here. Once college presidents realize they have the power to expel any student who expresses views they don’t like, they will quickly start using it. Then we will see people being expelled for other “hate speech” like defending Israel or objecting to gay marriage or whatever KULTURE war issue of the day is.

      You don’t pick and choose who you defend from the boot of the government based on whether you like them or their views or not. In fact, this is exactly the kind of hill to die on. Our rights don’t die overnight. They die gradually. And the process starts with taking the rights away from really loathsome and disliked people. Once they do that, they just gradually expand the definition of who is worthy of special treatment. That is what is happening here. What starts with expelling a bunch of frat boys that everyone hates will quickly result in expelling anyone who doesn’t conform.

      1. What starts with expelling a bunch of frat boys that everyone hates will quickly result in expelling anyone who doesn’t conform

        When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

      2. Well said.

      3. First they came for the racists, and I did not speak out because I was not racist…

        1. That’s a lie and you know it! You have to be a racist by virtue in your membership in the Offended White Guy Brigade, and the fact that you’re part of the socon cabal on H&R. And you probably play COD too!

          1. Better get a look at his college transcripts just to be sure.

          2. Have we gotten the membership list of the Offended White Guy Brigade yet?

            Or is this a secret society thing where only Bo knows the true members?

            1. As in who’s a True Libertarian, or a SOCON, only Bo truly knows who is a member of the Offended White Guy Brigade.

              1. He does seem to have appointed himself the Almighty Shepherd and Solicitor of the Holy Order of Libertarian Electors…or something like that. Though to be fair I think many of us would gladly bestow him with those titles and honors.

                1. Though to be fair I think many of us would gladly bestow him with those titles and honors.

                  Only if it would get him to STFU and GTFA.

            2. Or is this a secret society thing where only Bo knows the true members?

              The members are: anyone who disagrees with Bo.

        2. +1 Guy Fawkes mask…

        3. Dammit, I should really read the whole sub-thread before responding…

      4. I’m just waiting for the first day a female student is expelled for objecting when a MtF transexual is in the gym locker room.

        You know it’s going to happen and the shitfight between feminists and trans activists is going to be beautiful to watch.

        1. Irish, that is genius. What if a million straight dudes publicly declared they are really women trapped in a man’s body and then demanded to use all “women’s” facilities? The whole 87 different genders and counting movement could be crushed in one swell foop.

        2. I’m just waiting for the first day a female student is expelled for objecting when a MtF transexual is in the gym locker room.

          WTH? Why the locker room? They wake up in bed together after getting hammered the night before. Feminists, lesbians, transgendered individuals, rape…

          Screw the fireworks, I wanna see some C-4.

      5. Once college presidents realize they have the power to expel any student who expresses views they don’t like, they will quickly start using it.

        College presidents should have that right.

        You don’t pick and choose who you defend from the boot of the government based on whether you like them or their views or not.

        The correct response in the case of university speech restrictions, stupid or otherwise, is not to defend students from the boot, it is to remove the boot from the government.

        1. ” College presidents should have that right.”

          Not at a state funded school.

        2. College presidents should have that right.

          Not ones at state universities. And even ones at a private university shouldn’t be able to where their handbooks and policies say otherwise, and all of them do.

          The correct response in the case of university speech restrictions, stupid or otherwise, is not to defend students from the boot, it is to remove the boot from the government.

          That makes absolutely no sense. The correct response is to defend people’s right to say what they like without the government punishing them. Saying “we just need to close down the government schools” implies the government has the right to punish speech but just shouldn’t be running schools. The last part is okay but the first part gives away the argument.

          1. That makes absolutely no sense. The correct response is to defend people’s right to say what they like without the government punishing them. Saying “we just need to close down the government schools” implies the government has the right to punish speech but just shouldn’t be running schools.

            No, it doesn’t imply that at all. It implies that private organizations should have the right to punish whatever speech is undesirable, and that we are only having these stupid first amendment debates because government is intruding into education too much.

            The last part is okay but the first part gives away the argument.

            Quite the opposite. I’m saying that by arguing about what kind of speech should be permissible at government funded schools, you already concede the legitimacy of government funded schools. But the problems go much deeper: curricula, validity of scientific results, teaching about religion, sex ed, etc.

        3. College presidents should have that right.

          If they are private.

          If they are public, they should not.

          The correct response in the case of university speech restrictions, stupid or otherwise, is not to defend students from the boot, it is to remove the boot from the government.

          Uh-huh.

          Currently the government is wearing the boot, so the correct response is to defend the students from the boot and worry about removing the boot from the government later. A boot governments have been wearing since the Revolution and are about as likely to relinquish as taxing authority.

          But hey, fantasy play-time is fun too I guess.

          1. If they are private. If they are public, they should not.

            Yes, they should. What I’m saying is that we should think of “public” universities as heavily subsidized private companies, instead of thinking of them as arms of the government.

            Currently the government is wearing the boot, so the correct response is to defend the students from the boot and worry about removing the boot from the government later.

            No, that is not the correct response because it is not a functional political strategy and its outcome is no good either, because the result you achieve is simply a public institution with no ability to deliver decent education or enforce any kind of moral principles, and institution that is a battleground for lawyers and special interest groups.

            But hey, fantasy play-time is fun too I guess.

            From a libertarian point of view, the only acceptable outcome is to privatize universities; if there is to be public funding for education, it should be given to students. The “fantasy play-time” is your idea that defending racist chants at “public” universities on first amendment grounds has anything to do with libertarian principles or is going to achieve anything other than giving libertarianism a bad name.

      6. Well done, John.

      7. Have to agree with John here.
        The freedom of speech hill is exactly the right kind of hill to die on.

      8. Right on again John. You are on a roll. I don’t even miss your typos when you’re this good.

      9. the process starts with taking the rights away from really loathsome and disliked people.

        First they came for the racist frat brahs…

    3. Your ‘stupid hill to die on’ metaphor was weak the first time I saw it.

      “But insisting the school can’t expel students for being assholes is a loser”

      Defending the FA is never a loser, and even less so as America slowly becomes an island of speech freedom in the world. And being an asshole is easily defined as someone “who you don’t like”. Are you ready to be named the asshole du jour and face the punishment?

      1. Imagine a German in the 30’s saying “defending Jews is a stupid hill to die on.”

        Iraq and Afghanistan are stupider hills to die on than this.

      2. Defending the FA is never a loser

        Let’s say the US nationalized all the newspapers and you then proceed to engage in endless debates of which newspaper articles are protected by the first amendment and which are not. By engaging in that argument, you are attempting to address a symptom of a deeper wrong. And even if you win all the first amendment arguments, you are still no closer to a free press, you have simply been distracted from the political argument you should be making. In effect, you have already accepted the nationalization of the newspapers and are only haggling over the details. That makes your “defense of the first amendment” a whopper of a loser. And it’s the same with the defense of the first amendment of free speech at “public” universities.

    4. I don’t know how it’s a stupid hill to die on to defend free speech rights against a government institution.

      I also don’t think it’s ‘dying’ on a hill to make a reasonable argument about speech protections.

    5. Warren won’t get it until the IRS audits him for saying Jesus fucking Christ.

    6. It’s not a stupid hill to die on at all. Even if this were a totally private school that was well within its rights to expel the students, it would still be a questionable decision and worth criticizing. As it stands, it is a government affiliated school.

      1. Can I get an “Amen” for brother Lynch here.

        A private school with this attitude would be beyond merely criticizing. Transferring immediately to a school recognizing the existence of the FA would be demanded.

    7. Re: Warren,

      Jesus fucking Christ Reason. This is a stupid hill to die on. Getting expelled is not being sentenced to prison.

      Getting expelled from an institution that you keep with your taxes IS like being sent to prison: it is an act of aggression from a government that purportedly exists to protect individual rights.

      But, insisting the school can’t expel students for being assholes is a loser.

      That’s not a good argument. Just because a position is not popular does not mean it is not right.

      1. Getting expelled from an institution that you keep with your taxes IS like being sent to prison: it is an act of aggression from a government that purportedly exists to protect individual rights.

        The aggression is that you are forced to pay taxes for it. Whether you then choose to attend is irrelevant to the actual aggression. In fact, by choosing to attend and then haggling over the rules under which you attend, you legitimize the process, in particular since many who are forced to pay taxes for these schools can never attend.

        It’s like someone holding you up at gunpoint, taking your wallet, and then buying you a cup of coffee with a fraction of that money. Does the cup of coffee legitimize the robbery? If he buys you Colombian instead of the French coffee you wanted, does the delegitimize the robbery again?

    8. This is THE most important hill to die on.

    9. I have wondered this as well, and not on a snarky level, either. But, if it is a libertarian value that speech is protected, as it should be, and that business’s, homeowners, etc should have the ability to run the things in thier world, thier way, (again, as they should) then it stands that schools should have the abilitly to expel, suspend, disband or disrupt any student or orginization they please, for whatever reason they please.
      Thats the main problem i have struggled with in trying to get involved with the more libertarian political philosophies, which is great on paper. It all falls apart in reality though, because people cant do what they want, which creates conflict, which creates choices, which inevitably involves someone feeling slighted.
      So, in this case of the school, it is un-libertarian of them to expel students because of hate speech, even though it could financially impact them.
      Switch the scenario, the school tries to expel, and ACLU sues the school. The school is forced to keep the students, which creates financial loss and distraction, what about their rights to protect their name and interests?
      So, reversed, we could apply the exact same argument for the scenario.
      Sometimes, you have to take a stand, and announce were your values are.

      1. The answer to that is sometimes life is like that. First, “but it costs money” is not and should never be a justification for the state not respecting people’s rights. So at most you are making an argument that running state schools is hard because they have to respect even unpopular people’s rights. Well too bad maybe the state shouldn’t be in the school business. As long as it is, however, it has to live by the constitution like it does in every other endeavor.

