MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Shockingly Racist Video Gets U. of Oklahoma Fraternity Kicked off Campus

The conduct of these students is truly despicable, and it will rightly haunt them for a very long time.

A video has surfaced showing some University of Oklahoma students engaged in a deeply evil, racist chant. The students were members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, and were headed to a party with several female dates. Here is what they chanted: "There will never be a ni**** SAE. There will never be a ni**** SAE. You can hang him from a tree, but he can never sign with me. There will never be a ni**** SAE."

Much fist-pumping and clapping accompanied the chant, which was uttered while the students were on a bus headed to a formal event celebrating their founder's day.

The justified condemnation has been swift. University President David Boren revoked the fraternity's affiliation rights, effectively banning it from campus. The chapter's parent organization took similar steps. All members must vacate the house by Tuesday night, according to CNN:

"All of our ties to that organization on our campus are severed, and I've given them till midnight tomorrow night to get their things out of the fraternity house. After that time, it will be totally closed and they'll have to make special arrangements to even get their belongings out of the house," he told KOKH. "And as they take their belongings out of the house, I hope they reflect on what they've done."

Protests, rallies, and prayer vigils have also commenced. A student group, Unheard, has called for the university to expel all students involved in the chant. SAE NAtional President Brad Cohen also suggested that Oklahoma expel the students.

The conduct of these students is truly despicable, and it will rightly haunt them for a very long time. Unlike many of the other "hate speech" incidents I have covered, there is nothing silly or alarmist here: A bunch of students uttered or cheered a blatantly abhorrent, racist, violent message. But while the desire to expel these students may be more understandable here than it is in other cases, I would still quibble with such an approach. If the goal is to reform or educate away attitudes such as this, don't these students belong in school, where they can interact with people who will help them understand why they were wrong?

Photo Credit: Youtube

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.

  • R C Dean||

    If the goal is to reform or educate away attitudes such as this, don't these students belong in school, where they can interact with people who will help them understand why they were wrong?

    I have found that being punished often helps people understand that they have done something wrong.

    Not being punished often is processed as "Hey, nothing bad happened, so I must not have done anything wrong."

    Now, if you want to "help them understand" via mandatory brainwashing sessions with SJW activists, err, I mean, consciousness raising education on the value of diversity, well, that, sir, is "cruel and unusual" punishment, and I can't condone it.

  • John||

    I have found that being punished often helps people understand that they have done something wrong

    Then you have a very simplistic view of the world. Punishing people does no such thing. It just tells them it is a bad idea to do it. It doesn't get them to understand doing something is wrong. The punishment is not what gets them to decide what they did was wrong. They have to decide that on their own. The best thing punishment can do is get them to stop doing it out of self preservation. That is not the same as deciding something is wrong.

    This is a good example of that. Kicking these students out of school won't cause them to think the video was wrong. It will just cause them to think the school administrators are assholes. It will deter other racists from making videos in the future. It will not however make them less likely to be racists, just smarter about how they express that racism.

  • Irish||

    Sure, but if people stop doing things like this, it seems like a win to me.

    I don't care what's going on in the racist's head provided it doesn't have real world consequences. You can be as racist in your brain as you want to be, but so long as you don't go around calling people 'niggers' or discriminating against them, there's really no reason to care.

  • John||

    Sure, but if people stop doing things like this, it seems like a win to me.

    I am not in the business of trying to control people's thoughts, so I can't really see this as a win. I would rather they be open about their views and people be free to tell them they are wrong.

    If you think future racists being deterred from expressing their views is just a good, why not throw these kids in jail? Wouldn't jail be an even better deterrent? And if you can take away their ability to get an education, how is a light jail sentence and conviction any worse? Hell, it might be better.

    It comes down to why do you want to try and get people to change by punishing them rather than convincing them? The better way is to let them say their peace and try to convince them otherwise. I fail to see how force does anything except make them feel like victims and set the precedent to after other speech.

  • R C Dean||

    If you think future racists being deterred from expressing their views is just a good, why not throw these kids in jail?

    Because they haven't violated anyone's rights?

  • John||

    Then why kick them off of campus? You totally missed the point RC.

  • R C Dean||

    Because there is a difference between being jailed and being expelled?

    On the whole, being expelled is probably too much. Having the frat closed is collective punishment of all the frat members, not just the guilty parties, so that's a pretty terrible punishment as well.

    I was mostly just pushing back against the saccharine, yet brutal, naivete of the articles call for "re-education" or "sensitivity training" or whatever the alternative was.

  • Free Society||

    I would think having the video released would be enough of a punishment given the target that this puts on their back.

  • freedomlover||

    Yes. The video/song can be used to justify the violence that would ensue against the perps.

    The ends justifies the means and all that.

  • John||

    Because there is a difference between being jailed and being expelled?

    Not if it is from a state university. The difference there is only in quantity of punishment not in kind. In both cases the government is punishing people for their views.

    If you think that the government punishing people for their views is a proper role of government, and apparently you do or you wouldn't be so on board with expelling these people, then why not jail them? I would say a weekend in jail is less punishment than expelling them. Expelling them will likely ruin their ability to get a college degree. A weekend in jail will only take away a weekend. I am sure faced with being expelled, most students would take the weekend in jail.

    The point RC is once you think it is okay for the state to punish people for expressing unapproved views, you are not really any different than the people who demand jail for this sort of thing. You just are a bit more lenient but you both have the same goals.

  • ||

    Freedom of speech is a freedom of persecution by the government for things you might say.

    It isn't a freedom from consequences.

    Having the government jail you directly interferes with your freedom of speech.

    Being expelled is an administrative action. I also have no problem with schools expelling individuals for sexual misconduct.

    The real problem with 'campus rape adjudication' is the kangaroo courts they're setting up and the government coercion of schools to set up these procedures.

  • Sevo||

    Bobarian (hyphenated-american)|3.9.15 @ 1:50PM|#
    "Freedom of speech is a freedom of persecution by the government for things you might say.
    It isn't a freedom from consequences."

    Exactly.
    To a certain number of people, these thugs 'represent' the school they go to. If I'm an administrator, I don't want their names associated with the school, except as an example of what the school will not tolerate.

  • James Lane||

    The school is a state agency and therefore is the government. They are being persecuted by the government for expressing their views-regardless of how idiotic and hateful they are.

  • ||

    John they aren't being punished for their views, they are being punished for their actions.

    Not sure that affects your view toward the approiate punishment, if any, but it is a factual dictinction.

  • James Lane||

    Yes, they are being punished for their hateful speech, but the last time I checked US citizens have a right to express their views-regardless of how hateful they might be.

  • Libertarian Barbarian||

    EXACTLY

  • Calidissident||

    "Having the frat closed is collective punishment of all the frat members, not just the guilty parties, so that's a pretty terrible punishment as well."

    There's no right to be in a particular fraternity at a particular school. Both the national SAE organization and the University of Oklahoma are not obligated to associate themselves with the local chapter. Also, given that this was a fraternity song they obviously learned, it's naive to think this isn't a systemic issue at the OU chapter. On Reddit, some guy that went to UT-Austin said a month ago (prior to this coming out) the lyrics to this song and said some guys he knew in SAE sang it around him once. I can also say that SAE at my school (in California) is known for being the most racist frat at the school, so it seems like the problem extends beyond the Oklahoma chapter.

  • buybuydandavis||

    " given that this was a fraternity song they obviously learned"

    It didn't seem that complicated a song, even for troglodytes.

  • Calidissident||

    But the fact that multiple guys were singing it and that it seems to be sung at other chapters indicates that it wasn't made up on the spot.

  • freedomlover||

    I too attended a UC. Back when the dinosaurs ruled the earth. And, the frats had died by the time I got there (mid 1970s). Which was fine with me since I thought they were ridiculous.

    But, lo and behold, they began to remerge during my years there. And, as you say, SAE was the absolute worst for sophomoric behavior, often with significant property destruction, trips to the ER, accusations of sexual assault, etc.

    At the same time, a new frat emerged that really pissed me off. They all drove red Trans Ams - rumored to have been provided by alums. They were all athletes. They wore red nylon jackets...and they were all black.

    What was they made no bones about their status. Their jackets proudly displayed "THE ONLY ALL BLACK GREEK" on the back.

    No, I didn't really care that they wanted their little racial club. I cared that the PC nerds of the world were fine with that while attacking everything else as "being racist".

    You can imagine what would have happened if - as did in this case - if anyone else had put "THE ONLY ALL WHITE GREEK" on the backs of their jackets.

    Frats are a serious joke as are sororities. I think all publically funded schools should disenfranchise them. Sure, if people want to form a private club they are free to do so. But the schools should have nothing to do with them. They aren't related in any way to the schools mission or function. And, even acknowledging them is tantamount so spending tax dollars on a non-academic endeavor.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Cannot SAE rent/buy a home near the university and have their racist chapter irrespective of the universities' approval? Apparently, some are more equal than others. And frankly, I think the punishment should be the prerogative of the national chapter of SAE who would undoubtly de-certify the chapter and every one of its members, perhaps including several prior years of members who chose to admit these racists without vetting them appropriately (or perhaps they did vet them and approved).

  • Catatafish||

    "Sure, but if people stop doing things like this, it seems like a win to me."

    Not sure if that was your intent, but that comes off as a bit too "means justify ends" for me. I'd rather they be confronted with the social cost of their error and the intellectual arguments for why they are wrong.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Your quote seems backward...

  • Free Society||

    You can be as racist in your brain as you want to be, but so long as you don't go around calling people 'niggers' or discriminating against them, there's really no reason to care.

    What if instead of 'nigger', I call the person a 'dickhead', both are insults but only one should be criminal?

  • Calidissident||

    I don't think he was saying it should be criminal.

  • Free Society||

    He was tossing around the idea that they should be pursued for 'discrimination' as if that were actually a moral wrong.

  • Loki||

    You can be as racist in your brain as you want to be, but so long as you don't go around calling people 'niggers' or discriminating against them, there's really no reason to care.

    Just like the "Basterds" liked their Nazis in uniform, I also like my racists easy to spot. So let them be as loud, obnoxious, and stupid as they want to be*. Makes it easier to avoid the assholes.

    *Short of actually violating anyone's rights, that is (the "right to not be offended doesn't exist IMO).

  • From the Tundra||

    Protests, rallies, and prayer vigils have also commenced.

    Of course they have.

    *barf*

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Stupid ass kids at SAE. As vile as their remarks are, the juice and talking points this will give the Social Justice Warriors will be as repulsive. I expect a large payment to fund more Social Science professors and probably some oath of anti-racism to be required of white males at universities soon.

  • RBS||

    This, just about everyone involved in this matter is an asshole.

  • John||

    I won't defend the content of the video, but why is it that making an offensive video should be grounds for kicking and organization and its students off campus?

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

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

    Lastly, does anyone here think that a black fraternity that made an equally offensive video would also be disciplined? I doubt it and even if they were it would be nothing like as severe as this.

  • WTF||

    I would think that the fraternity has every right to shut them down and boot them out, it is their organization and chapter house, after all. If the University is publicly funded, I would think that the First Amendment might apply here regarding actions by the university to punish speech simply for being offensive.

  • John||

    The national fraternity certainly does. I do not believe the University of Oklahoma does. That is an arm of state government. Since when does the state have a right to tell people what organizations they can and cannot form?

  • Calidissident||

    I read elsewhere that the University owns the fraternity house.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I would think that the fraternity has every right to shut them down and boot them out... If the University is publicly funded, I would think that the First Amendment might apply here regarding actions by the university to punish speech simply for being offensive.

    THIS
    THIS
    THIS

  • James Lane||

    This indeed.

  • Irish||

    Frats are chartered by the University and I'm sure there is some agreement they sign in order to be allowed to operate and recruit on campus.