        As far as private schools go, if they have a handbook or a policy that students who attend there rely on and that policy says “we won’t expel you for saying something offensive”, then again too bad. They made the contract, they should have to live by it. And if they don’t have such a thing, then let them expel the students and too bad for the students but no one made them attend a school that reserved the right to kick them out for speech.

        1. Well too bad maybe the state shouldn’t be in the school business. As long as it is, however, it has to live by the constitution like it does in every other endeavor.

          I used to be of that opinion, but it’s a legalistic argument that simply doesn’t work politically. If you win that argument, you merely end up with a dysfunctional school system that nominally complies with the constitution but still relies on expropriation and still represents massive rent seeking on the part of both teachers and select groups of students.

          This kind of constitutionality argument with respect to public universities is simply not an argument any libertarian should engage in. The very existence of public universities inevitably results in violations to first amendment rights, and haggling over edge cases just legitimizes the whole business for no purpose whatsoever.

          As far as private schools go, if they have a handbook or a policy that students who attend there rely on and that policy says “we won’t expel you for saying something offensive”, then again too bad. They made the contract,

          A “handbook” is not a contract. Most likely, any private school who could make actual contracts unimpeded by government regulations would say “we can kick you out at any time for any reason”. And that’s the way educational contracts should work.

      2. The school is forced to keep the students, which creates financial loss and distraction, what about their rights to protect their name and interests?

        It’s the government angle that complicates this. The government has no right to avoiding financial loss and distraction by trodding on students’ 1A rights.

        Same way the government can’t pull Medicare from homophobes or deny VA services to a sexist veteran. An arm of the government (OU) is conditioning a public service (education at a state university) on not expressing certain unpopular views. Even if the speech chilling effects were limited to universities, it’s rather problematic to have the government policing speech.

        1. Great series of comments there. All three of them. Or maybe I’m just suffering withdrawal from a lack of civil, rational discourse. 🙂

  13. “Execrable”? Ridiculous bullshit.

    I lived in a majority black neighborhood about 20 years ago. At first, I would ask any visitors to not use the word “nigger” in my house. At some point, the number of black visitors used the word so frequently that I dropped it.

    A few weeks ago, my cousin and I were discussing the very common use of the word nigger when we were young. I thought of the Davey Crockett song and sang the “execrable” words with vigor. Because I judge people based upon their skin color and not their character? No, simply memories of childhood.

    If black people can use the word nigger than so can I. Determining the type of language one can use based upon the color of their skin is what is “execrable”. Releasing a video that harmed no one for the purpose of race baiting is also “execrable”.

    1. I wouldn’t say it’s the use of that word that made it exercable, but the parts about lynching probably did.

      Not like it matters. It’s speech, nothing more. Speech that comes nowhere near meeting the Brandeburg test.

    2. I thought that was the Daniel Boone song, the one with “but the bear was bigger”…

      (Full disclosure: I never heard this song as a child, it was actually brought up on a radio show about 10 years ago.)

      1. For those wondering, the song goes:

        Daniel Boone was a man
        Was a biiiiiiig man
        but the bear was bigger
        and he ran like a nigger
        through the woods.

        1. Yes, it was Daniel Boone and not Davey Crockett.

          The last line in my childhood was “up a tree”.

  14. Articles like this is why I give Reason money. More of this please.

    1. I was about to subscribe yesterday, but Robby’s use of the word “quibble” changed my mind. Maybe I’ll subscribe today.

  15. Expelling the students for offensive but constitutionally-protected statements without so much as a hearing is a violation of the school’s own policies, to say nothing of the Bill of Rights.

    I think it’s a pretty weak claim that it violates the Bill of Rights. Technically, state universities are part of government and their rule making might be considered a government restriction on speech. But I think that’s probably not a good way of reasoning, in particular for a libertarian and if we ever want education to become privatized.

    Could a private university have kicked these students out? Of course. Rather than saying “OU shouldn’t do this because they are a public university”, we should be saying “Hey, progressives, you want universities to be able to do this, and good for you! Why don’t you make these universities private to make such actions easier?”

    1. You know, it’s not impossible to make both of those arguments.

      1. You know, it’s not impossible to make both of those arguments.

        True, it’s not logically inconsistent to insist that public universities allow racist speech and to desire privatization of the educational system.

        I’m saying it’s politically foolish. If you succeed at the first argument, you are no closer to a libertarian educational system; arguably, you actually end up further from it, and you have wasted a lot of political capital in the process.

    2. You want to know the problem with this argument? Currently a lot of anti-speech and anti-sex rules are coming from the DOJ which is strong-arming colleges into adopting their preferred speech codes.

      This stuff is absolutely coming from the highest levels of government, so it isn’t an issue of private actors engaged in free association.

      1. The speech codes are prima facie unconstitutional at public universities, they are mainly creations of the the institutions themselves not the DOJ, its due process concerns that arise from that source.

        1. The most transparent administration in history has learned the lesson from it’s mafia hand book;

          Currently a lot of anti-speech and anti-sex and pro-surveillance and anti-porn/gun/drug payment processing and pro-transgender rules are coming from the DOJ which is strong-arming colleges everyone into adopting a wide array of their preferences.

          They don’t actually get their hands wet themselves killing our rights, they just express a vague desire to have our rights violated or nullified and then heartily pay off and pat the back of the would be goodfellas who would step up and do the dirty work.

      2. It has been reported that OU’s president Boren was required to take this action by the terms of Title 6. If so, then that’s a federal regulation harming a citizen based on the content of their speech.

        The harm comes from not just not being able to attend OU any longer, but it will likely become very difficult to re-enroll at any university, which then affects the future earnings of the student significantly.

      3. This stuff is absolutely coming from the highest levels of government, so it isn’t an issue of private actors engaged in free association.

        Of course it isn’t: these are administration rules. But it doesn’t matter how the DOJ modifies the rules, the way the federal government currently funds and regulates education intrinsically corrupts the educational process and limits free speech on campus. By haggling about the legalistic details of those regulations, libertarians aren’t making any progress on education reform, and we’ll just be perceived as favoring racist speech.

        I don’t know about you, but I deplore racist speech. I think educational institutions should be free to (but not required to) kick out students like these. And the way to accomplish that is to transform all educational institutions into private institutions that are not subject to first amendment rules; any government education funding should be given to the students themselves.

    3. Going to a state school is a state benefit. If the state can deprive you of that benefit for speech it doesn’t like, it can deprive you of any benefit. What is next, take unemployment benefits away from racists? Drivers’ licenses?

      1. Drivers’ licenses?

        I can’t decide if this would get traction in IL or if there are enough ‘old white guys’ running the democratic machine to kill it off.

      2. It’s almost like you don’t realize that you’re looking into the crystal ball.

      3. Kind of like denying drivers licenses or vehicle registration to people who are barred from gun ownership in California?

        https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB529/2015

      4. Having dinner with the Godfather is a benefit of paying a large amount of protection money. If the mafia can deprive you of that benefit for saying something anti-Italian, it can deprive you of any benefit. What’s next? Are they going to stop serving you espresso in mafia-owned coffee shops even though you paid your protection money?

    4. For what it’s worth, we’re making that argument as well. https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..or-private

      1. I wonder how the argument would run regarding private educational institutions accepting any form of federal money (assistance, grants, contracts)? In theory, one would think that the federal government would require such private institutions to vigorously defend the constitutional rights of students. In practice, it appears to be just the opposite.

        1. Use title IX against them. The phrase of the day is “hostile learning environment. ” what learning environment is more hostile than one where unpopular ideas are punished by expulsion rather than debated and rejected on their merits.

          1. Great idea!

            It is very hostile to be afraid to offer one’s opinion, lest they be expelled for uttering the wrong one.

  16. folks, this ain’t the hill to die on. let’s keep our powder dry for the quartering of soldiers.

    1. You may be right.

    2. I chuckled.

      If those who care about liberty don’t “die” on the hill of free speech they’ll be actually dying on the next hill.

  17. One thing no one is really pointing out is that apparently OU has specific regulations for expulsion that they laid out in their own handbook and they violated their own stated due process by expelling them without following the necessary steps.

    Therefore, even if this was a private school they would have done something wrong by breaking their own internal regulations.

    1. Exactly that. Even if you don’t want to buy the Constitutional Argument, there is a clear contractual argument. Those students went to OU on the assurance that they wouldn’t just be unilaterally kicked out. OU violated that promise and should have to pay for doing so.

      1. Right, but Universities require you to pledge, on paper, at least, that you will abide by the schools regulations, guidelines for misconduct, etc., incuding moral misconduct, mission statements, yda yada.. I betcha 100 dollars that those students said they would uphold the schools values, and THEY violated that covenant.

        1. I will take your bet and bet another hundred that those rules only apply to conduct in the classroom and on campus. They don’t apply to every moment of their lives. This was private conduct that was away from campus and not in the classroom.

    2. I think they are relying on that catch-all provision (you know, the “exception” that gobbles up the rule) of “extraordinary circumstances.” Can’t remember the exact wording. Definitely remember when I saw it saying to myself, “yeah, because THAT can’t be abused.”

      1. It is not that simple. It can be abused, but it can’t be abused arbitrarily. Even if you use that catch all to treat people unfairly, you have to treat everyone unfairly. That means you can’t expel these students for this under the clause while not doing the same to students guilty of similar or worse conduct.

        1. And I don’t know how you can claim this racism is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ while ignoring all the people on the OU football team who have engaged in worse behavior.

          If this is ‘extraordinary’ then surely the football player who broke a woman’s face should not be allowed to remain in school, correct?

          1. I don’t think you can. Some guys singing a racist song is “extraordinary” while a student destroying the face another student isn’t?

            A court would interpret that language by looking at past practice, industry practice and the context of it. All of these schools have these kinds of clauses in their handbooks. And they are designed for cases of extreme criminal conduct. Say for example a student is charged with murder. That clause allows the University to get them off campus even if they make bail. They were never written to expel any student that makes the university angry.

          2. Being from Oklahoma and having lived and worked in Norman, Ok, I can tell you firsthand that a star football player could rape and kill a minor and face very few consequences. The truth of the matter, as was pointed out by others here, is that other colleges will use this against OU in recruiting and that will NOT be tolerated. Oklahoma and particularily Norman live and die on OU Football. People spend their lives obsessing over recruiting, pre season workouts and scouting reports of high school Freshmen from Podunk, In. I have seen people refuse to work for days after a loss because they are devastated. Norman, Ok almost shuts down on game day and anyone who doesn’t worship is an outcast. I grew up and love most of the people in Oklahoma but the unhealthy obsession with OU football is one of the reasons I choose to live elsewhere.

            1. I lived in Oklahoma for most of 11 years FUQ and lived in Norman for a year, though I did not go to OU. And you describe it perfectly. This was totally about football recruiting.

              The funny thing is that I think the media is going to pick up and start writing about the Mixon case because of this. The Mixon case makes OU look terrible given the emphasis on violence against women going on right now. They have only gotten a pass because the national media doesn’t follow such cases usually and the Oklahoma media is a subsidiary of the OU athletic department. I think that free pass is about to end.

              1. John, I know and have associatted with some big OU doners and alums. I have been at Stoops fundraisers (worked) where huge celebrities show up and turn into drunken assholes. The press only allowed if everything they print is prescreened. The Norman police are told to stay miles away from these events and to not even think about pulling anyone over for a DUI. It would amaze people the number of things that happens around the football team that never sees the light of day. And Dean Blevins is the biggest OU media whore around. The free pass will never end unless Stoops has a few losing seasons. Then the whole town will turn on him and Boren.

                1. FUQ,

                  The story about OU football is that after World War II some very rich people in Oklahoma decided the way to improve the state’s reputation was to build a great college football program. The first place the went was OSU. At that time OSU had just been to two Cotton Bowls and had won two NCAA basketball titles under Henry Iba. Iba pretty much ran the athletic program. Iba, being a man of great character, told them to fuck off that he didn’t want to run dirty athletic department. So, they went to OU and the rest is history.

                  I went to OSU. I moved to Oklahoma my senior year and grew up hating OU football and wanted no part of going there. It always amazed me how OSU is the one big state school in America that doesn’t have any kind of friendly media. The entire state media is pro OU and anti OSU. It is so blatant it is almost funny. Every single January, the media in Oklahoma runs unsourced stories linking Mike Gundy and any good assistant to new jobs in hopes of hurting recruiting. Every OSU player who so much as spits on the side walk is made an example of. Tyreke Hill gets accused, not even convicted, of hitting his girlfriend and the media demands he immediately be expelled, while Mixon and ODG are good kids who deserve a second chance.

                  1. . It always amazed me how OSU is the one big state school in America that doesn’t have any kind of friendly media.

                    Ahem! (Says the Purdue alum)

                    I know the feeling. Indiana media caters to the reversible jacket fans (ND football, IU basketball).

                    1. I didn’t know that Terrible. It does not however surprise me.

                2. I do, however, think that OU’s best days are behind them. For decades they totally owned Oklahoma and dominated DFW in recruiting. Now with OSU and TCU and Baylor having similar facilities and every team being on TV and kids caring about the NFL not tradition, that is no longer true. Now it is whoever has the best coach and OU doesn’t have that right now and may not again. Great coaches are hard to find.

                  1. John, from your typing to the football gods ear. I always wish for OU to have a winless season just to shut the “Homers” up. Nothing made me happier than to pointlessly dig at the open wound after they lost on Saturday. Working on a Sunday in Norman after a loss was wonderful. No one wanted to leave their house so we had a very easy shift.

                    The double standard with OSU is hilarious and most of the hate with Gundy is that he refused to go to OU unlike his brother Cale.

                    1. The media hate against Gundy is for a couple of reasons. First, he is a really good coach and they know it. No one wants a good coach at OSU. Second, having grown up in Oklahoma he understands the media is not his friend and treats them accordingly. They hate that. OSU coaches are supposed to pretend the Oklahoma media is their friend and beg for forgiveness of the crime of being at OSU, not tell them to fuck off. They were so angry over the infamous “I am a man and I’m 40” tirade against poor little Jenni Carlson. I was living in Atlanta at the time and it was living proof that there is no such thing as bad publicity. All of the sudden every high school player in America knew who OSU was and about their coach. It worked out brilliantly for Gundy and OSU and the Oklahoma media hated that.

            2. Oklahoma and particularily Norman live and die on OU Football. People spend their lives obsessing over recruiting, pre season workouts and scouting reports of high school Freshmen from Podunk, In. I have seen people refuse to work for days after a loss because they are devastated.

              It’s almost like maybe the reason OU students have such a dismal view of black people is because the culture of athletic obsession at caused people at OU to view black people as nothing but savage beasts, fodder to be trained to smash into eachother at risk of traumatic brain injury.

              That might take too much self-awareness for the community- white, black and everything in between- to muster.

              1. It’s almost like maybe the reason OU students have such a dismal view of black people is because the culture of athletic obsession at caused people at OU to view black people as nothing but savage beasts, fodder to be trained to smash into eachother at risk of traumatic brain injury.

                That might take too much self-awareness for the community- white, black and everything in between- to muster.

                I seriously ran into very few racists in the area. Mostly 60+ white women to be honest. OU sports fans don’t see color. They don’t care as long as a W is achieved. Oklahomans aren’t backwoods hicks just looking for an excuse to “lynch some niggers”. Your statement about their obsession is 100% correct if you take race out of it. Norman had a black Rep for awhile. He was also a Republican. He also played quarterback for the Sooners and that was what got him elected.

                1. Being from the northeast, all this obsession over college sports is so completely foreign to me. Its unholy communion with local politics really ought to end IMHO.

                  1. Rhywun,

                    It is just substitute professional sports. Until the Thunder Oklahoma didn’t have a pro sports team. So the state adopted its college teams as a substitute. The typical Red Sox or Patriots fan in Boston is every bit as big of an idiot as your typical OU or Alabama fan.

                    1. It is just substitute professional sports.

                      In Oklahoma, sure. But the same phenomenon is present in many other parts of the country with plenty of professional sports around.

                      I’ve lived in a town that was obsessed with its pro-football team (Buffalo) but that obsession didn’t come close to what I see in big college sports towns.

                    2. Rywun,

                      That is because for a long time many places in the country didn’t have professional sports. The south didn’t have professional sports until t he 1960s. By the time it did, it wasn’t going to uproot the college sports culture that was already there.

                    3. By the time it did, it wasn’t going to uproot the college sports culture that was already there.

                      Good point

              2. Yeah, Norman is not racist. They just do anything to have a good football team. There have been white players who have gotten over as well. Color doesn’t matter. Only athletic ability matters.

            3. what I really hate about OU v. Texas besides Upright Bevo is that they use the Cotton Bowl. it’s not really a road game for either team since it’s not really a hostile environment. it’s how they both manage to play only 5 road games every other year. Baylor otoh play games in Austin and Norman.

              1. PRX,

                I loath both schools and totally get your point. That game is however a completely insane sporting event and really one of the few old school non corporate great sporting events left in this country. Having been to a few of those games, it is an absolute blast to go to the fair in the morning and check out the animals and ride the rides and eat the fair food and then go to the game in the afternoon. And the game is an unbelievable freak show. The stadium is split right down the middle with the north end being OU and the south end Texas. So you get these surreal scenes of the Texas band breaking out the giant Texas flag and half the stadium getting all teary eyed singing “The Eyes of Texas” and the other half booing and throwing shit on the field. Even though I loath both schools, I really would hate to see that freak show end and turn into a typical home and home.

                1. Having attended several OU/Texas games in my life, (My moms family is from Texas) I agree with John. Inside the stadium and out out is a sea of orange and red. With a couple of exceptions the fans poke fun at each other, enjoy the fair and game and then go home. Even tho I detest what college sports has become I would still attend that game.

          3. Just so we’re clear, I’m 100% agreeing with you both. I think the clause in question was probably designed for situations that pose an imminent threat (but even in that situation I don’t know why the remedy isn’t a temporary suspension while due process is allowed to take its course). OU is overreaching in using it here and are mainlining hypocrisy by allowing Mixon to walk around campus after breaking a chick’s face.

            1. I agree 100%. There is a history of horrid behavior by OU athletes (baseball and basketball included) that is never covered. That sort of coverup and protection of athletes is part of the recruiting process. Having 2 racist shits being responsible for losing a recruit will not be tolerated and action must be taken. Protecting the athlete who broke some womens face is just proving to incoming recruits that they will be taken care of no matter what. Assuming they can play sports. Anyone living in Norman when Adrian Peterson was actually attending school there wasn’t remotely surprised when his troubles came around.

    3. I haven’t reviewed OU regulations, but ordering the fraternity members to vacate housing within ~24-hrs is also outrageous and certainly not allowable at any university/college without reasonable cause (generally safety-related).

      As John has pointed-out, there are lawsuits in OU’s future, and it’s certainly not difficult to show tangible damage.

      1. I order how a 24-hour eviction squares with tenant laws in OK.

        1. SF, those laws were meant to protect the vulnerable. Take your white, male, cis-gendered, hetero-normative privilege out back and fuck yourself with it.