    Plus, this video could very well be evidence of discrimination since they talk about not letting blacks in, in which case the national frat and the University both have the right to close them down.

  • John||

    Just because the university charters the frats, doesn't give the university a right to tell them what they have to think and can and cannot produce. This is a state university and last I looked the state can't make your ability to enjoy state provided benefits contingent upon you not uttering any speech the state disapproves of.

    Yeah I know "keep the state out of education". The state is in education here and I don't think they should be able to do this.

  • Irish||

    A fraternity is not a state benefit, it's an organization given special treatment by the school, kind of like a school club.

    If members of the football team did something like this, surely they have the right to punish the football team. I don't see how a fraternity is different.

  • John||

    The national charter isn't. The university's recognition of your fraternity most certainly is. The University shouldn't be able to say "you can have your frat here but only if you don't say anything we don't like". The national organization can certainly say "you can't call yourself an SAE anymore or say you are associated with us". I don't see how the University can, however, or should them they can't be a frat anymore. They just can't be SAEs anymore, but that has nothing to do with the university.

  • Calidissident||

    The university owns the frat house, and organizations like fraternities are granted special privileges in exchange for being sanctioned by the school. The school has every right not to associate with them in that context.

  • John||

    No. Then they have even less right to discriminate based on view point. You can't deny benefits because they express opinions you don't like.

  • Calidissident||

    Yes. Yes you can. The university is not under any obligation to associate with the SAE chapter (which got closed by the national org anyways, so I don't even see why this is relevant) by sanctioning them. They're perfectly free to say those things and not face legal punishment (or expulsion) but they are not owed sanctioning by the university.

  • freedomlover||

    Right back to my comment about state funded schools not getting involved in private clubs (frats & sororities). Don't offer them privileges. Don't try and control them - outside of the same standards set for all students.

    Along with free association and free speech comes don't ask for special rights or dispensation. That's true equality.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Why are universities, subsidized with taxes, supporting greek organizations in preference to those who are not? Why doesn't each fraternity/sorority provide their own houses at their own expense? This is playing favorites, after all, they aren't open to all and new members have to be approved by existing members.

    A pox on all of them who benefit from hard working taxpayers who don't really get any say here, except a vote to elect their representatives (and where other issues are far more important - though favoritism by government towards some is one of those issues).

  • Seamus||

    Well, the fact that the football team is part of the school itself (with coaches on the school's payroll, revenues being placed into the school's bank accounts, expenditures being made by the school), while the fraternity is a private organization, would be one fairly significant difference.

  • John||

    Seamus,

    The university's recognition of their frat is not a private action. It is a governmental one.

  • Seamus||

    That's right. And it has to be exercised in conformity with the constitution. That means, for instance, no denial of first amendment rights or conditioning recognition on the fraternity's waiver of its first amendment rights. The University has a lot more leeway with its *own* football team, just as it does with its own employees (see, e.g., Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)).

  • The Unnatural||

    Garcetti was decided based on a public employee speaking regarding his role as a public employee, it absolutely does NOT stand for the premise you claim, that a government employee has automatic reduced 1st Amendment rights.

  • Seamus||

    It certainly stands for the proposition that the government can terminate an employee for doing some things that, if said by you or me, would be protected by the first amendment. I'll leave you to quibble over whether that formulation or my previous one amounts to saying that "a government employee has automatic reduced 1st Amendment rights."

  • freedomlover||

    An employee - government or otherwise - has a first amendment right to criticize his employer all he wants.

    At the same time, his employer has the right to terminate said employee for doing so.

    That's why, when I criticize my employer, I do so incognito. And, I'm sure when the higher ups at work criticize me for other than disciplinary purposes, they do so behind close doors.

    It's all good. Free speech isn't free.

  • freedomlover||

    State funded schools should also not be the NFL's minor league football program.

    Not sure what college you went to but I know for me, I didn't know what a "jock" was until I got to college. Up until then, people who liked to play sports - myself included - just did so as an extracurricular activity. We weren't granted special privileges and academic performance was more important than sports.

    Then, I went to a UC where, football players were given all sorts of special dispensation. Only many couldn't have passed the same entrance exams that the rest of us did. After all, they required reading comprehension above the third grade level.

    It was one of my great disappointments about college. Jocks acting like uneducated animals and providing grist for the anti-jock crowd.

  • DesigNate||

    Yeah, but their academics ARE a state benefit.

    So the National SAE organization can pull the charter and the school can pound sand about kicking the racist fucks out. That sounds like a fair deal to me.

  • Free Society||

    Plus, this video could very well be evidence of discrimination since they talk about not letting blacks in, in which case the national frat and the University both have the right to close them down.

    Having a legal ability to do something is not the same as having a right to do something. The fraternity has the right to include or exclude any person they want. They have the right to say or not say 'nigger' as many times as they want. You either believe in freedom, or you don't. I'm thinking you don't.

  • albo||

    Oh, nonsense.

  • Free Society||

    Care to elaborate on that masterful point you made?

  • Sudden||

    Plus, this video could very well be evidence of discrimination since they talk about not letting blacks in, in which case the national frat and the University both have the right to close them down.

    Also, aren't there blacks-only frats? Are those organizations somehow immune from the dictates of diversity simply because their association with a historically aggreived group?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Also, aren't there blacks-only frats?


    No. There isn't a Title IV exception for historically Black frats.

  • freedomlover||

    Title VI?

  • Calidissident||

    Historically black frats do not exclude non-black people from joining. I know a couple white guys who are in black frats in the area around me, and the black Greek community isn't very big to begin with around here.

  • Seamus||

    Fraternities may have the right to include or exclude any person they want, but they don't have the right to official recognition (and use of university facilities) if they do. See, e.g., Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010).

  • JohnQ||

    hear hear

  • freedomlover||

    Recruit?

    You mean picking up olives with one's asshole from a block of ice?

    Or, piling 25 drunken, underage, naked idiots into the back of a pickup truck, hosing them down at the car wash and then driving through town when it's near freezing?

    Yeah, frats. Gotta love 'em.

  • Catatafish||

    I have a problem with any state university expelling students based upon speech, even speech as disgusting as this. As far as their charter goes, that's the call of their national fraternity and I'm not going to fault them at all for pulling it. Don't know who owns their house, whether it's physically located on campus, etc.

  • John||

    I agree. I misread the article. The national fraternity can do what it likes. The university, however, is different.

  • R C Dean||

    Just to add to the mix:

    Is the University going to be kicking out every racially exclusive frat? Because I bet they have at least one of the blacks-only frats on campus.

  • WTF||

    Silly RC, minority frats can't be racist, because only white males have any social power.

  • John||

    Of course they won't. Just like anti-hazing rules are only enforced on white fraternities. Black fraternities routinely brand, and I mean fucking brand with a hot iron like you do a cow, their pledges. Meanwhile, let a white frat get a pledge too drunk and that is serious business.

  • From the Tundra||

    A friend of mine has a brand. I didn't realize it was that common.

  • John||

    Very common. Watch college basketball sometime and you will see a good number of players with such brands. And they are fucking big.

  • RBS||

    At my school they fucked up this guy's brand and tried to re-brand him in the same spot. It was not pretty. Of course they didn't get in any sort of trouble but based on the guys I know it's more that their pledges/brothers can keep a fucking secret and they genuinely see their fraternity as a real, lifelong brotherhood.

  • From the Tundra||

    Watch college basketball sometime...

    Ugh. Do I have to?

    Kidding, of course. My buddy was a D1 football player. It is clearly a frat brand. Looks like it would be pretty fucking painful.

  • Calidissident||

    In my experience anti-hazing rules get enforced when something particularly scandalous gets revealed. And I'm talking about more than getting a pledge drunk. Every predominantly white frat would get kicked off in that case (the reason I specify is that a lot of ethnic frats have dry pledging processes). I know some black Greek orgs, at least at some schools have had to eliminate branding.

  • RonnieNM||

    You people obviously know nothing about historically black feats and sororities but what you hear in the news...but maybe you're also not reading enough. Non blacks are not barred from pledging and admission. Several fears and sororities had to undergo several legal suspect suspensions and reformationa because of their hazing offenses. Brands now are largely voluntary by young men. Can't deny shady stuff still goes down but don't pretend that it's unique and pervasive only among black greeks.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    There is no such animal as a "blacks-only" frat. There are historically Black frats that have a mostly Black membership, but White or Asian people can and have joined chapters of these frats.

    Jus' sayin'

  • ||

    And nerds.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *sighs*

    Those were the days.

  • The DerpRider||

    That's my pie!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Let's not confuse things with facts, the important thing is people are attacking some white guys! Wagons gotta be circled or the SJW's win!

  • Catatafish||

    Bo, sometimes I wonder if you deliberately stick your face into the strike zone. Where has anyone on here said the actions by these guys are either acceptable or not deserving of some form of punishment?

    Circle the wagons my ass.

  • Sudden||

    BODOR! BODOR! BODOR BODOR BODOR!!!!1!11!!

  • R C Dean||

    There is no such animal as a "blacks-only" frat. There are historically Black frats that have a mostly Black membership, but White or Asian people can and have joined chapters of these frats.

    Sure, sure, not official policy, I get that. Assumed it, really. I was looking more at the facts on the ground.

    I wonder how many chapters really are "blacks-only." SAE can't point to its policies on non-discrimination, but is being hung here because (a) this chapter is whites-only in fact and (b) some members said some stuff.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I wonder how many chapters really are "blacks-only."

    Well, if Youtube is anything to go by, there are a whole mess of videos of people going crazy at White folks representing and/or steppin' at historically Black frats and sororities.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    (Fuck, Reason's 2 link limit)

    In my personal experience, I'm sure there are instances of racial exclusivity among Black frats, but from what I've seen, it's not a common phenomenon.

    Again, just my 0.02.

  • Calidissident||

    Also, some chapters may be monoracial because of lack of interest in joining from students of other races, not because the chapter excludes other races from joining.

  • freedomlover||

    Don't forget the anti-Semitism that is enshrined in many frats as well.

    One of the funniest days of college was when one of the new "frat brothers" left his frat book in the public room in our dorm. We began reading it out loud and found ourselves laughing hysterically. Only, he heard us and was a big bad football player. We almost got our faces beat in that night. And we could never look at he and his fraternity brothers the same after that without laughing and then having to run off before they beat our faces in.

    The line from one of their recitations (prayers?) that still sticks in my brain went something like "We drink to Robert E. Lee of old Virginia with a drink as pure as his name". That was water for those of you who don't know.

    Frats. Gotta love 'em.

  • Calidissident||

    Black frats (as well as Latino or Asian frats, and I speak from personal experience on the former, since my fraternity is traditionally Latin-based) do not exclude non-black people from joining.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "but why is it that making an offensive video should be grounds for kicking and organization and its students off campus?"

    Where would we be without blasphemy laws?

  • Uncle Joe||

    "I won't defend the content of the video, but why is it that making an offensive video should be grounds for kicking and organization and its students off campus?"

    Because they do not have a protected right to attend that school. Allowing them to stay reflects horribly on the school. If they worked for me or were members of any group I am affiliated with, I would want them gone yesterday.

    "Lastly, does anyone here think that a black fraternity that made an equally offensive video would also be disciplined?"

    I'm not sure if that's true, but since when do two wrongs make a right?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Yeah. Expelling these kids won't do a lick of good. It won't change their minds. The best influence the university could possibly have on these students is to change their minds before they graduate.

    If another incident comes up, harsher punishment can be applied. But right now, expulsion would be counterproductive.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I don't think the students should be mandated to sensitivity training. But they are still young enough to learn from their mistakes.

  • Irish||

    When you're singing songs about hanging black people from trees, I don't think you're going to be taught otherwise, particularly given that they're all college students.