          1. Who are more vulnerable than children who must be protected at all times?

            1. Now you are beginning to understand. Drink deep from these limpid pools of derp.

          2. Take your white, male, cis-gendered, hetero-normative privilege out back and fuck yourself with it.

            Because once he does, he’ll cease to be hetero-normative and can then claim the mantle of the oppressed.

            1. Does that qualify as “meta?”

              Even if it doesn’t, well done.

          3. Would you still be “hetero-normative” if you fuck around with your privileged male buddies?

  18. 8 occurrences stretching back to 1981

    I guess the phrase “statistically insignificant” means nothing to them…

    1. In 1963, someone in your fraternity publicly objected to ending segregation. You people have a pattern of this kind of behavior.

      1. I had to read this 3 times before I realized it was a generalized, mockingly example of what I hear from the left – and not an actual “I know you’re in a frat and I have dirt on your group” statement.

        #NeedStrongerCoffee

    2. If you turn 8 on it’s side…it’s INFINITY!

      /trutherderpmode

  19. I really wish people would stop thinking of everyday ordinary human justice as an “old white man” thing.

    As if younger people, blacks, and hispanics universally agree that people should be deprived of basic human rights because we don’t like them.

    1. I don’t think they do. The problem is that we have a real problem with double standards in this society. I don’t think anyone believes that a black fraternity guilty of similar conduct would have even been punished. Sadly, the Progs have managed to make it a “white man thing’ since some standards are only applied to white people. And that is not a good thing.

      1. The hypocrisy of the situation is the SJWs are constantly harping that “gender is a social construct and is therefore worthless and should be ended.”

        Maybe they have a point regarding gender and maybe they don’t as I’m not convinced that gender is totally a social construct. But race IS a social construct and they worship the goddamned thing. In reality, they worship gender as well because they can’t stop harping about it.

        Funny thing about SJW’s – they can’t get enough of the things they say have no value.

        1. Race is totally a social construct. In the small town where my older brother lives a family adopted a baby from either the Sudan or Ethiopia. This totally dark skinned black kid has grown up in rural America and is your typical rural white American. His skin tone just makes who is unexpected.

          The other insane thing is that they say gender is a social construct and must therefore be destroyed but they will do anything to keep the social construct of race even though ending it is the only way to end racism. They really are evil. Up is down to them. Everything they say and believe is a lie and counter to reality in some horrible way.

    2. I really wish people would stop thinking of everyday ordinary human justice as an “old white man” thing.

      Especially when they’re trying to defend the actions of David “quintessential old white man” Boren.

    3. Blacks can’t be racists, because POWER BASE!

      /Rev. Sharptard et al.

  20. There is no constitutional right to discriminate.

    Instead of playing the 1A card, you should note the content and context of the speech in question.

    The ditty per the video:

    “There will never be a nigger at SAE
    There will never be a nigger at SAE
    You can hang him from a tree
    But he’ll never sign with me
    There will never be a nigger at SAE”

    Translated into more respectable language:

    “My university-affiliated organization will never admit black members
    My university-affiliated organization will always practice racial discrimination
    Please feel free to lynch said minorities
    No matter what, I will not permit African-Americans to join this organization
    My university-affiliated organization refuses to admit African-Americans.”

    The university cannot possibly tolerate that behavior, otherwise it would be violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by allowing a group that it sponsors to practice discrimination. The video certainly eliminates any doubt about said discrimination.

    There is a difference between bad speech and bad acts. If you want to practice racism on a personal level, then that is your business. But when you refuse to provide customer service or employment or membership in a college fraternity (which is not protected by the “intimate association” exception) because of that racism, then you have committed a violation.

    1. Certainly the fraternity can be subject to disciplinary action but OU is completely forbidden from punishing students for their choral selection program.

    2. None of that excuses punishment of speech. You want to punish the fraternity for violations, fine (and the national fraternity did a good job of that before the school did). But it’s another matter to punish the individuals for speech.

      1. The individuals stated on the video that they are personally participating in the discrimination and would continue to do so. That isn’t just speech, that’s action.

        1. No its speech and completely protected. Please supply the evidence of actual discrimination.

          1. So you’re claiming that they’re lying when they sing their discrimination song.

            Odd that a group that has had two black members and hasn’t admitted one in the last fifteen years would be suspected of lying when it sets its membership policy to music.

            1. Then get that evidence.

              The can sing any song they damn well please, holding racist views is as constitutionally protected as being the most annoying whiny liberal.

              1. Don’t bother, it’s Bo with a new handle. He has been resistant to seeking help for his Asperger’s condition, and this is part of the denial process.

                1. Oh that crazy Bo. So Tulpical. So sad.

                2. I’ve never posted here before. Sorry, but I didn’t realize that posting here required membership in a clique.

                  1. “Bo Cara”? Pass?.
                    “Pch101”? Chic!
                    Cake still in fashion.

            2. At least there aren’t any black fraternities that might muddy up the discussion.

              1. “”muddy up”” = RACISM! Proof! You saw it, right there! That means racist. Case closed!

                /Pch101

                1. It’s a fair cop.

        2. Against whom?

        3. That’s odd because the OU president’s own letter regarding his rationale behind expelling them makes no mention of expelling them for proven discrimination.

          He explicitly said ‘I hope the students will learn from this experience and realize that it is wrong TO USE WORDS TO HURT, THREATEN AND EXCLUDE OTHER PEOPLE.’

          Note that last bit – he specifically says they are being expelled because of the WORDS they used. Explain how this is not a first amendment issue, please and thank you.

          1. David Boren can join the exiting NPR ombudsman in the club of “utterly clueless about the US Constitution”.

        4. That’s not how it works. And there’s nothing in Title VI that would punish individuals for speech.

          I could say “I am going to shoot you tomorrow”. Now, you can’t tolerate that behavior, because if I actually engaged in that action, it would be illegal. But it’s protected speech. Just like this. If there’s discrimination at SAE, it can be handled at the fraternity level. And it was. But it’s still protected speech. And unless it meets certain, very narrow tests (and this isn’t that), you can’t punish people for that.

          1. I’m going to shoot you tomorrow is not protected speech because it’s a criminal threat.

            1. Unless it’s part of a sound recording, of course. Otherwise half the rappers out there would be hauled into court.

            2. “I’m going to shoot you tomorrow” is protected speech.

              “I’m going to shoot you right now, with this gun” isn’t. Under Brandenburg v. Ohio, incitement to violence or breaking the law is protected the speech unless it’s intended to cause imminent lawless action.

              A KKK member can speak to a Klan rally and say “Kill all the blacks! Kill all the Jews!”, and that’s protected speech. If a KKK member spoke to a Klan rally and said “That’s not Rhett who forgot to wash his hands after a cross burning, it’s that black Sheriff from Rock Ridge! Lets’ kill him!”, that’s unprotected, because it’s intended to cause imminent lawless action.

              1. +1000 steaks from the cattle that stampeded the Vatican

          2. They aren’t just talking about discrimination, they’re practicing it.

            1. Saying it repeatedly doesn’t constitute evidence of action. You may well be right. But speech without causal connection to action isn’t proof.

              1. Er, he confessed.

                1. My God. Can someone be so obtuse they become…acute?

            2. “I murdered a bus full of nuns”

              See what I did there? I just committed mass murder, according to you.

        5. The individuals can’t discriminate if they are no longer members of a frat.

          Disband the frat, and heck, ban them from joining another one. Expulsion is a punishment of the students speech, not a prevention of the student discriminating in fraternity membership.

          1. The individuals can’t discriminate if they are no longer members of a frat.

            Technically, they’re more free to discriminate at will (or without greater social reprecussion) when they aren’t part of the frat.

            Expelling them from the school is about as stupid as confining white racists and black (or Hispanic) gang members in concrete boxes in order to reform them.

          2. Disband the frat,

            It always comes back to collective punishment, doesn’t it?

    3. Per the video:

      A few guys said some things.

    4. There are a number of problems with your argument:

      “The university cannot possibly tolerate that behavior, otherwise it would be violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by allowing a group that it sponsors to practice discrimination. The video certainly eliminates any doubt about said discrimination.”

      Which is why the fraternity was shuttered. This isn’t about the fraternity anymore, it’s about the expulsion of the students. You’ve made a good argument for why the charter for the frat should be revoked, but haven’t explained why a public university is allowed to expel people in contravention of both the first amendment and the university’s own due process requirements.

      “There is a difference between bad speech and bad acts. If you want to practice racism on a personal level, then that is your business. But when you refuse to provide customer service or employment or membership in a college fraternity (which is not protected by the “intimate association” exception) because of that racism, then you have committed a violation.”

      Again, how does this justify expulsion by a state school or the contract infringement caused by failure to adhere to the handbook’s own requirements for expulsion? Answer: It doesn’t. You’re arguing beside the point.

      1. The students didn’t just state that they liked the idea of discrimination, but they actually practiced it on behalf of their group. So no, it isn’t just about speech.

        OU’s code of conduct provides expulsion as a remedy and permits immediate administrative action. Whether the university was overly hasty about the process in this case is up for debate, but the process does allow it in at least some cases.

        1. No, its about due process. The university cannot expel students for incorrect speech as on their own letterhead they appear to have in fact done.

          1. also, the President’s letter did not even claim that the fraternity discriminated against anty specific persons, instead writing about some mumbo jumbo about hostile environments.

            1. You should Google “hostile environment.” If the university had failed to act, then it could be readily accused of maintaining one. (If there is a lawsuit that should be of concern, then it would be that one.)

              1. You are confusing public versus private acts. I can’t create a “hostile environment” by what I say in my own house or in this case bus. This was a private act that became public only because someone released the video. You can’t punish them for private speech even if it does become public.

      2. The video certainly eliminates any doubt about said discrimination.

        It does? I would think you would need evidence of actual, you know, discrimination to eliminate any doubt about discrimination.

        As in, black students were told not to apply when they asked, black students who applied were turned down without exception, black pledges were never admitted a full brothers.

        Is there evidence of that? Maybe. But the video ain’t it.

    5. The university is within it’s rights to disband the frat, but not to expell the students.

      1. I am not sure if the university could have disbanded the frat solely due to the content of the speech. the national frat headquarters closed the chapter, making it a moot point.

        1. I am kind of in your camp on this as well. If OU disbands the fraternity they are violating the members’ rights to freely associate based upon speech. The national frat is entirely within it’s rights simply based on contract.

    6. The answer to t hat is you shut down the fraternity. Moreover, you have no evidence that they ran the fraternity that way. Maybe they did. The existence of a single video of them singing a racist song in no way proves that. If it did, anyone who owned a business who was caught saying something racist in private would be subject to suit.

    7. Of course there is a constitutional right to discriminate. It’s absolute in our private dealings, but “private” is being redefined all the time.

      Oh, and I love how today’s liberals mock the first amendment, e.g., “playing the 1A card”. Disgraceful.

    8. The university cannot possibly tolerate that behavior, otherwise it would be violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by allowing a group that it sponsors to practice discrimination.

      And the university no longer sponsers the SAE chapter, and the national org also kicked them out. I dodn’t see too many here arguing against that. the problem is the expulsion of students over their speech and the fact the president of the university violated the student handbook by denying them any due process.

    9. Under new handle
      Of Pch101
      Bo strives to rule night

    10. There is no constitutional right to discriminate.

      Oh, yes, there is: freedom of association.

  21. If you are classed as a private club then you are free to discriminate all you want…its called freedom of association.

    1. There is case law that establishes that fraternities do not qualify for the “intimate association” exemption. So no, they cannot discriminate based upon race.

      1. Who are you, so wise in the ways of case law? You wouldn’t happen to be a law student, would you?

          1. No one expects the H&R Inquisition!

        1. I am Bo Cara, King of the Britons. Would you like to join my (non-racist) knights of the round table?

      2. There is case law that establishes that fraternities do not qualify for the “intimate association” exemption.

        How nice. Even if true, here is lots of case law establishing all sorts of stupid precedent. The real question is whether that is good case law.

  22. I’m wondering what the odds are that the two individuals were expelled because a top football recruit decommitted from Oklahoma because of the chants.

    1. DING DING DING. We have a winner. Nothing, and I mean nothing will stand in the way of the OU football machine.

  23. OU has announced the hiring of a “VP for Diversity.” I don’t suppose that means the new V.P. will overturn the expulsion to ensure that racist views continue to be expressed on campus? Oh, I forgot: tolerance means intolerance toward the intolerant.

    1. And then next year, when it expands to a full diversity office and tuition prices go up, Obama can talk more about how we need student debt forgiveness!

  24. As I said if you’re “classed as a private club”….then discriminate all you want, totally legal.

    1. Yes and no. Unfortunately the First Amendment freedom of association doesn’t mean much anymore. Examples all over the place with colleges forcing, say, religious-based clubs to admit members without regard to religion.

      (though I’m not sure how traditional Black/traditional Jewish/etc. fraternities and sororities work in this regard)

    2. As I noted above, case law says that you’re wrong. Fraternities have lost this argument in the appeals courts before, more than once.

        1. I don’t know who Bo is. I can only presume that he or she must have a better grasp of the law than you can manage.

          I’ve simply stated a fact. The case law is what it is. You are aware that courts use case law to interpret the constitution, right?

          1. 1) Insert key
            2) Make popcorn
            3) Turn key
            4) Release key
            5) Eat popcorn while enjoying the Botard

          2. Bo reverts to form
            Entering berserker mode
            All fists and elbows

      1. But you’d first have to demonstrate at the bare minimum that the guys on the video were in charge of admission to the frat, that they had some power with which to discriminate. As far as I’ve heard, there is zero evidence of this so far.

        Maybe it will arise, but OU can’t prospectively expel these guys based on a theory of possible discrimination.

  25. The HLN article appears to have been altered. Jackson is now quoted as saying, “Hate speech is protected by the Constitution despite its limited social value.”

    That’s certainly a 180.

    By the way, I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what does “social value” mean.

    1. It means roughly the same thing as “Social Justice”.

    2. I don’t know either but it sounds like a price-fixing scheme.

    3. But the good thing is he admitted hate speech has social value.

    4. I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what does “social value” mean.

      Saying speech has no social value is just a fancy way of saying “me no likey”.

    5. Whatever “social value” is, one might argue that *everything* has *limited* “social value”.

    6. By the way, I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what does “social value” mean.

      Whatever progressives or social conservatives want it to mean, usually based on the sayings of their religious figures “Marx” or “Jesus”.

    1. Please return to Stormfront

    2. Fuck off Merkin

    3. I have a large bag of dicks for you to eat.

      1. As long as they are the dicks of the pure and noble White Race, I’m sure he will gobble them right down. Black and brown dicks only drive down his dirt road.

        1. To use his preferred parlance, I wonder how the dicks of some “octaroons” or “high yellas” would taste? Are they 87.5% delicious or is he following the “one drop” rule, thereby spoiling the otherwise fantabulous dongs?

          1. I feel bad – I laughed at your dialog w/SF. A lot, actually.

        1. Worst thing I could look at while being on a diet.

          Thanks for no trigger warning!

          1. You’re welcome

    4. The worst thing about fuckheads like you is that now progtards might wonder over here, see the rest of us debating about how these frat bruhs have had their 1A rights violated and how the president of OU violated their own handbook, etc. etc.

      Then they’ll come to your comment and say to themselves “Aha! I knew those libertariarans were really just a bunch of racists hiding behind 1A and due process arguments! And here’s the proof!” (they do love them some guilt by association, afterall).

      But I suppose I should also say thank you for being so obnoxious and upfront about your assholery. Now the rest of us know what a dickbag you are and can treat you with the contempt and scorn you so richly deserve.

      1. Re: Loki,

        Then [progtards] come to your comment and say to themselves “Aha! I knew those libertariarans were really just a bunch of racists hiding behind 1A[…]

        Little red Marxians already think that without any help, Loki. They’re the least interested in the argument and more in bomb-throwing and guilt by association.

        1. Little red Marxians already think that without any help, Loki.

          But we could defuse their thinking by saying “We strongly oppose racist speech. Unfortunately, by continuing public education the way it is, progressives actually enable racist speech under the First Amendment.”

  26. My understanding from the US Supreme Court ruling a few years back over atheists not having to be admitted to the Boy Scouts since its a private organization means that private clubs van set their own rules of admission. I don’t think those college rules over admission would withstand legal challenge.

    1. They are a private club but they get university sanction. That gives the university the right to tell them they can’t discriminate. In fact, the university is probably obligated to do that. If this were the “Fraternal Order of Fat Heads” that the students formed on their own with no university sanction, they would be free to discriminate however they liked. Since they are a university sanctioned organization, they are subject to university rules.

      Also, the national fraternity organization says they can’t do this and yanked their charter, which they of course can do.

      1. I don’t have a problem with any of the sanctions being applied to the fraternity since presumably they have a rules of conduct document etc and I’m not sure exactly what the legal definition of “private club” is (for SCOTUS the Boy Scouts seems to have been defines as private) however I have every conceivable problem with disciplinary sanctions due to speech that offends others and a University that casually sweeps aside its own due process protocols to satisfy rabid media hounds baying for blood.

  27. “*UPDATE: The HLN article appears to have been altered. Jackson is now quoted as saying, “Hate speech is protected by the Constitution despite its limited social value.”

    Social value?

    What does anyone’s opinion about the “social value” of any speech have to do with whether it is Constituionally protected or not?

    Absolutely nothing – that’s what.

    1. “social value” is a euphemism for “group signaling”

  28. When people express surprise that the ACLU (probably better referred to as “The American Union for Some Civil Liberties”) doesn’t denounce lefty wackiness it speaks to the disconnect so many have the the reality of just how deeply progressive wackiness has lodged itself into “polite society.”

    1. Or the American Convenient Liberties Union.

    2. The entire idea that a bunch of people drunkenly singing a song, no matter how offensive, could be this big of a deal in the first place shows how much Progressive wackiness has infected society. Even 20 years ago, this would have resulted in a President or a Dean showing up at the Frat House and chewing their asses and telling them to have better judgement about what they do when drunk and that would have been it.

      Today it is a national news story. Think about how insane that is. A bunch of college kids get drunk and sing an offensive song and it has become a national issue.

      1. Yep. I mean this without a shred of hyperbole, we’re in crisis.

  29. OU-approved party song:

    How many African-Americans brought they irons tonight?
    How many African-Americans wanna ride tonight?
    Pick out our victims when the time is right
    We get they ass up off the corner cause they dyin’ tonight

    African-Americans be all up in my mug
    But it’s a different story when them muthafuckas coughing up blood

    African-Americans be shootin’ the gif like they for real
    But when it jumps, they ain’t got no murder skills

    1. Straight out of Compton, another crazy-ass African-American
      When it comes to smoking punks, I’m doing the best I can

  30. Robby, what took you so long? Yesterday, you had a “quibble”, but today you’ve set the proper tone. Better late than never, I suppose.

  31. Is that Bo-like typing I detect up there?

  32. Is that Bo-like typing I detect up there?

    1. Somebody is definitely trying to smell his own farts.

    2. It’s not just Bo, it’s ESQUIRE!

    3. It’s Bo-like, but I don’t think it’s Bo-Bo.

      Bo-Bo is in the Richman thread agreeing with Jackass and shriek about all the neocons.