    Do 22 year olds who are that casually racist really stand much chance of changing their minds?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Well, 22 years old is too old to be this racist/immature. But I can't see what would be accomplished by sending them home. They're going to have a hard time finding employment anyway.

  • double ham fisted||

    I was a full-blown prog at and past 22 so there is some hope.

  • double ham fisted||

    Are we sure these kids are full-blown racists? My guess was there were 2 or three real racists in the house and in order to fit in the others went along with it. This does not excuse behavior by any means but I doubt they are all hardened racists.

  • Irish||

    That's a good point. There's a good possibility they're just idiots trying to be 'shocking.'

  • Calidissident||

    Irish,

    I would be surprised if that was the case. SAE at my school in California is known for being the most racist frat at the school, and for rarely if ever allowing non-white guys into the chapter. And I saw on Reddit someone posted a month ago (long before this story broke) these exact same lyrics and said they heard them from SAEs at UT-Austin (it was in the /r/austin subreddit) and someone else said it's commonly-learned among the Southern chapters in general, so it doesn't seem like this is even limited to Oklahoma.

  • freedomlover||

    You think? :-)

    ++++++++++

    BTDT

  • Catatafish||

    There's always a component of "mobthink" in social structures like this. We never had an issue on race in our frat but I can definitely remember how some older brothers were freaking out about a Greek Weekend when an alumnus was going to be attending who had recently come out. It took a small group of us directly asking "is he trying to fuck you, then why do you give a shit" to tamp that down.

  • Seamus||

    Gives a new meaning to "Greek" Weekend, don't it?

  • Catatafish||

    I see what you did there.

  • freedomlover||

    My feeble mind was still stuck on "tamp that down" in the last sentence.

  • freedomlover||

    LOL!

    Bravo.

  • Uncle Joe||

    "My guess was there were 2 or three real racists in the house and in order to fit in the others went along with it."

    Riiight.. there seemed to be guys singing with gusto. More like a few were made uncomfortable enough by the idiocy of their frat mates to release the video.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Young people are stupid. Everyone grows out of the former, and some people also manage to grow out of the latter.

  • Dweebston||

    But the university isn't looking to rehabilitate outed racists. The university wants to protect (or offer the illusion of protecting) its minority population and their sympathizers from the indignation of having to rub shoulders with unrepentant racists. Offering succor to bigots in the hope that kindness will be treated in kind is a very noble and liberal-minded instinct, which is why the outrage crowd will not tolerate it. They're not in the business of winning hearts and changing minds. They just want control.

  • Curt||

    Same Assholes Everywhere.

  • Raston Bot||

    Sigma Alpha Hairsalon

  • Charles Easterly||

    Stupid And Egregious.

  • Almanian!||

    The Say Hey, Boys

    as we knew them

  • Calidissident||

    Sexual Assault Expected

    (I didn't make it up, it's been their nickname at my school for a while, and they recently got kicked off because of sexual assault allegations)

  • Irish||

    This is inexcusable and the punishment warranted, but can we quit it with the hyperbole?

    "A video has surfaced showing some University of Oklahoma students engaged in a deeply evil, racist chant."

    'Deeply evil?' Who was actually hurt by this? I guess you could say that blacks were discriminated against and not allowed to gain admission to the frat, but I don't know why a black guy would want to be in a frat with these good ol' boy racist shitheads.

    Deeply evil should be reserved for instances where there is actual harm done, not for a situation where drunken fratboy idiots sang a racist song and were rightfully booted off campus. It's like people are in a competition to exaggerate how bad particular actions are as a means of social signaling.

    There was an extremely sexist and anti-male article that ran in the Wall Street Journal this weekend. It was idiotic and the writer should be mocked for the rest of his life for believing such stupid sexist nonsense, but I'd never call someone like that 'deeply evil' for his misandry. We're just talking about words, after all.

  • GILMORE||

    "Deeply Evil Chant"

    I was under the impression they were reciting Tupac lyrics.

    Which I think you can do for extra-credit in the Social Ecology school

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I am torn between satisfaction that some dickbags got a deserved dressing-down and disapproval of people having hysterics over the existence of dickbags.

  • ||

    Well said.

  • John||

    What Irish said. "Deeply evil"? Are you fucking kidding me?

    And remember, this is the same magazine that publishes Sheldon Richman. So, ISIS is just a bunch of misunderstood guys fighting oppression but a bunch of frat boys who make a racist video are "deeply evil".

  • JW||

    I'd say that calling for lynchings is deeply evil.

    But, context and intent matters. This is a bunch of drunken idiots saying profoundly stupid things as a jingoistic chant. That won't save them, nor should it.

  • Irish||

    Seriously calling for a lynching in an instance where a lynching may occur is deeply evil. If there's a mob out and I start yelling 'hey, let's lynch the bastard!' that's evil.

    If there's a drunk frat where there's no possibility of the words leading to actions, then saying it in order to be totes edgy, bro is hardly something I'd call deeply evil.

  • Snark Plissken||

    ^This

  • JW||

    Ahem.

    But, context and intent matters.
  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Irish, if some American Communist were caught on tape at a rally saying 'We need to take these reactionary tea-baggers who oppose Obama out, line 'em up and shoot them' would you have a problem calling what they said 'deeply evil?'

  • Irish||

    If he seriously meant it. Since these dipshits didn't seriously mean 'let's lynch a black person' and are never going to act on their stupid little song, there is clearly a difference in context.

    If a Communist sang a song about killing bankers, if it was obviously not meant seriously I'd call him an idiot and leave it at that. There were tons of songs about killing corporate fat cats at Occupy Wall Street, and I wouldn't call any of those morons deeply evil.

    But you knew that and are desperately attempting to claim I'm a hypocrite because that's all you do with 95% of your posts.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think I'd call someone singing and chanting about killing bankers deeply evil (as well as deeply disturbed).

    Even if the person is joking, joking about murdering people is, well, deeply evil.

  • Harold Falcon||

    Oh fuck off, it is not at all deeply evil. Words vs. actions, you fucking retard.

  • R C Dean||

    Even if the person is joking, joking about murdering people is, well, deeply evil.

    If joking about it is deeply evil, then what do you call actually murdering somebody?

    Is it no worse than joking about it? Or do you have some way to describe it that reflects how much worse it is?

  • ||

    What are you trying to accomplish here, Irish?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    13 year old girl. She can't resist.

  • JW||

    Is Bo agreeing with me?

    If so, I retract my argument.

  • Seamus||

    No, but if they, for shits 'n' giggles, sang a stupid song when they were drunk and in private that had lyrics about shooting teabaggers, that would be an entirely different story. When I was an undergraduate, a bunch of us used to sing, "Deck the halls with Commie corpses/Fa-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la/'Tis the time to be remorseless/Fa-la-la-la-la-la-la/Wield we now our sharp stiletti/Fa-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la/Carve the pinks into confetti/Fa-la-la-la-la-la-la." I don't think anyone thought we were calling for the murder of Communists.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I'll have to admit, I've never sung songs about murdering people, drunk or not. Perhaps I've just not lived...

  • Seamus||

    So *you* were that sober guy standing off on the side who kept saying, "Guys, guys, this is really inappropriate."

  • DesigNate||

    Except they weren't calling for lynching anyone.*

    *Designate and the Designate brand do not subscribe nor approve of any racist dickbaggery.

  • Mr. Soul||

    correct.

    Of all the rhetorical nonsense currently in fashion, that which I tire of most is the supplication inherent in this construct. The author has to prostrate himself to the PC zeitgeist before he can give us the facts lest we misconstrue his reporting as sympathy. Somehow, he hopes to assuage it and escape. However, all he does is empower it.

  • Irish||

    Exactly. It's like the writers need to assure us that they know this is a bad thing, as if we'd think they approve of it if they didn't immediately tell us it's wrong.

    It basically assumes your audience consists of idiots who are incapable of making moral judgments without you telling them your own opinion on the matter.

  • GILMORE||

    "It basically assumes your audience consists of idiots"

    (quietly puts 'The Bedford Handbook for Millenial Journalists' back in the drawer)

  • ||

    Well, that's actually extremely accurate if any SJWs are reading your article.

    But still, the prostration before the progressive gods that people reflexively engage in is fucking pathetic. Everyone can see the writer cowering, even if they don't say so in so many words. And that's exactly what the SJW bullies want.

  • freedomlover||

    Say:

    Can we make up an equivalent song about what we'd like to do to the SJWs?

    And, get away with it?

  • Loki||

    ... as if we'd think they approve of it if they didn't immediately tell us it's wrong.

    Not just "wrong," but "deeply evil." Even just calling evil isn't good enough to prostrate themselves before the PC Police, they have to call it "deeply evil" in order to prevent charges of insufficient goodthink.

  • ||

    If Robby had a masters in journalism from Columbia, he'd be better able to get away with this kind of hyperbole.

  • DesigNate||

    Of course sense Reason gets sited by progtards all around the internet, some diligence is not necessarily so far out of the pale.

    I mean, they already think we're racist who hate old people and children.

  • ||

    What's wrong with hating old people and children?

  • ||

    Nothing unless they are black or brown.

  • R C Dean||

    The author has to prostrate himself to the PC zeitgeist before he can give us the facts lest we misconstrue his reporting as sympathy.

    Its amazing how much SJW dipshittery is uncritically assumed by, among others, Reason's writers.

  • Loki||

    It's like people are in a competition to exaggerate how bad particular actions are as a means of social signaling.

    It only seems like that because they are.

    There was an extremely sexist and anti-male article that ran in the Wall Street Journal this weekend. It was idiotic and the writer should be mocked for the rest of his life for believing such stupid sexist nonsense, but I'd never call someone like that 'deeply evil' for his misandry.

    Misandry isn't considered "evil" because something something... only males have any real social power... mumble mumble... PATRIARCHY...

  • RBS||

    It only seems like that because they are.

    So true. Just pull up the Yahoo homepage. Every article is THE WORST THING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED!!!!.

  • Dweebston||

    Not only is it blowing their idiocy way out of proportion, it also gives far too much facility to their thoughtcrime--as if, simply by chanting a dumb slogan, strange fruit will begin sprouting from trees around campus. Insinuating that their dumb antics will result in actual deaths gives racists far too much credit and at the same time suggests that black students should feel marginalized and afraid.

    I noted this last night in another topic: for the social justice crowd, empowering marginalized groups means teaching them to be paranoid and eternally fearful. It's disgusting and gives much more power to casual racists like this bunch of hicks than they'd deserve in a lifetime.

  • Catatafish||

    Irish, your failure to recognize that words hurt has, in fact, hurt me.

    /derpityderpderpderp

  • Raston Bot||

    SAE immediately pulling their charter is a smart PR move.

    Expulsion for a bunch of drunk dorks saying icky words doesn't seem warranted. A public shaming by another private party may suffice.

  • JW||

    Expulsion for a bunch of drunk dorks saying icky words doesn't seem warranted. A public shaming by another private party may suffice.

    Yep. In a sane world, the punishment would be swift and largely internal.

    THANKS A LOT, INTERNET!

  • Pro Libertate||

    The appropriate response, of course, is to go find ten of the most militant black males you can find and make SAE accept them as brothers.

  • ||

    Tri-Lambs?

  • Pro Libertate||

    If necessary.

  • freedomlover||

    Force them to integrate with a black frat.

    That would be better for all concerned.

  • ||

    I wonder how much these idiots were true racists and how much was them trying to be shocking. Either way, oops. Stupidity hurts.

  • R C Dean||

    Well, there's that.

    These poor schlubs probably took the SJWs at their word when they were talking about transgression being all awesome and shit.

  • JW||

    This just in: teenaged boys can be morons. Drunken frat boys can be even bigger morons.