      1. NEOCONS??! WHERE? (gets shotgun)

        1. Why, they’re everywhere, Gilmore! This site is literally infested with us them! And SoCons too!

          1. In the same way I am really a SOCON because I will stand up and defend their right to believe what they want and act on it, everyone here is really a racist because they are standing up for the rights of these students to say something racist.

            There seem to be fewer and fewer people in this country who can understand that standing up for someone’s right to think or act in some way is not the same as endorsing their views or conduct. The idea goes right over their heads. They honestly can’t conceive of doing anything but defending people you like and attacking people you don’t.

            1. There seem to be fewer and fewer people in this country who can understand that standing up for someone’s right to think or act in some way is not the same as endorsing their views or conduct.

              You are not standing up for their right to think and act in some way, you are standing up for their right to receive tax payers’ funds. Does the First Amendment protect speech-blind redistribution? I have no idea, and I frankly don’t care: the redistribution is the root cause of the problem, and haggling over the details doesn’t make you a champion of liberty or constitutionality.

      2. I knew I’ve seen this guy (Pch101) before. He’s not Bo-Bo, he’s an asshat who usually tards up gun discussion blogs with his flagrantly idiotic and historically inaccurate “actually derp, derp NATIONAL GUARD!!” reading of the 2nd Amendment and uses references that prove him flat wrong.

        Here’s an example.

        1. Here he pretending that the conduct in question was done in the classroom or at some campus event rather than in private. Well, yeah, if some student goes to class and disrupts it by threatening to lynch every black person there, the university is within its rights to expel them. That however is not what happened here and Pch101 doesn’t seem to understand that.

          1. The fraternity doesn’t exist in a vacuum — there is a formal relationship with the school.

            If a few students want to ride on a bus and scream all day long about their hatred of “niggers,” “kikes,” “towelheads,” or whomever they’d like to hate, then that’s their business.

            But these particular guys were participating in what was effectively a university-approved activity as members of a university-approved group, and they are subject to the rules of the university, including off campus.

  33. The worst part about this whole ordeal is I couldn’t quite fit the lyrics with the beat of the song…until yesterday. Now I can’t get it out of my head. I’ve called the racist exorcism hotline but keep getting a busy signal. Lord please release me from mine de-vils and show me the errr in mine ways!

    I guess Immature Teens Sing Stupid Song didn’t have enough ‘punch’ for them. Someone is going to have to start dating at least a half black girl real fast if they want society to see they have changed.

    1. White guys banging black girls is racist exploitation. They need to start getting banged by black guys, THAT’s when the nation will see that they have changed.

  34. Noted luminary Jessica Valenti weighs in on free speech:

    When a writer like New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait feels it necessary to whine in print about his and other (mostly well-remunerated) writers’ inability to write offensive tripe without consequence, I think: Boo-fucking-hoo. Get a real problem.

    http://www.theguardian.com/com…..e-offended

    1. ” Boo-fucking-hoo. Get a real problem.”

      Wow, Jessica and I often have the same thoughts! Maybe we’d make a great couple. I hope she likes disco dancing.

  35. Compare/Contrast

    “many members of the OU community, activist groups, students at other campuses, some former SAE brothers, and national commentators are all saying that this fraternity?and possibly its national organization?have allowed a culture of lingering racism to fester”

    “It’s difficult to imagine a more callous, wholly inadequate response to a culture of seemingly rampant sexual assault at the University of Virginia (UVA)… It’s a travesty that such a terrible culture of sexual violence endures at perhaps the quintessential American public university”

    We are going to have a Petri Dish shortage at this rate

  36. Should gov’t employers not be permitted to fire employees for hate speech?

    Of course, the gov’t can’t — and shouldn’t — limit speech in a public square. You have a right to be there. There is no “right” to go to the University of Oklahoma in the same way there is a right to be on a public street. Indeed, OU denied nearly 20% of people who applied. I don’t think anyone argues that colleges and universities should be prevented from excluding some people from admission.

    There is NO RIGHT TO ATTEND OU. It doesn’t exist. Expelling students based on speech is NOT depriving them of a fundamental right. The student can sing the racist song all he wants in a public square free from government action. But where there is no fundamental right — e.g., attending a university — revoking admission is not infringing on free speech; it’s allowing the university to choose the behavioral standards it has for students. Federal employers can do the same thing.

    Libertarians should stop giving a descriptive justification for their argument. Stop citing previous rulings to justify that this is a “violation of free speech.” SCOTUS is notoriously unlibertarian, and citing it as the reason why this is protected free speech is not helpful. It’s cherrypicking.

    The better argument is a normative one; we should talk about whether a university OUGHT TO BE prevented from expelling students who engage in hate speech. Of course, they should.

    1. The government should not and cannot fire employees for their private speech. Government employees don’t sign away their First Amendment rights or any other rights by taking the job. The law is very clear on that.

      YES THERE IS A RIGHT TO ATTEND OU. Attending a state school is a government benefit just like living in government housing or getting unemployment benefits or anything else. The government cannot deprive people of government benefits without due process or even with due process for exercising their Constitutionally protected rights. If OU can kick a student out for racist speech, the state of Oklahoma or any other state government can deprive any person of any other government benefit if it doesn’t like their speech. This has been explained about five times on this thread. Why is it so difficult for you to understand?

      it’s allowing the university to choose the behavioral standards it has for students. Federal employers can do the same thing.

      No they cannot. You are confusing the issue. This was private speech. If they had sang this song in public on campus or in a class, you would have a point. They did not do that however. Sure, the feds can fire an employee for yelling “Nigger” at the office. They cannot fire him for doing the same thing on his own time in the privacy of his own home or in his car, which is what is going on here.

      You are totally mangling the arguments here.

      1. There is no right to attend OU. No. It rejects 20 % of applicants per year.

        Expelling a student doesn’t take away any right. He can sing that song all he wants. Just not while a student at OU.

        Again, this is normative, not descriptive. As I said, the whole, “the law is clear” is just libertarian cherrypicking. SCOTUS is unlibertarian all the time

        1. There is no right to attend OU. No. It rejects 20 % of applicants per year.

          That doesn’t mean there isn’t a right to attend the school. That just means to attend the school you have to meet academic requirements. Again, you are totally confusing the issue. People fail their driver’s tests, but a drivers’ license is still a government benefit. If you pass academic muster and are admitted, you have a right to be there and the state can’t kick you out for exercising your constitutional rights just like they can’t take your unemployment benefits or your drivers’ license for the same reason. Again, you are mangling the issues here.

          Expelling a student doesn’t take away any right.

          Yes it does. See above. The state of Oklahoma promises to provide a state subsidized education to anyone who can meet the academic requirements. These guys did and have and thus can’t be kicked out of school because they said something the administration didn’t like.

          Again, this is normative, not descriptive. As I said, the whole, “the law is clear” is just libertarian cherrypicking. SCOTUS is unlibertarian all the time

          Yes, the law is very clear. And it is clear that state schools can’t expel students without some measure of due process and cannot expel them for exercising Constitutional rights. FIRE has made funded an entire organization going to court to enforce these principles of law.

        2. You may not meet admission criteria for OU anymore than, say, to receive welfare benefits. That some people don’t qualify doesn’t mean that the government can strip a person who does qualify’s right to receive because of their speech.

    2. “There is NO RIGHT TO ATTEND OU”

      who argued that there was?

      I don’t care about these people any more than I care about the kids who get booted from campus for puking in the hall – that said, they applied, were accepted, and AFAIK were meet academic standards to remain in the school

      contraire your assertion, there is no provision at public universities which says “we can kick you out if you suddenly become unpopular”. In fact, didn’t the correct above admit as such?

      1. **”correction above”

        e.g. ‘If the speech is chanted in a confined environment, as here, amongst people of a similar mindset, it may be vulgar and distasteful, but it’s remains protected’. – strikes me an admission by the uni that they’ve got nothing from the POV of law.

  37. “At one of the Gawker sites, Elie Mystal criticized Volokh in unkind terms for going “all old white man on us” and refusing to recognize the chant as a call to violence”

    Is “But What Does Gawker Think About This?” something of an editorial-mandate these days? Because there’s not much “shock and surprise” left when they offer the insight and wit of shit-thowing monkeys.

  38. Have we really gone thru 260 posts in a race thread without a visitation from Botard the Hotard or his minime Cali Dissident?

    1. He’s playing in Sheldons thread calling everyone Republicans and agreeing with Jackass and PB.

      1. It has become pointless to comment on anything Richman writes. He is just a performance artist trolling for clicks at this point.

    2. Bo is here under pch101. It took about 30 seconds to figure it out. That’s how stupid and pedantic he is.

      1. He’s not Bo-Bo. Bo-Bo is way too self-righteous and narcissistic to sockpuppet.

        Reference my post above. Pch101 is (hopefully) a prog drive-by.

      2. I don’t know who this Bo is, but he/she/they certainly bring out the clown in you.

    3. Yes, I’m Bo’s mini-me for daring to interrupt a circlejerk to correct people who think black fraternities don’t allow white people to join.

      1. Why do you call them “black fraternities”?

        1. Because they are historically and culturally black. The reason why they exist should be blatantly obvious to anyone with any knowledge of American history. Nonetheless, their membership is and has been open to people of all races and ethnicities. Bringing them up in the context of this video to serve as some sort of parallel demonstrates ignorance.

      2. ” to correct people who think black fraternities don’t allow white people to join.”

        Was that one person, or a widely shared view?

        because I’m not sure most people really cared about what black fraternities do or don’t do.