    I'll be curious how far this follows some of them. Into the job world? Perhaps. That's what happens when you broadcast you idiocy.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Why this is national news I have no idea. It's a 3rd (or 4th from the looks of some of the members) tier fraternity at the University of Oklahoma chanting stupid, drunken shit.

    I guess some people can't live without their grief porn.

  • ||

    It's a peek behind the curtain. This is how white people really act. Or something like that.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Look, that was all revealed long ago by Eddie Murphy.

  • ||

    What a silly negro!

  • Almanian!||

    "Black people be like.....
    and white people be like....."

    /black comic

  • Pro Libertate||

    Not exactly. You should watch the sketch.

  • Almanian!||

    Naw - I remember it. I was going for the non-Eddie Murphy angle. Chris Rock, maybe...

    "What does Nat X only get 20 minutes? Cause the MAN won't give me 30!"

  • WTF||

  • Catatafish||

    (rearranges conference call with Grand Wizard of Texas in Outlook Calendar)

    Sorry, did you say something, Warty?

  • ||

    That's enough demonstratin' boys! Let's get a hot shower! HOT SHOWER HOT SHOWER HOT SHOWER

  • JW||

    Look, what's important is that you won't be able to escape mention of it for the next week or so without isolating yourself.

  • John||

    That is another good point. Who the fuck cares about this? This is one of those local stories that gets picked up nationally because it fits a narrative the media likes. In this case, it fits the "all white males are evil racists" narrative.

  • R C Dean||

    They (the media and their SJW moles) are just trying to undo the damage they took with the UVA rape story.

    "See? Frats really are evil!"

  • Restoras||

    Wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot of truth to this.

  • Free Society||

    It's a continuation of the same meme that fueled the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin protests. 'Social justice warfare' and nothing else. The goal is to shackle white males into moral and intellectual servitude.

  • Seamus||

    Not all white males are evil racists. That David Bowen is OK. (The pale penis people at SAE headquarters are trying to pass as OK, but they really can't be trusted. I mean, a lot of wreckers pretended to love Comrade Stalin too, before they were caught.)

    (Steve Sailer has argued that a lot of this SJWing is how certain white males (like Bowen) establish their righteousness (and thus their right to be part of the ruling elite) by distinguishing themselves from other, stupider white males (such as the frat boy schlubs in question).)

  • Heedless||

    There are two distinct audiences for this sort of thing. The first are looking for validation of their belief that America is irredeemably and fundamentally racist. The second are moral rubberneckers (like me) - "Wow, I didn't think people still did that sort of thing. And look at all those idiots piling on."

  • Invisible Finger||

    Grief porn is absolutely right. Plus it has the added benefit of not costing a news organization one thin dime to gather. Vetting and paying journalists is so old-fashioned.

  • ProLifeLibertarian||

    I'm always shocked when I see racism as overt as this. These morons do realize that this is the twenty-first century, right?

    They shouldn't be expelled, but their organization should be held accountable for tolerating such idiocy.

  • #||

    "I'm always shocked when I see racism as overt as this."

    I one time had a wtf moment like this. I was waiting in line at a CVS in the middle of the summer and the air conditioning was not working for some reason. Two guys in line behind me (and not super old people - they were maybe mid 30s) are talking and one says "too bad we don't have any niggers to fan us".

    My jaw almost dropped in amazement and thinking wtf? Even if you are thinking that, what world do you live in where you think that's ok to say out loud?

  • Loki||

    My wife saw something way worse when she lived in GA. She went to a Waffle House for breakfast, not realizing it's a notorious redneck hangout in most areas of the south. After being told "Go home, damn Yankee!" by a fat redneck dick bag, she then watched in stunned horror as the dickbag refused to let the black waittress come near him and demanded that a white person bring him his food. The white line cook had to bring him his order (hopefully after spitting in it, but I doubt it).

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In Georgia, eh? She should have just looked him in the eye, lit a match, and whistled this.

  • Loki||

    That would have been pretty epic. Personally I think the cook should have let the black waitress spit in his food. Then tell him after he'd eaten it. Of course, then the dickbag probably would have gone and gotten some of his buddies together and come back burned the Waffle House to the ground with the cook and the waitress still inside, so...

  • Migrant Log Picker||

    I laughed,HM.

  • ||

    I'm thinking

    we don't have any

    should be

    we ain't got no
  • R C Dean||

    one says "too bad we don't have any niggers to fan us".

    I just can't take that as face-value racism without knowing a lot more.

    Sounds like a line from a movie to me. The kind friends quote to one another as an inside joke. Who knows?

  • ||

    I'm always shocked when I see racism as overt as this.

    Hang out in some dead Rust Belt milltown sometime. Nobody hates niggers more than some old retired dipshit who shoveled coke in some hellish steelmill for 50 years. It's always shocking to see.

  • ||

    I distinctly remember when I was a kid, hearing a broken-down old pollack say, "There sure is a lot of controversy over that nigger who was killed. I know my place in white society, they need to learn theirs."

  • R C Dean||

    I lived in Richmond, VA, then Boston, then Richmond again.

    The racism in Boston was far more overt and vicious.

  • SFC B||

    South Boston is home to the most virulent racists I ever met. Shockingly, casually racist.

  • ||

    OU is a state university, right? Wouldn't that make expelling these idiot hillbillies for this a free speech issue?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Everyone at the university is yelling "Burn the witch!" far too loud to hear a reasoned argument at the moment.

  • Pro Libertate||

    For what they said alone, absolutely. Of course, now that identity issues tend to trump constitutionally protected rights like freedom of speech, who knows?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Fraternities enter into a bunch of agreements with their universities about their codes of conduct, and this was surely covered.

  • Seamus||

    You mean they were required to waive their constitutional rights? That sounds like a great idea. We could get around of lot of problems, for example, if we enacted laws that said that you have to waive your Fourth Amendment rights to get a driver's license, or a permit to have any remodeling work done on your house.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That's actually more true than you might think. For example, it's not uncommon on colleges for greek organizations in 'frat houses' that are on campus to sign agreements effectively waiving certain Fourth Amendment rights.

  • Seamus||

    You mean they were required to waive their constitutional rights? That sounds like a great idea. We could get around of lot of problems, for example, if we enacted laws that said that you have to waive your Fourth Amendment rights to get a driver's license, or a permit to have any remodeling work done on your house.

  • Seamus||

    It's obvious you haven't read Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" or else you'd know that letting bad guys (i.e., right-wingers, or white males) have free speech actually hurts freedom of speech. Because free speech is a scarce good or something, and letting some people have it means there's less to go around for the good people to enjoy.

  • maryjaneromeo||

    My best friend's mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒✒ www.jobsfish.com

  • prolefeed||

    Did they expel from the school everyone from the fraternity, or just the ones actually identified as saying this horrid stuff?

    If not, seems like there may have been innocent students not afforded due process.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    They were all evicted. Expulsion is an open question.

  • Mike A.||

    yeah, you can't kick people out of public university for being a racist or saying racist things....

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I thought SJWs were all about tenants rights. I guess not. Some of these kids are being evicted and tossed on to the street for what other people said. And that's OK?

  • WTF||

    Yes, because it serve the Greater Good. As defined by the SJWs, of course.

  • Almanian!||

    Yeah....these guys were our next door neighbors at my school. We pelted them with darts, bottle rockets and hosed them down with fire extinguishers regularly. I'm sure ever chapter's different but...

    ...stay classy, SAE.

    And fuck OU - should NOT expel the students. Let them walk around on campus with everyone knowing they're stupid, racist pigs - as see if they want to pay for the opportunity to enjoy that infamy the rest of their college days or not.

    Stupid fucks.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    NEWSFLASH:
    White Straight Male pre-schoolers caught on video playing "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe".

    Candlelight vigils and prayer to follow.

  • Rhywun||

    I say

    (a) it's too late to "teach" these kids anything
    (b) let them stay in school and deal with the students around them. I think they would resign in short order.

  • Loki||

    If the goal is to reform or educate away attitudes such as this, don't these students belong in school, where they can interact with people who will help them understand why they were wrong?

    This is a university, which has nothing to do with education...

  • ||

    This is pretty "shocking" mostly for the level of stupidity displayed by the frat idiots. As Irish says above, these are dumb kids saying words. "Deeply evil" is a completely retarded and hyperbolic way of describing it. "Deeply evil" is actually lynching someone. A bunch of morons singing about something they would never, ever actually do isn't evil. It's tasteless and dumb.

    People really, really want being racist, even in thought alone, to be a sin up there with murder and rape. Which is absurd, partly because it's pretty common for people to be mildly racist. Yeah, let's make being an average human a thought crime!

    Making something utterly taboo is not a good way to go about eliminating it. It's a good way of driving it underground and getting people to react to it in all kinds of stupid ways.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm not exactly thrilled to see them do what they did, but they are idiot kids and probably aren't total racists, even so--being offensive is pretty much de rigueur in those situations. Or maybe they are. In any case, if this were a black sorority with women chanting "Kill the White Man!", I have a feeling it wouldn't be national news.

  • Free Society||

    If it were a black frat singing one of those timeless anti-racist classics like "Shoot the Boer!", it would not be newsworthy. Because even if it's possible for non-whites to be racist (not that the SJWs would concede that point), minority racism against whites is entirely justified in their view.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I fail to see the difference. Everyone has a gripe, after all.

  • Free Society||

    Well your gripe counts for less if you're white.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Is that true? I thought white males were running everything and oppressing everyone? If true, then the average white male gripe must count for more. Or something. It's hard to keep up, really.

  • Free Society||

    That's an interesting point. Because according the leftist culture warriors white males do run everything, up to this very day.

    Now let's assume for a moment that they're correct; isn't it worth noting that western societies, built and dominated by white males are the most tolerant, unbigoted, most transparent and open-handed societies in the history of human civilization?

    I know they won't concede that because they want to have everything both ways, but I think it's irrefutable.

  • ||

    Growing up I was told by older ment that women controll 100% of the pussy and therefore 90% of the money.

    I guess even back then there was an understanding that there were 10% of men who were gay and therefore immune to the wiles of women.

  • freedomlover||

    ^
    ^
    ^

    blowing coffee out of my 58 year old nose while trying to suppress my laughter!

    I heard the same kinds of things while working my way through college in a factory from the old timers. I didn't understand their dismal outlook or the chuckles they got from each other when they made comments like this to me and other college kids working there.

    Then, I grew up.

    Oneout, if you're a young one, and a heterosexual male as you indicate, you've already learned the most important lesson in life. :-)

  • John||

    Exactly that. At this point being racist is one of the most obvious and available ways to tell the mainstream to fuck off. That is not a good thing. All we are doing is pushing this stuff underground where it will only grow much worse.

  • Catatafish||

    John, you aren't implying that decades of hearing the harangue of "white, straight men are the root of all evil" could cause a backlash, are you?

    /sarc

  • John||

    Funny that. White straight men are the root of all evil, yet are somehow so benevolent that they will take decades of systematic abuse and never resent it or be a part of any backlash against it.

  • freedomlover||

    Perhaps we should follow John Galt's lead?

    Or, maybe make a white male equivalent movie to "A Day Without Mexicans"?

  • JW||

    People really, really want being racist

    On its face, it is racist. Putting "nigger" next to lynching metaphors isn't going to end any other way. It just isn't.

    As a participant, you can blubber all the excuses you want; they won't matter. It doesn't matter any more whether they meant what they said or not. They said it and that's all that matters at this point.

    Today, expressing *any* unpopular idea is enough to get you branded as what anti-whatever ox you just gored. Talking about race won't end well under any circumstance.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I'm glad I went to college before cell phone videos.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Me too. More importantly, I'm glad I never thought much of school in the first place and certainly would never have it involve such a large portion of my life that I would want to live within walking distance of it.

  • Russell||

    Before laddering down to the extirpation of barbarous local customs at the fraternity level,, let us first signal our ire more constructively, by expelling the University of Oklahoma from college football, Jim Inhofe and James Lankford from the United States Senate , The State of Oklahoma from the Union , and the United States from the United Nations.

  • ||

    OT: This is the most incredibly uncool thing I've ever seen.

  • Almanian!||

    NOT clicking...no, no, no...

  • From the Tundra||

    Where's your sense of adventure, man?

    I made it 1 minute. I must be developing an immunity to garbage pop.

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    This is the most incredibly uncool thing I've ever seen.

    You should try reading Warty's posts.

  • ||

    I have no idea what that shit is, but I only watched a little with the sound off because the girls are cute. I assume it's an unbearably dorky and moronic anti-smoking thing.

  • ||

    If you smoke, you won't get to bang Tinder sluts. I think.

  • ||

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  • Loki||

    I've seen those commercials on TV lately. It's the dumbest thing ever. The anti-smoking fuckwits are almost approaching the level of the "Butt-Out" people from that South Park episode. Life imitates art I guess...

  • ||

    This is actually the most brilliant ad campaign ever! The "truth.com" ads are all so over-the-top bull-shit, that they make me want to go out and start smoking, just so I can pass off a giant fuck-you to these assholes.

  • Almanian!||

    So Animal Mother in "Full Metal Jacket" was an SAE - NOW it all makes sense....

  • Knarf Yenrab!||

    In the late nineties, Yale students of color were known to put on in white face and, in their best expression of cultural sensitivity and fostering a culture of acceptance, run through campus screaming "Get the white out of Yale!"

    To the best of my knowledge, there were no outraged mass media stories re: this racist phenomenon of dumb college kids behaving dumbly. Odd that.

  • Almanian!||

    Really? Holy....something.

    I don't even GET that, much less get...upset.

    Huh. People are weird as hell.

  • freedomlover||

    And, well before that, Clevon Little yelled, "Hey, where are the white women At?" in the Mel Brooks movie "Blazing Saddles".

    http://www.monologuedb.com/quo.....riff-bart/

    No one got offended. In fact, most people familiar with that scene that I know still laugh about it. I've even known a black male friend or two to reenact it at appropriate times to get us all laughing.

    That's what those SAE folks and their detractors need. A good laugh.

  • Patrick in Michigan||

    But, yet, blacks call us every racist vile thing under the sun and that's okay.

    It's a double standard.

  • Almanian!||

    What's this "us" stuff, Kemosabe?

  • GILMORE||

    He doesn't realize we're all gay mexicans.

  • Almanian!||

    POT SMOKING gay Messicans, GILMORE.

  • WTF||

    Gay POT SMOKING Mexicans.

  • From the Tundra||

    Really, it's just ass sex, weed and Mexicans 'round these parts.

  • ||

    Did you poll millinials to get that info ?

    It's milllinial gay stoned Meskin ass sex.

    Dude.

  • Almanian!||

    JINX!

  • WTF||

    DAMMIT!

  • Patrick in Michigan||

    It's called White people, like me.

  • ||

    AND WHY AINT THERE NO WHITE HISTORY MONTH???

    Fuck off, moron.

  • WTF||

    Shut the fuck up, cracker mofo.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    He did say it was "ok".

  • Harold Falcon||

    Go suck a statist dick, you dumb retard fuckface moron.

  • A Frayed Knot||

    Clearly these guys should be forced to pledge Delta Delta Delta.

    Or enroll at Grambling.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Would Rico have felt the need to so vehemently decry the weirdly over-the-top chant if he wasn't the whitest person ever? This, I ask you.

  • GILMORE||

    " the whitest person ever"

    I don't know. We haven't seen him dance yet.

    (pulls out gun)

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    University President David Boren revoked the fraternity's affiliation rights, effectively banning it from campus.

    So, free speech, right?

    Public servant. Publicly funded university. If the private fraternity charter wants to boot them, that's one thing. The public University, not so much.

    The justified condemnation has been swift.
    Unlike many of the other "hate speech" incidents I have covered, there is nothing silly or alarmist here: A bunch of students uttered or cheered a blatantly abhorrent, racist, violent message. But while the desire to expel these students may be more understandable here than it is in other cases, I would still quibble with such an approach.

    Justified? Free speech as long as you agree with it, is that it Robby? Are you a progressive?

    I didn't realize free speech needed to be popular?

  • John||

    Exactly that. I fail to see how anyone on here not named Tony can agree with the University's actions here. The state has no right to discriminate against these guys because of their views that were expressed outside of class.

    If Reason is on board with the University doing this, why can't the University also revoke the charter of any fraternity that makes a video denying global warming or objecting to affirmative action? Sure, reason would say that is different Really it is not. The only difference is reason likes people who deny global warming and object to affirmative action and doesn't like racists. Well, good for them. Maybe the university doesn't like any of them. And if they have the right to ban one, why not all?

  • Tony||

    You think universities should be forced to affiliate with fraternities against their will?

  • Seamus||

    If they want to disassociate themselves from all fraternities, fine. If they want to condition their association with fraternities on waiver of constitutional rights, not so fine.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    PUBLIC universities should be required to follow the law and shouldn't get to impose additional rules in addition to the law. Private universities may do as they choose.

  • DesigNate||

    Damnit, you summoned him John.

    That's a -3 health to all the cards in your deck.

  • WTF||

    inoffensive, popular speech is obviously the speech that needs protecting. The First Amendment wasn't intended for the icky stuff.

  • RBS||

    Robby has a tendency to let his obvious dislike of fraternities get in the way.

  • John||

    I think fraternities are idiotic. I fail to see why thinking that prevents someone from thinking clearly about this. Indeed, the fact that Robby doesn't like fraternities should make him more sensitive to standing up for their rights. Anyone can stand up for people you like. It is standing up for people you don't like that is important.

  • creech||

    Call a meeting of the SAE brothers. Vote to expel the miscreants from the fraternity. Or fail to, and then the national org. can decide whether or not to pull the charter. Unless it can be proved the innocent members covered this up or condoned it, then the national org is not justified in
    punishing everyone.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Unless it can be proved the innocent members covered this up or condoned it, then the national org is not justified in punishing everyone.

    Someone actually on the bus took the video and released it. One assumes it is a member who did not approve. Best to just go ahead and expel them all , though, because racism.

  • Seamus||

    I am amused by the thought that some SAE brother, outraged by the inappropriate actions of his brothers, recorded them and released the recording, then found himself thrown out of his room and having to scramble to find alternate housing within 36 hours. It's a little like North Korean kids who rat out their parents for anti-social actions or beliefs, thinking they'll be rewarded for doing the right thing, then find themselves sent off to concentration camps just like their parents, because just being in the same family as a social criminal makes you a social criminal in the eyes of the Norks.

  • Catatafish||

    I'm thinking it could just as easily have been recorded by one of the dates.

  • lap83||

    Where is Sheldon Richman to tell me how these young men compare morally to Adam Lanza and Chris Kyle? "Deeply evil" is a strong description, but is there room for even deeplier evilness?

  • Loki||

    Well, I'm sure at least some of them may end up enlisting in the military if they are expelled. At which point they'll be just like Chris Kyle, and therefore Adam Lanza.

  • waffles||

    I feel lucky video recording was less ubiquitous when I was in college.

  • albo||

    Do you mind if we dance with you dates?

  • Almanian!||

    Why no. We were just...

    LEAVING! What a good idea!

  • Russell||

    Could Soave please edify us as to how his views differ from those of Social Ecology Syudent Representative Matthew Guevara. of U. C. irvine, on " paradigms of conformity" , as set forth in another H&R piece today :

    Whereas a common ideological understanding of the United states includes American exceptionalism and superiority. ...

    Whereas the American flag is commonly flown in government public service locations, military related entities, at homes, in foreign lands where the US government has a presence. ..

    Whereas the American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism. ...

    Whereas designers should be careful about using cultural symbols as the symbols will inherently remain open for interpretation. ..

    Whereas a high-quality culturally inclusive spaces is essential in any society that embodies a dynamic and multifaceted culture

    Whereas freedom of speech is a valued right that ASUCI supports.

    Whereas freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech.

    ?

  • Almanian!||

    3) Profit?

  • ||

    AND HOW COME THERE AINT NO WHITE HISTORY MONTH

  • lap83||

    I do think public schools should at least set aside one month to European history (then one month each for every other continent) If my high school education was any indication it's not mandatory at all anymore.

  • ||

    A month would be nice. Three years would be better. But you and I both know that's not what these morons mean when they say things like this.

  • lap83||

    Yeah I agree, the emphasis on skin color rather than geography or culture gives their motives away.

  • RBS||

    A month of Antarctica history would pretty cool.

  • ||

    I know you're kidding, but you could make a pretty cool college class out of the 1914-17 Shackleton expedition alone.

  • RBS||

    I wasn't kidding.

  • Almanian!||

    That is so incredible. They showed a special about that expedition again the other day - we can never help but watch. Just. Amazing.

    Unlike the Franklin expedition 80 or so years earlier that was searching for a northern passage around Canada. Same thing happened (stuck ship, etc), but met with the exact opposite fate....(SPOILER ALERT - everyone died)

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/201.....46/5732292

  • ||

    What amazes me most about it was that they started as the Great War was just beginning, managed to return to an outpost of civilization two years later, and were like, "Oh, so what happened with that little war two years ago?"

  • ||

    Or Ross' expedition in 1850 and Scott's in 1912.

    If a class studied those two expeditions they would discover that the Ross Ice Shelf was shrinking almost 1 mile per year when it was first discovered by Europeans in 1850 in a sailboat. Ross did the first marine survey in 1850 and Scott the second in 1912. It had shrunk by 50 miles in 62 years.

    That is a historical fact and it pisses the Climate Changers off so much I suggest you all read about it if you enjoy using climate facts to jack with change believers.

    if any of you think that Gene Roddenberry was a creative genious think again. The story line form Star Trek was taken almost line for line from the real like adventures of Captian James Cook. Just differnet costumes.

    James Cook vs. Jim Kirk

    The sailing ship Endeavour vs the star ship Enterprise

    Both were instructed to go where no man had gone before and both were told to observe the indigenous inhabitants and to not get involved with their way of life.

  • GILMORE||

    "RBS|2015/03/09 13:54:26|#5140897

    Antarctica history "

    Day 1 = It was cold

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    Day 107 = A penguin walked by

    ...
    ...

    ...

    ...

    Day 20,651 = Still cold

  • WTF||

    You know who else didn't have White History Month?

  • Harold Falcon||

    Too soon, brah, too soon.

  • Loki||

    Whereas freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech.

    WTF?!

  • IceTrey||

    I was an SAE at a Div 3 school in the late 80's. We wanted to induct a couple of black guys my sophomore year and when some of the seniors balked more than half of us threatened to quit then and there. They were admitted and we had no further problems. These guys are so stupid it makes my head hurt.

  • Almanian!||

    Yeah, the headache of being a national org is those OTHER dumb fucks at State U who are, like, the opposite of your chapter, amirite?

    We visited some other schools, and most chapters of our fraternity were party hound good timers. But the douchebags.....ay yi yi...."You guys should be fucking TKE's!" Still remember our reps leaving the one national meeting flipping off everyone as they ran for the car.

    Good times, good times :)

  • GILMORE||

    There were black SAE's at Vanderbilt in the 1990s.

    and it was not the most racially-friendly campus on earth. The behavior seems to have nothing to do with "the frat" per se, so much as the kids who happen to be members at OU.

  • Tony||

    The entire Greek system should go. All it seems to accomplish is generating useless douchebags.

  • Almanian!||

    someone didn't get bid :(

  • Tony||

    There were strong attempts to recruit me actually, but I could not fathom why I would possibly want to be a part of such stupid fucking organizations.