        Actually – i think the more interesting question (though never discussed) was “why would there be a problem if they did/didn’t”

        Not from the “uh, the university sanctions them, therefore they can’t”-POV, more from the “why is it considered such a horrible thing to have groups that ‘restrict'”

        as far as I’m concerned its the same as the trans-sexual in the women’s locker-room issue….

        1. Multiple people have said that over the course of the past few days. It wasn’t just one person. The broader point I was making is that apparently agreeing with Bo to any extent on anything makes me mini-Bo, which is ridiculous.

          You really don’t see why a university might not want to sanction an organization that racially discriminates in selecting members?

          1. “You really don’t see why a university might not want to sanction an organization that racially discriminates in selecting members?”

            Is that *what I said*?

            I was about to say you *were* being treated unfairly…

            1. No, but you did say this:

              “Actually – i think the more interesting question (though never discussed) was “why would there be a problem if they did/didn’t”

              and

              “why is it considered such a horrible thing to have groups that ‘restrict'”

              Which prompted me to ask you whether or not you seriously didn’t see why a university would not want to sanction them independent of legality of things (I realize you mentioned “university sanctions them, therefore they can’t” but your point was addressing the “why is that a bad thing” which is what my comment was addressing). Or more broadly, why people have a problem with racial discrimination in general. If you think this topic is not discussed enough, then go ahead and make your case. But don’t get mad at me when all you do is ask a couple questions without explaining your position beyond a questionable comparison to bathrooms.

              1. I specifically said =

                “”Not from the “uh, the university sanctions them, therefore they can’t”-POV””….

                and you said

                “”Which prompted me to ask you whether or not you seriously didn’t see why a university would not want to sanction them…”

                See, when someone says, “X issue aside”… and you go, “BUT WHAT ABOUT X??”, it seems a little odd.

                1. My point wasn’t about whether or not they can because the university sanctions them. I was addressing WHY the university wouldn’t want to in the first place, regardless of legality. Your original questions were explicitly about the “why” and so were my responses.

                  And as I’ve said in the last two comments, you can change university to the general public and why they care, and my point remains the same. You haven’t addressed that in any of your replies and instead are getting hung up on on the semantics regarding university sanctioning.

                  1. ” my point remains the same”

                    No, you never made any positive point = you simply asked me (incredulously)

                    “how i could fail to see why (*not saying why) a university might care”

                    You have yet to explain why either the university or general public should have grave concerns about “organizations associating freely”

              2. “a questionable comparison to bathrooms.”

                Its a *questionable* comparison?

                Do tell.

                A school says, “Fraternities may not discriminate based on race”
                A health club says, “Locker rooms can not discriminate based on gender”

                Explain how they are so different.

                1. I don’t have an issue with health clubs having those rules, so I don’t even see why you’re bringing that up.

                  But for places that do separate bathrooms based on gender, I would say there’s a pretty big difference between that a racially-discriminatory fraternity policy. A bathroom is a place people go for a few minutes every day to dispose of bodily waste, or wash their hands, etc. It’s not a social club that people spend a good portion of their lives (at least in college, if not beyond) dedicated to, supposedly in pursuance of goals such as brotherhood. Secondly, whether rational or not, people in our society are generally ok with segregating men and women in situations that even approach anything sexual (or in some cases, such as sports, physical), because of innate biological differences between men and women – with bathrooms qualifying because using them involves exposing genitalia. There’s no equivalent reason to why segregating people based on race would be valid. I don’t object to unisex bathrooms, from what I’ve heard they exist in other places with little to no issues, but it’s a bit ridiculous to accuse anyone who thinks gender-based bathrooms are ok is a hypocrite if they think fraternities discriminating based on race is wrong or unacceptable.

                  1. “People in our society are generally ok with ______”

                    Is ‘reduction to popularity’ all you have?

                    You really don’t seem to get the basic notion of ‘free association’.

                    See previous Robby piece on “Universities Void Freedom of Religious Association in the Name of Tolerance

                    You seem to suggest that “enforced inclusion” makes sense in some places, but not others, simply based on your ‘social convention’ assuption….rather than any underlying principle.

                    Its the latter thing I’m talking about which seems to go over your head

                    1. Wait, so now we are talking about “enforced inclusion?” I was explaining why people object to one and not the other, nothing to do with legality. Explaining why society feels some way is obviously going to reference social conventions.

                      Furthermore, I gave an explanation of why here: “because of innate biological differences between men and women – with bathrooms qualifying because using them involves exposing genitalia. There’s no equivalent reason to why segregating people based on race would be valid.”

                      Whether or not you think segregating bathrooms based on gender is a good idea or not, doing so doesn’t indicate you think one gender is superior or that there’s something wrong with one or the other. That’s not the case with fraternities limiting members to one particular race.

                    2. And why should anyone have a problem if an organization chooses to have members according to whatever criteria they choose?

                      you seem to have nothing other than it would offend some amorphous idea of ‘social convention’.

                      You even say its “invalid”. Even though the idea seems pretty popular all over the place.

                    3. “And why should anyone have a problem if an organization chooses to have members according to whatever criteria they choose?”

                      Freedom of association does not mean freedom from judgment. At this point, you’re essentially asking “why do people think racism is bad?”

                      “Even though the idea seems pretty popular all over the place.”

                      Latin American isn’t a race, first off. Also, those orgs generally do let people who aren’t that ethnicity join if they have an interest. I work as a recruiter and come across people who aren’t Latino who were/are in ALPFA (Association of Latino Professionals in Finance and Accounting) all the time. I’m also a member of a historically and culturally Latino fraternity. Being culturally tailored to one group doesn’t mean you have to exclude others if they wish to join.

                    4. “Latin American isn’t a race, first off.”

                      and “white” is?

                      I think Bo Jr. is probably apropos at this point.

          2. They can not sanction the organization all they want. What they can’t do is violate their own policies and the 1st Amendment and punish 2 individuals for a thought crime.

            1. I didn’t disagree with that, in this thread or any of the others here. But that has nothing to do with what Gilmore and I are talking about, which relates to fraternity policies.

              1. You really don’t see why a university might not want to sanction an organization that racially discriminates in selecting members?

                1. Which has to do with expelling people … how exactly?

              2. My specific point (which maybe you missed) was asking whether “groups self-selecting” is an issue by itself, completely aside from the university policy of ‘forced inclusion’.

                The latter of which, as i pointed out, is no different than the “tranny in the women’s locker-room” point.

                All of this seems pretty meaningless in context. what black frats do/don’t do isn’t relevant to whether “jackasses singing a song” is evidence of a policy of discrimination.

                1. “My specific point (which maybe you missed) was asking whether “groups self-selecting” is an issue by itself, completely aside from the university policy of ‘forced inclusion’.”

                  No, that is exactly what my point was. I used a university as the specific example of an organization that wouldn’t want to sanction it, but my point (which I talked about in the last comment) was more general in that I was asking you if you really didn’t see why people have a problem with organizations racially discriminating.

                  “what black frats do/don’t do isn’t relevant to whether “jackasses singing a song” is evidence of a policy of discrimination.”

                  I agree and I wasn’t the one who originally brought up black frats, other people did, and Heroic Mulatto and I corrected them. I brought them in this thread to respond to BBF’s assertion that I’m Bo’s mini-me.

                  1. “I brought them in this thread to respond to BBF’s assertion that I’m Bo’s mini-me.”

                    Well…. you’re doing a *heckuva job* 🙂

                    1. Yes, I’m Bo-lite, not the guy asking semi-rhetorical questions without elaborating on his argument and pedantically picking apart other people’s comments without actually replying to the main point they’re making.

                    2. “”without elaborating on his argument””

                      See = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..ssociation

                    3. Christ, I really didn’t follow the whole logic of someone calling you Bo mini me but I’m starting to.

                    4. You brought up something (expulsion) that had nothing to do with what we were talking about and then brought up a quote about a university sanctioning a fraternity as evidence of it being relevant.

                      And now you’re getting mad at me for being Bo-like for pointing out that the original conversation had to do with fraternities and not the expulsion of individual students?

                    5. I’m not advocating laws against fraternities discriminating, so I’m not sure what this has to do with freedom of association. Freedom of association doesn’t mean other people and organizations (such as universities) must associate with you, or that you can’t be judged for who you do and do not associate with.

        2. I suspect that the historically black frats are at least as racially selective in who they admit as any white frat.

          I think that, if you are going to go after frats for not having sufficiently diverse memberships (Which hasn’t happened. Yet. As far as I know), you’ll need to explain why the black frats aren’t under the same scrutiny.

          I know of no white frats that make a point of their racial heritage. But the black frats do.

          Don’t get me wrong. I think the black frats are just fine doing whatever they want to do. But there’s a double standard here, which I despise.

          1. “I suspect that the historically black frats are at least as racially selective in who they admit as any white frat.”

            You were also one of the people who, until Heroic Mulatto and I corrected you, thought black fraternities didn’t admit non-black members. I don’t mean that as a jab, just to illustrate that you obviously don’t have a lot of knowledge about black fraternities – again, that’s not an insult, there are plenty of valid reasons why someone wouldn’t know much about them. I’m only bringing that up to show that you’re operating off of personal hunches and not any actual knowledge of these orgs.

            I can only speak from personal experience, but I know quite a few guys in black fraternities and a decent number of girls in black sororities, and very few if any of them have a problem with people who aren’t black joining. Out here on the West Coast at least, their chapters are pretty small to begin with, so pretty much anyone who in interested can join as long as there isn’t some red flag indicating they’d be a bad member of the org, and as long as they finish the pledging process. I can also personally speak for historically Latino fraternities as I’m white and in one, and I’ve never met anyone in my fraternity or any other Latin-based org who had a problem with that or would exclude white people from their org.