  • WTF||

    Since you were already a useless douchebag, you had nothing more to gain.

  • DesigNate||

    They were hitting on you.

  • Catatafish||

    You'd rather force everyone to be a part of the biggest stupid fucking organization instead, right?

  • ||

    Yep.

  • ||

    Yep.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

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

  • Tony||

    Meh, people can form whatever groups they like, but the Greek system by virtue of its entrenchment is toxic and pointless for numerous reasons. And universities in other countries get along just fine without them.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I don't think I'd generalize about what are hundreds of organizations with thousands of chapters.

  • Tony||

    Some of my best friends were in frats.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Then why make such a negative generalization that includes them? Not very friendly, if you ask me.

  • Harold Falcon||

    Wow, the same person talking to him/herself on the internet. Creepy.

  • ||

    Not the same person...

    Willful pedantry vs. willful idocy.

    Don't let them meet, the universe might collapse.

  • Tony||

    Actually I'm being a hypocrite. I am indeed a member of the fraternity that started the whole thing. Forgot about that. However it's not been my experience that its younger offspring put intellectual achievement at the top of their priorities lists.

  • DesigNate||

    Because generalization is all he knows.

  • sarcasmic||

    The point of the Greek system is to make connections in college that will help you throughout your career. So yeah, I can see why it would be of no use to you.

  • ||

    Making connections that will help you throughout your career is the marketing campaign .

    The reason the boys are willing to get hot dogs stuck up their bitts is to have socially acceptable level friends from the get go and to have sorority sisters that will give sex to even the most socially inept frat member .

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The defensiveness from the White Guys brigade here is equal parts sad and hilarious.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Yeah, that dude Voltaire was a whitey!

  • The Left Never Changes||

    The defensiveness from the White Guys brigade here is equal parts sad and hilarious.

    Tony, why the generalization? These people are cretins, but there's lots of greek organizations that do a lot of good or at least no harm. To take one example, there's a long history of minority fraternities that provided mutual aid and voluntary assistance to blacks at a time when things were pretty rough toward them. Why toss them out over this?
    I don't think I'd generalize about what are hundreds of organizations with thousands of chapters.
    Then why make such a negative generalization that includes them? Not very friendly, if you ask me.
  • Azathoth!!||

    Ah, Je ne suis pas Charlie!

    And yet there are two articles below(and a whole fuckton more) denouncing the french for their free speech infringements (and some of them are aimed against people who might actually hurt someone).

    Speech is free or it's not. Pick one. Either people are free to speak their minds or they're not.

    These guys did something some people don't like--but they didn't do anything wrong.

    Nothing at all.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yeah, calling black people niggers, joking about lynching them and attesting how you won't associate with them, nothing wrong with that.

    Why the real scandal is the liberal media for reporting this!

  • John||

    There is a lot wrong with that. That however does not give a state run university the power to punish those who speak it.

    This is one of those times you miss an opportunity to pretend to be something but a leftist and let your mask slip. You totally miss the free speech issue here and immediately start calling everyone who does apologists for racists. This is because you are a leftist who thinks free speech does mean free speech, only the freedom to have speech the government likes.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    What is the free speech issue here? The students are not expelled, the fraternities association with the college was ended.

    Surely the guy who says there is no free speech issue to public libraries deciding not to carry books that are objectionable is not going to argue that colleges have to affiliate with greek organizations regardless of how objectionable their actions or speech might be?

  • Tony||

    Does the first amendment protect a right of fraternities never to have their affiliation revoked? The kids aren't going to jail for their speech--that would be a violation. But the reason OU acted so swiftly and brutally was because of the massive damage that could be done to its brand if it was perceived in any way of hedging or tolerating this behavior.

  • John||

    No Tony, it protects them against universities revoking their recognition.

  • Calidissident||

    No it doesn't John. There is no court that is going to rule that a university revoking a fraternity charter violates the First Amendment. It's not going to happen. They're not entitled to a charter.

  • John||

    IS it not a public benefit? Sure looks like it to me. And if the courts say otherwise, they are wrong. Again, just because you don't like these people, doesn't give the state the right to discriminate against them.

  • Calidissident||

    They are not owed university sanctioning anymore than a state employee is owed state employment.

  • Seamus||

    Wait a minute. Saying that these douchbags shouldn't be expelled or thrown out of housing by a state university for what they said is not the same thing as saying they did nothing wrong. The Nazis marching through Skokie had a right to do it, but I wouldn't for a moment suggest they weren't doing anything wrong.

  • Unreconstructed||

    OU doesn't own any of the fraternity houses. Those are (mostly, or were when I was there) owned by national organizations. SAE's national organization (or property company, sometimes they are separate entities) is almost certainly the one that is booting them out of the house.

    In addition, this seems to be an almost endemic issue with them - SAE's chapter at OU was shut down in the early 90s for a similar reason.

  • spm||

    This comment thread is a case in point why libertarians never win elections. Choose your fucking battles. Who cares if some dickbag racist frat kids, who openly chanted and laughed about murdering black people, get expelled? Not me.

  • Pro Libertate||

    The ACLU and others came to the aid of Illinois Nazis, even though everyone hates them. Speech fights are virtually always at the fringes, with speakers who offend the majority in some manner.

  • Tony||

    These boys clearly had the right and platform to speak. Should universities be forced to charter neo-Nazi clubs?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If a university allows for student clubs based on political views then they can't discriminate based on the particular view, so if a Young Republicans or College Greens is approved you have to approve a neo-Nazi club too, and they should get all the same things the other clubs get.

    But fraternities are different, they're not like the student clubs I'm talking about. Their relationship to the college is different. As such, they sign all kinds of agreements about codes of conduct, and this type of thing was surely covered.

    The same kids could form a student organization and meet on campus and sign these songs.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    First they came for the dickbag racist frat kids, who openly chanted and laughed about murdering black people, and I did not speak out -

    Because I was not a dickbag racist frat kid, who openly chanted and laughed about murdering black people.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Most of the people posting here are white guys, white guys very, very alert to the overdone accusations of white racism that leftists peddle. And so they think circling the wagons and downplaying this while attacking those who report it and take it seriously is the correct response, because anything less will play into the hands of those nefarious SJW's who want to give black men their jobs and make their girlfriends their bosses. So we get to this Bizarro world where on a discussion board dedicated to a political philosophy which rejects tribalism, exalts individualism and eschews aggression people can't bring themselves to just unequivocally denounce a bunch of guys joking about lynching blacks and how they will never associate with them.

  • John||

    Concern troll is concerned.

    Tell you what there sparky, why don't you worry about your own intellectual integrity and the rest of us will continue to defend our principles, okay?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Bo the "puritanical libertarian" believes speech should be regulated by the government.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Francis, I think government institutions can stop affiliating with a group they find objectionable. That's all that happened here AFAIK. To say the fraternity is 'banned' on campus just means they are not officially recognized.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    The government institutions you refer to as 'they' are "us". It is a government of all Americans. Even stupid racist college kids. "They" cannot choose dissociate from any of us.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    PUBLIC universities should be required to follow the law and shouldn't get to impose additional rules in addition to the law. Private universities may do as they choose.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Reason is a well known libertarian magazine and foundation. I'm a libertarian. When I see non-libertarians like you posting your conservative warrior diatribes here I like to post in response so those coming across it won't have to conclude libertarians think like that.

    Also, you still have no idea what a concern troll is. A concern troll is someone who feigns agreement with discussants and then tries to undermine that by expressing concern with how things might look. I don't have any pretensions about agreeing with you on this and many other topics. What you see as 'concern trolling' is someone disagreeing with you, you've heard others use the term and just decided to toss it out whenever someone says something you don't like. It's kind of par for the course with how recklessly you handle the truth in general.

    The closest thing I've seen to actual 'concern trolling' was your comments earlier on the debt ceiling thread where you argued that it would be nice if the GOP would have followed up on their promises, but think about how it would have looked and how they would be presented, let's give 'em a pass fellas!

  • John||

    You are concern trolling here. You are making the leftist argument that the government should punish speech in the form of "if you Lbiertarians were smart, you would not be defending this". That is textbook concern trolling. Your entier post is nothing but an invitation for the people on here to give up their principles and embrace content based regulation of speech in the name of what is "good for the movement". If Libertarians would just be leftists, things would go a lot better.

    I am sure they would Bo. I am sure they would. No thanks to your invitation to join the prog hive, however.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, you are, unsurprisingly, not understanding. I'm not arguing you should unequivocally condemn the behavior because of how it will 'look,' I think the behavior warrants condemning.

    And I'm not invoking any leftist principles, I'm invoking a quite normal libertarian one that unequivocally condemns the vile tribalism and collectivism found in the frat guys comments.

    What leftists would likely say is something like Tony did, a collective judgment of their own. And, of course, I denounced that when he did that here.

  • John||

    I"m invoking a quite normal libertarian one that unequivocally condemns the vile tribalism and collectivism found in the frat guys comments.

    Which in this context means embracing or that very least ignoring government restriction of speech. If Libertarians are not willing to stand up here, they won't have any standing to stand up for other contexts either. That of course is the entire point and why you want them to refuse to object here.

    I understand perfectly what you are doing. You just don't like it and seem perplexed that anyone could see it even though it is insultingly obvious.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, the guy who thinks public libraries can bar objectionable books is going to lecture me about how thinking that a public college can unaffiliate with an objectionable fraternity is a free speech matter.

  • John||

    Yeah, because choosing what books go in a library is not the same as telling people what they can and cannot say as a condition of receiving government recognition for their organization.

    That analogy is stupid even by your standards Bo. Again, the right thing here is that the government can't punish people for offensive speech. You don't believe that. You think it is great to punish people for speech as long as you don't like the people and the speech being punish. I and a lot of other people don't feel that way and you are not going to concern troll us into changing our principles.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Library takes public money to buy books, but decides this book is objectionable so won't stock or display it.

    University takes public money to affiliate with student organization, but decides this org is objectionable so it doesn't affiliate with it.

    You don't have a right to official university recognition and affiliation, John. If these kids were suspended from the school you'd have something like a point.

  • ||

    "I'm a libertarian"

    cite needed.

  • The Left Never Changes||

    And so they think circling the wagons and downplaying this ...

    Tony, why the generalization? These people are cretins, but there's lots of greek organizations that do a lot of good or at least no harm. To take one example, there's a long history of minority fraternities that provided mutual aid and voluntary assistance to blacks at a time when things were pretty rough toward them. Why toss them out over this?
    I don't think I'd generalize about what are hundreds of organizations with thousands of chapters.
    Then why make such a negative generalization that includes them? Not very friendly, if you ask me.
  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Pathetic, as I started with the qualifier: "Most of the people posting here"

  • Seamus||

    I think I'm perfectly capable of simultaneously (1) denouncing a bunch of guys joking about lynching blacks and how they will never associate with them and (2) denouncing those who would deny the first amendment rights of a bunch of guys joking about lynching blacks and how they will never associate with them.

  • Seamus||

    First they came for the dickbag racist frat kids, and I did not speak up, because I was not a dickbag racist frat kid.

  • Restoras||

    Indeed. You believe in free speech, or you don't. That includes ugly, vile speech, in fact most especially.

  • Rebel Scum||

    There will never be a ni**** SAE.

    For fucks sake. I thought this was a libertarian leaning news site. I think all of our feelz will remain in tact after reading the word 'nigger'. Have some balls and write the damned thing out.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    For reelz....fucking pussies.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Not a singe mention of double-secret probation. I am so disappointed.

  • John||

    What makes this story ridiculous is that none of the people involved, including the author, mean a single word of what they say. The University of Oklahoma would never punish a black fraternity made a video fantasizing about killing white people. And if someone made a stink on here demanding they do so, Robby Soave would be writing a post about the virtues of free speech and how brave the University is for standing up for the black fraternity. And he certainly wouldn't be called the video, even though it called for his own death, "deeply evil" or anything but protected speech.

    The truth is that few people in this country object to racism at all. They object to white racism. Racism by other groups is either ignored or if it is directed at whites out right encouraged. You could reasonably make the argument that even a state university has the authority to restrict some forms of really inflammatory speech on the part of its fraternities in the name of decorum and good order and discipline of the campus. That argument falls flat here because the University doesn't actually have a problem with racism or inflammatory speech. It has a problem with white fraternities engaging in it.

  • ||

    Tu quoque is a poor argument. The taboo being uneven is bad, but it's not worse than there being no taboo at all, I'd argue.

  • John||

    I meant that as an attack on the people involved not as a comment on the issue of whether fraternities should make racist videos. So it is not a Tu quorque argument. It is just me saying that Soave and the administration at OU are ridiculous and are lying when they claim they are outraged about racism. They are not. That doesn't mean racism is good or bad. It just means that whatever it is, these people don't care about it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Why do you think people are more sensitive to white racism directed towards blacks than blacks directed toward whites? Could it be because the first was involved in something like the worst stain on our nation's history?

  • sarcasmic||

    Principals, not principles.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Actually, being more focused on something that was a long standing problem rather than on an analogous thing that wasn't is kind of a principles thing.

  • sarcasmic||

    When an act is judged by the person doing it, not the act itself, then it is exactly that kind of thing.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "When an act is judged by the person doing it"

    There's a bit more to it than that as I've explained.

  • John||

    So what? That doesn't make the double standard any less objectionable. Moreover, since when does a knowledge of history make it okay to only pay attention to racism when it comes from one side? You no doubt think that is some kind of a defense, but that is just because you are one of the people I am talking about and no doubt think racism is just fine as long as it is directed at white people. Good for you, but spare me your polemics about racism because you clearly don't find it to be a problem in most cases.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I don't think racism is fine when directed at white people, but given the much sorrier history of white racism than black racism I can totally see why someone might be more concerned or alarmed by the former.

    If suddenly it were found that Jews in Germany hated Germans in a racist way I'd be less concerned than if it were suddenly found that Germans in Germany hated Jews in a racist way. Given the fact that Germans are a majority and have had a history of turning that hate into some awful things it seems perfectly find for me to find the latter more alarming.

  • Restoras||

    So, at what point would it concern you?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It would concern me at any point, but I'm more concerned when you have past propensity and more current capability to act on such prejudice than in situations where that's not present.

  • John||

    It would concern me at any point, but I'm more concerned when you have past propensity and more current capability to act on such prejudice than in situations where that's not present.

    So either you think black people are less human than whites such that they can't be held to the same moral standards of behavior or you think that it is okay to collectively punish white people today for things that happened in the past they had nothing to do with. It is one or the other. All you are saying is "given the past, it is okay for black people to be racist and white people are supposed to just take it because of oppression and stuff".

    Again, there is no half measure here. You either find racism wrong or you don't. You don't get to excuse it when it is done by people you like and still claim you object to it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "So either you think black people are less human than whites such that they can't be held to the same moral standards of behavior or you think that it is okay to collectively punish white people "

    What a unsurprising pathetic false dilemma from Captain False Dilemma. I've already made my argument, when you care to actually address it rather than how you'd like to illogically think of it I'll answer you.

  • John||

    Sorry Bo, but saying the words don't make them true. There is nothing false about that dilemma at all. If there was, you would explain why there is another alternative rather than faking offense and screaming false dilemma with no explanation.

    I called out your position for exactly what it is. If you don't like it, admit you are wrong and change your position.

  • Restoras||

    So either you think black people are less human than whites such that they can't be held to the same moral standards of behavior

    Ironically, if someone does believe this it makes that person a true racist.

  • Restoras||

    No, it doesn't concern you. You are willing to tolerate it from one group until 'some undetermined point in the future that may or may not occur' while being utterly intolerant of it from another group, all based on events in the past that the group in question had absolutely nothing to do with.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Where did I say I was willing to tolerate it? I could have sworn what I wrote that it's reasonable to be more alarmed by one than the other.

  • Restoras||

    If you aren't equally alarmed you are willing to tolerate it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That's self evidently wrong Restoras. Just say that sentence to yourself a few times, perhaps looking up what 'equally alarmed' and 'willing to tolerate' mean.

  • Restoras||

    No, it isn't.

    You are more alarmed by white racism than (insert ethnic group) racism. You site historical and cultural imperatives for this.

    Given this, and the majority status that white people still have in the US, you prefer to focus on white racism instead of condemning all racism. Because you do not condemn all racism, you are more willing to tolerate racism from a minority ethnic group on the basis of that group having fewer numbers and less power.

  • Catatafish||

    "...more current capability to act..."

    Because..."POWER DYNAMIX!"

    Wrong is wrong, dude. It really can be that simple.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course wrong is wrong, but only a fool worries about wrongs that are less likely to produce awful consequences than they do ones that are more likely.

  • Restoras||

    That's what a lot of 'good Germans' said about said about a very minor political party in the 1920's.

  • Tony||

    Where on this planet have white people ever been systematically oppressed for being white? This roundabout bullshit is even more absurd than just saying white people are superior because they did all the conquering first.

  • KDN||

    Zimbabwe is the clearest example. You can also make a case for Ottoman Turkey.

  • Calidissident||

    Wouldn't Turkey be more of an example of religious discrimination?

  • Seamus||

    Turks are white.

  • John||

    I don't think racism is fine when directed at white people, but given the much sorrier history of white racism than black racism I can totally see why someone might be more concerned or alarmed by the former.

    Which is another way of saying, you don't have a problem with it. Sorry but "its okay as long as it doesn't go too far" is still saying it is okay.

  • Tony||

    There would be no great problem with racism if it didn't have any real-world effects. People have vile thoughts about all sorts of things. What matters to people who care about bigotry is the power it lends to a privileged group over an oppressed group.

    In bizarro universe conservative land, however, not only is racism not a big deal, it's also a huge fucking deal if it's ever directed toward white people. There's barely any mask to slip with this crap.

  • John||

    Yeah Tony, black people are just powerless and their racism could never harm anyone. The depths of your white supremacy and racism never fails to amaze. You actually view black people as such low beings that you think that even their hatred could have no effects.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This is the pathetic thing that conservatives do after they've been shown to be whining more about anti-racism than racism, try to say it's really the people worried about racism that are the real racists. It's pathetic.

  • John||

    No Bo,

    It is called having principles and standing on them. You only find it "pathetic" because you have no principles and thus think anyone who does is just pathetic.

    You have lost this argument so badly, that you are reduced to name calling. It is of course your's and tony's right to embrace racism as an acceptable quirk of what you view as the lower races. The rest of us, however, being humanists, don't view it that way. Racism on anyone's part is wrong and should be judged accordingly. We view black people as full human beings and thus don't grade them on the curve like paternal white supremacists like you and Tony do.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, John, you misunderstand. I find it pathetic that you yourself obviously feel that your arguments look a lot like excusing racism, so you desparately try to name call Tony as a 'white supremacist' because he thinks white racism is more alarming due to its greater likelihood of having negative consequences.

  • John||

    Bo,

    You are the one who refuses to apply common standards of behavior, not me. You clearly think black people are inferior and thus not responsible for being racist. If you didn't, think that, you wouldn't find their racism so understandable.

    You are a paternal racist. You don't mean black people harm but you view yourself and other white people as superior none the less. You excuse black racism because you feel it is your burden as a white person to do so. You of course have that burden because you were born of the superior race. That is all that is going on here. You just rationalize it as being the opposite of what it is.

  • Tony||

    Who is excusing black racism? You just want us to give it as much attention as we do white racism, as if they were equally problematic. And you're pretending that nobody is aware of this time-tested rhetoric for excusing the action of ignoring black problems altogether.

    The big absurdity to me is that if white people are ever being oppressed anywhere, we don't hesitate to intervene with guns blazing. This country coddles underprivileged whites with soothing stories of their own inherent greatness (and notorious oppression at the hands of black people and Democrats). If ever a time comes when racism against whites becomes a real-world problem, you can be sure it will be addressed with exponentially more haste than was employed for black oppression.

  • John||

    You are Tony. You are the one that says it doesn't matter and is okay. Not us.

    Yes tony, white people are superior beings and thus can never be oppressed by inferior black people. It is always black people who are in danger and need you and other benevolent white people's protection. You think white people are superior.

  • Tony||

    White people are relatively privileged, not superior. The only reason you don't understand these concepts is because you don't want to.

  • ||

    You are a paternal racist. You don't mean black people harm but you view yourself and other white people as superior none the less. You excuse black racism because you feel it is your burden as a white person to do so. You of course have that burden because you were born of the superior race. That is all that is going on here. You just rationalize it as being the opposite of what it is."

    And that is the definition of a liberal/orogressive as defined by Ken Wilber (ultra prog ), ho wrote "Boomeritis".

    Should be a must read for everyone who posts here.

  • Tony||

    I don't experience black racism--that's why I dismiss it. I certainly don't experience it on an oppressively constant basis; in fact my life is not affected by it by even a microscopic degree.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    To some conservatives, anti-racism is a much, much worse problem than racism.

  • Tony||

    And those are moderates on the spectrum. There are still a lot of unapologetic white supremacists around.

    John is trying to make a facile equivalence. Centuries of brutal oppression is the same as a black guy yelling "cracker" once. And nobody's even defending that.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    For a lot of white conservatives, that cracker is more worrisome, because it involves (insults) them. It's just tribalism.

    I'd rather make a principled distinction about which is more worrisome given history and current capability.

  • John||

    Tony,

    You are an absolute white supremacist. You constantly on here claiming that black people cannot succeed without the help of benevolent white people such as yourself. Black people can never improve their own lot. They forever will need the help of superior white people like you and Bo.

    That is absolutely the assumption behind both of your positions.

  • Tony||

    Yes you're the real model of cosmopolitan tolerance because you think ignoring black problems altogether is best. This isn't difficult to understand--racism (and accompanying brutal oppression for centuries) has caused blacks on average to be economically underprivileged, by definition the relative inability to succeed in society. I suppose by your logic you are a black supremacist--you assume they are capable of overcoming much greater hurdles than white people ever had to. As a black supremacist, why do you have such a problem with racism against whites?

  • ||

    And Asians have now become the victim of affirmative action because they learn English too well and are really good at math and science.

  • freedomlover||

    Oh? Please define:

    "black problems"

  • Harold Falcon||

    Oh piss off.

  • sarcasmic||

    Racism by other groups is either ignored or if it is directed at whites out right encouraged.

    Yep. Racism is judged not by the racists statements or acts themselves, but by the skin color of the people doing it.

    Principals, not principles.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It's about taking into account past propensities and current capabilities. Do you worry equally, if you found each in your backyard one late nite, that the little old lady living beside you or the repeat offender young man living beside you might act against you or your property? If you did would it be 'principals over principles?'

  • Restoras||

    It's about taking into account past propensities and current capabilities.

    That's what racism is too you? Really?

    Do you worry equally, if you found each in your backyard one late nite, that the little old lady living beside you or the repeat offender young man living beside you might act against you or your property?

    Not the same thing at all, but you knew that when you typed it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Of course it's not exactly the same thing, it's an analogy based on the idea of taking past propensity and current capability into account in both instances.

  • Restoras||

    A very poor analogy, driven by the desire to drive an emotional response rather than a logical one.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Then say why the analogy is inapt.

  • Restoras||

    You know exactly why because you wrote it. Stop being so obtuse.