          2. Meanwhile, I know from talking to brothers of various “white” fraternities that quite a few (though not all) at USC (my school) discriminate in selecting members (I don’t think any refuse to admit non-white brothers, but several do try to limit their numbers). I also know that this is even worse at Alabama (I have a relative that goes there, and I also know a guy who transferred from there) and apparently that’s common at a lot of frats in the South (though again, I don’t have personal experience with that).

          3. “I think that, if you are going to go after frats for not having sufficiently diverse memberships (Which hasn’t happened. Yet. As far as I know), you’ll need to explain why the black frats aren’t under the same scrutiny.

            I know of no white frats that make a point of their racial heritage. But the black frats do.”

            Do you understand why black frats came into existence and why they are “black”?

            While the “white frats” don’t explicitly make whiteness a part of their org, in general they are predominately culturally catered towards white people as they have been the largest and dominant “default” group in US history. Almost all of them (that were founded sufficiently long ago) didn’t let non-white brothers join in the past (a major reason why black fraternities came into existence) and even today, as I said earlier and as the SAE case serves as an example of, a lot of these fraternities’ chapters (which admittedly heavily depends on the fraternity, school, region, etc.) continue to discriminate more discretely. Lack of diversity in black fraternities exists far more often because of little interest by non-black people in joining a culturally-black fraternity, rather than the fraternities not letting non-black people in.

          4. “Don’t get me wrong. I think the black frats are just fine doing whatever they want to do. But there’s a double standard here, which I despise.”

            There isn’t a double-standard between black fraternities existing and white frat guys being criticized for singing songs about lynching and excluding black people from their org.

            My apologies for the wall of comments, I was a couple hundred characters over 3,000 so I had to split it into 3 comments, and then miscalculated how much I needed to cut so I had to make 4 in the end.

      3. Yeah, the inquisition around here is just pathetic.

      4. Minime, we do now gnaw on the kitty. We just stroke it and love it. World you like a Hot Pocket, an Eggo?

        1. Just roll the beautiful bean footage and we’re good.

  39. I don’t think anybody cares what happens to the two students for their own sake, but here’s the issue with the expulsion (besides the obvious problem with ignoring principles): Isn’t the dean or head of school or whatever setting the school up to needlessly lose a lot of money through a lawsuit? The case history is clear: the first amendment right to speech can’t be violated in schools, no exceptions whatsoever. The two students now have a claim against the school. That’s at least $200,000 of the school’s money down the drain. How is that good? How is that the smart move to make? How is he being a good administrator if he lets this happen? There’s no way he doesn’t know a thing or two about judicial law, and therefore doesn’t know the case precedent out there.

    Makes me wonder if secretly he just sympathizes with the two students, thinks they just made a dumb mistake, and wants to use the college’s money to give them what is essentially a severance package, based on the assumption that they would have had to leave the school anyway.

    Thoughts???

    1. “The case history is clear: the first amendment right to speech can’t be violated in schools, no exceptions whatsoever.”

      I’m sure you and PCH101 can explain this to each other. *with links*

    2. “Makes me wonder if secretly he just sympathizes with the two students, thinks they just made a dumb mistake, and wants to use the college’s money to give them what is essentially a severance package, based on the assumption that they would have had to leave the school anyway.”

      Most sophisticated racist conspiracy *ever*

      Me, I tend to assume “they’re all assholes” and that there’s not much planning or foresight that goes into that.

    3. OU’s football program will lose more dollars than they pay out if recruits withdraw from letters of intent and OU starts losing.

      http://espn.go.com/college-spo…..commitment

      Calling Boren a secret member of the KKK was new.

      1. ^^this

        Little matters for the big-business of Big State Schools in the grand scheme of things other than A) PR/public image,
        B) keeping Federal/State subsidy money flowing, and
        C^n*1000) FOOTBALL UBER ALLES

      2. It matters not at this point. You think any 18 year old five star recruits are following the aftermath and the OU reprimands? If so, I got a bridge to sell ya. 18 year olds aren’t often known for the ravenous devouring of news, much less 18 year old star athletes.

        The damage has been done. OU would be better off focusing its recruiting efforts on white student athletes at this point. Find out if Julian Edelman or Wes Welker have any little brothers. Of course their secondary will suck. Bad.

        1. The link I provided proves the point. They just had a 4 star recruit withdraw a letter of intent. You should find Barry Switzers book “Bookleggers boy” to see the shit they used to tell athletes to poison them with other schools. Recruiters will use any piece of negative news. Back in Switzers day they used the fact that OU would play black athletes to get Texas kids to come to OU when Texas wouldn’t hardly let them play. The kids don’t have to follow the news. The recruiters do that for them. I guarantee that 2 minutes after this story broke every 4 and 5 star recruit to OU recieved a phone call from another college telling them they didn’t want to attend that racist hellhole in Oklahoma.

  40. my co-worker’s half-sister makes $86 hourly on the internet . She has been without work for five months but last month her pay check was $15863 just working on the internet for a few hours. read this article……….

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  41. my co-worker’s half-sister makes $86 hourly on the internet . She has been without work for five months but last month her pay check was $15863 just working on the internet for a few hours. read this article……….

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  42. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start……===========
    http://www.jobs-check.com

  43. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start……===========
    http://www.jobs-check.com

  44. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start……===========
    http://www.jobs-check.com

  45. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start… This is where to start……
    ============ http://www.job-bandana.com

  46. Frat Brothers Make Execrable Racist Statements, Reason.com Forgets First Amendment only applies to government action.

    If the OU wants to distance itself from the fraternity, how is that a first amendment issue? If this was an article about the government prosecuting them for the video, I would be with you completely. But no one is suggesting they be put in jail. Just that they be put out of school.

    That may or may not be a good idea, but it certainly isn’t a first amendment issue.

    1. “Reason.com Forgets First Amendment only applies to government action”

      ORLY?

      Universities may not discipline students based on their speech. That has been the unanimous view of courts that have considered campus speech codes and other campus speech restrictions ? see here for some citations. The same, of course, is true for fraternity speech, racist or otherwise; see Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (4th Cir. 1993). (I set aside the separate question of student speech that is evaluated as part of coursework or class participation, which necessarily must be evaluated based on its content; this speech clearly doesn’t qualify.)”

  47. As child of the early 70’s I went to a West Coast University and pledged a rather innocuous Frat House. The SAE’s at that time were always considered pretty solid white men of privilege and as such we had our fights with them. They were almost a living cartoon something out of Animal; house (except they were the straight laced White boys frat house). Can’t say that I really care what happens to them. I do agree that it is just plain silly to get all lathered up over Frat boys singing a racially insensitive song. I don’t think it makes any sense to kick them out without trying to reach out

  48. I agree completely with your sentiments as to how poorly the University of Oklahoma dealt with this situation. However…please re-read “verbatim” the first amendment of the Constitution. The only institution which may not restrict free speech is the Government. Other institutions (businesses, schools, churches etc.) it is presumed, may use their own discretion. And they did!
    .

    1. WOW YOU SHOULD TOTALLY SHARE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTISE WITH THE ACLU

      Apparently they’ve misread the entire history of 1rst amendment case law as it relates to Public-Funded Universities

    2. If OU was a private University you would be 100% correct. However, OU is a state funded school and must follow the Constitution.

  49. The whole lot of them in dc want to forget all of the amendments except the 16th. They all like that one cause it makes us slaves to them.

  50. I think this article has it exactly right. These idiots should be criticized for their speech, and they should be labeled as the right-wing racist idiots they are, however I think this kind of speech is dealt with better through other speech, suppressing it gives it a status it wouldn’t otherwise have.

  51. What makes Boren different from Barrack Obama, except that Obama hates white Christians? The Bill Of Rights ceases to exist at the boundary line of all Universities. Freedom of speech is only available to faculty members who agree with the university administration. Mean while, students at a other universities are in near riot mode with impunity demanding the banning of the American Flag on campus, which is a legal requirement for all public buildings occupied by a government entity. “There is no such thing as a right to not have your feelings hurt. All censorship is evil.” Arthur C. Clarke.

  52. What a bunch of pussies the public is becoming. Just because dumb asshole douchebag frat boys sandpit a song with the word ‘nigger’ in it. News flash: some people are assholes.

    Can society now move forward?

  53. I don’t care how passionate or fierce, no speech of any kind can hurt anyone. The only way speech can hurt you is if you are a big enough pussy to let it.

    I grew up on the south side of Atlanta and tolerated unprovoked anti-white racial slurs against me and other whites by black classmates, and I never cried like a little bitch and called for anything to be outlawed. I did what anyone with a visible pair would do…rolled my eyes and hung out with someone else.

    Why is this so god damn motherfucking hard for the seemingly millions of overly sensitive black people out there (and their self-appointed white liberal advocates)?

  54. Tha ACLU has been very disappointing on this.

  55. “William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
    Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

    A Man for All Seasons – 1966

  56. “This change is unacknowledged in the post, as far as I can tell.”

    We have always been at war with Eastasia.

  57. After rap culture, the recent mob behavior, and the America-hating Obama Administrating, racism is starting to look pretty reasonable.

  58. Even more disturbing is although these students are being punished for their racist statements as those who have made statements in opposition to Islam or LGBT issues. However, as has been reported frequently in the past few months, politically progressive, Muslim and LGBTs have made equally offensive statements as well as outright treats of violence and nothing has happened. The dramatic rise of antisemitism at liberal universities like Berkley and UCLA illustrates the double standard. The only people not allowed first amendment rights on college campuses are those who oppose the pervasive progressive doctrine of academia across the US.

  59. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!….

    ………………………………… http://www.NavJob.com

Comments are closed.