    An image of a 'little old lady' conjures sympathetic emotions in the mind of those that read it, while an image of young, male repeat offender conjure negative emotions.

    Emotions like these get in the way of rational thought.

    But, again, you knew that when you wrote it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Er, for the analogy to work I do have to conjure up someone or thing with more past propensity and current capablity, you know?

  • Restoras||

    Then do so without attempting to evoke an emotional response. Otherwise it falls flat.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Look, the analogy has to have something with low current capacity (weaker) and past propensity (more good). That's how it has to work, you know.

  • Restoras||

    Sure. Just do so without attempting to evoke an emotional response. Emotional responses get in the way of rational thought, do they not? If you desire rational thought then shouldn't the first thing you try to avoid is an emotional response?

  • sarcasmic||

    Then say why the analogy is inapt.

    Because in your example the repeat offender has an actual history of misdeeds, while a white person who wasn't even born when institutional racism existed does not.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Actually, there's a not insignificant number of white people in this country right now that were around when institional racism was in effect.

    But yes, since the entire exercise involves judging actions by Group A and Group B, I did refer to a 'group trait.'

  • sarcasmic||

    Groups don't act. Individuals do.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're basically claiming that white people are racist because they're white, and that's... racist.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You really are terrible at this.

    I'm not saying whites are racist at all even, I'm saying that given the history in this nation and the current majority in numbers and power it's reasonable to be more alarmed by white racism.

  • sarcasmic||

    Oh, I understand the argument. I just think it's total bullshit. Racism is racism. Period. Excusing black racists because of the past is bullshit.

  • sarcasmic||

    Bo is the king of poor analogies.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You'd have to get them to judge them poor, don't get ahead of yourself there.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're not that clever.

  • Catatafish||

    Exactly whose "past propensity?" You wouldn't be referring to a large group whose common characteristic is...skin color? What is this, the taint of blood test?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Racial groups are more cultural than anything else.

  • Migrant Log Picker||

    "past propensities and and current capabilities"

    You are trying to imply that historical oppression could be possible in this day and age. That is utterly ridiculous.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Is there more than the few seconds long clip that we see? Have they positively identified it's the fraternity in question? No one's jumping the gun on this, are they?

  • Loki||

    There's no time to stop and ask these kinds of questions, people are outraged now! You've got a lot to learn about grievance mongering.

  • Praveen R.||

    What took this from free speech to suspension worthy behavior was the reference to black people hanging from a tree. Those whining aobut reverse racism should wonder if black people saying "these k**** marching towards the gas chambers" would have been tolerated. I don't think so.

  • John||

    I thin it would. I see no evidence that it wouldn't be. Maybe the Jewist part might get them in trouble. But if they directed it at white people, I can't see it ever being an issue. Indeed, there were similar things chanted at various protests in the wake of Ferguson and only a few fringe right wing websites ever even reported on it or made an issue.

    It is unthinkable that a University would punish a black fraternity for similar behavior or if it did would do anything approaching expelling students and revoking charters. The people in involved here are lying. They don't care about racism, only white racism.

  • Restoras||

    To non-whites Jews are just more white people anyway, so yes.

  • Sudden||

    What will be truly fascinating will be what the reactions to the violent assaults that could happen against an SAE member (I'd seriously put the odds of such an event at slightly north of 50%) are.

  • John||

    The reaction should be to punish the guy who did it. What else can you do? I don't blame the university or the people who are offended by this video for the actions of one nut.

  • Sudden||

    I'd wager that a not insubstantial chunk of people will react to such a violent assault as proper comeuppance. It's like it is with Islamist terrorism John: it may be 1% brazen enough to act on an idea, but there are 10% behind it that not only condone such bold acts but would give ideological cover to it and encourage it.

  • R C Dean||

    Those whining aobut reverse racism should wonder if black people saying "these k**** marching towards the gas chambers" would have been tolerated.

    Anti-Semitism by blacks has a long, illustrious, and generally uncriticized history. Otherwise, the Nation of Islam would be treated about as well as any white power skinhead group, wouldn't it?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Anti-Semitism by blacks has a long, illustrious, and generally uncriticized history

    And add that to the long, illustrious, and generally criticized history of antisemitism on college campuses.

  • Cloudbuster||

    I hear so much anti-white namecalling I find it refreshing that there are still white kids out there who aren't afraid to be racist. I'd find it even more refreshing if they had done it with forethought instead of getting caught out be some snitch releasing a video.

    Just like the Supreme Court ruled that the Nazis had to be allowed to march in Skokie. You don't need to punish the kids. You just let their video circulate around, and all the kids who find that offensive won't be joining their fraternity.

    It's not like we have to fear that the KKK and the Nazis are going to swell to huge numbers because they're allowed to speak, march and advertise. Their speech reveals them for what they truly are.

    And we want things revealed for what they truly are, right?

  • Restoras||

    And we want things revealed for what they truly are, right?

    No! Not when 'feelings' might be hurt or 'sensibilities' offended!

  • John||

    Exactly that. Let people say what they want and society will sort it out. The worst thing you can do is suppress this kind of stuff and giving the people who made it a real grievance. Everyone knows they would never punish a black fraternity for this behavior. So punishing a white fraternity like this just makes people feel their racism is justified. I fail to see how that helps things.

  • crufus||

    Je suis Sigma Alpha Epsilon!

  • John||

    So if a fraternity made a video that showed a member dressed as Muhammad getting it on at a gay club with a couple of his followers, would reason and Soave endorse the University punishing them for it? If not, why not? Are Muslims' sensibilities less important than those of black people? This video is very offensive to black people, got it. So is the Muhammad video in my example. So, why shouldn't that be punished too?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    why shouldn't that be punished too?

    I'm thinking it would, to the sounds of automatic fire and Allahu akbar.

  • John||

    There is that Mulatto. I was thinking more conceptually. We are all now Charlie you know, or at least claim to be.

  • ||

    I hope all you people who played Bo's game are happy with yourselves. Did you think it would somehow turn out any different?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, who other than a teen age girl worries so very much about who is talking to who?

  • Restoras||

    It is like playing Monopoly with the same person as the banker every time even though we all know he cheats.

  • Catatafish||

    (chastised face)

  • kbolino||

    Mr. "more libertarian than thou" cannot defend the rights of racists. Color me surprised.

  • GILMORE||

    Look, Real Libertarians™ know that 'free speech' is just an expression.... because "Words Matter" and stuff.... and also, the size of the Federal Government is not the big deal you all seem to claim, because, like, we don't have slaves anymore.

  • kbolino||

    I think I've argued with Bo in the past, before he became truly insufferable, about how the 1880s-1890s and 1920s were times of prosperity and growing freedom for black people, contra the prevailing narrative, but he is incapable of appreciating nuance. Moreso when discussing the role of the federal government pre-1860.

    In fact, if one were to be studious about these things, it looks like the power of the federal government is inversely correlated with the freedom of blacks pre-1960. The situation post-1960 is really worth of a study all its own.

  • kbolino||

    Let me clarify: the absolute freedom of blacks has always been and continues to be inversely correlated with the power of the federal government; it is just that, post-1960, the relative freedom of blacks was on par with that of whites, at least as far as the federal government is concerned. We got equality, but we didn't much get liberty.

  • Calidissident||

    You seriously think black people today have less absolute freedom than they did in the 1880s or 1920s? How far back are you willing to go - 1850s?

  • kbolino||

    No, and I did not include that time period for a reason. Besides the existence of slavery in the Southern and border states, the Fugitive Slave Act pretty much made slavery the law of the land in the United States from 1850-1865, although I imagine enforcement waned after the war began.

    Yet that does not mean that nothing happened between 1870 and 1960 in terms of greater freedom for black people. The problem is that every time something good happened, whether for blacks or for all, it was rolled back (and then some) in the name of false "progress". Even laws that ostensibly were targeted at everyone often were tools of oppression against blacks when enforced.

    I think black people have opportunities today that they did not have in 1880 or 1920. Yet they are no less oppressed by the high-tax regulatory and welfare state of today than everyone else is. Not to mention the matter of criminal law and its enforcement.

  • Calidissident||

    I'll post your previous comment again and explain what exactly I was asking you to confirm or deny whether it was your intent to say:

    "Let me clarify: the absolute freedom of blacks has always been and continues to be inversely correlated with the power of the federal government; it is just that, post-1960, the relative freedom of blacks was on par with that of whites, at least as far as the federal government is concerned. We got equality, but we didn't much get liberty."

    Are you in fact saying that absolute freedom has not increased for black people since 1960, only relative to white people, or do you think black people are more absolutely free today than they were in the pre-Civil Rights era?

    I don't really disagree with anything you said in your last post, but you didn't really give a clear answer as to whether or not you think black people are more free today than they were in the time period between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement.

  • kbolino||

    I don't really disagree with anything you said in your last post, but you didn't really give a clear answer as to whether or not you think black people are more free today than they were in the time period between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement.

    It is precisely the uniform characterization of the entire period "between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement" that I take issue with.

    But yes, to answer your question, I think many black people--although certainly not all--were more free at various times from 1870-1960 than any of us are today. By that, I mean that they enjoyed greater respect for life, liberty, and property than is presently enjoyed by most of us, blacks included. I also think that there were times from 1870-1960 where the majority of black people in the US lived in relative parity, freedom-wise, with white people.

    Those times didn't last, of course, and that was part of my point, as well.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't really have time to debate at length tonight, but I think that is a rosy view of the past that simply is not historically accurate. I know those 90 years weren't monolithic and static, but at no point would it be fair to say the average black person was more free then than the average black person is today, let alone the average white person. I'm well aware of recent encroachments on liberty, but the past was not libertopia. Even some things commonly pointed to by libertarians (civil liberties, basic economic freedoms) have been violated worse in the past than they are today, in time periods that were supposedly bastions of liberty and limited government.

  • kbolino||

    Is the poll tax better or worse than asset forfeiture? Is being unable to sit at the front of the bus better or worse than being sent to prison for smoking pot? Is Plessy better or worse than Wickard? Is getting lynched for looking at a white woman better or worse than getting choked to death for selling loose cigarettes?

    Very few precedents truly get overturned, and new ones are added every day. Even sweeping civil rights legislation only serves as a temporary speed bump in the accretion of government power.

  • Tony||

    Growing freedom, as in from a baseline of chattel slavery? How about you ask any black person whether he'd prefer to be alive in the 1880s or 1920s instead of now.

  • GILMORE||

    We had our full dose of "Reductio Ad Slavery" yesterday, thanks.

    Perhaps you'd like to try something with more 'hitler' in it?

  • kbolino||

    Ah, good, another moron who can't appreciate nuance.

  • ||

    I imagine you'd get the same answer you'd get from 95% of the literate humans on the planet - no thank you.

  • ||

    Ahem. John.

  • John||

    I am properly chastened.

  • rogerfgay||

    I don't really understand the administrators' revoking of the fraternity's affiliation rights, effectively banning it from campus. Was it actually an organized fraternity event? Or is this just another case of administrators acting irresponsibly - with a lot more power than they can handle?

  • rogerfgay||

    I don't really understand the administrators' revoking of the fraternity's affiliation rights, effectively banning it from campus. Was it actually an organized fraternity event? Or is this just another case of administrators acting irresponsibly - with a lot more power than they can handle?

  • Russell||

    What would happen if everyone on the bus were subjected to ancestral DNA mapping ?

  • GILMORE||

    Thog not like mapping. Thog descended from Sun God.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

  • ||

    Did we ever positively learn what retarded cult he's in?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I believe it's the one mentioned in the above link. It would explain a lot.

  • Lyman L. Lemnitzer||

    "If the goal is to reform or educate away attitudes such as this, don't these students belong in school, where they can interact with people who will help them understand why they were wrong?"

    This would be idea, but I think you have to approach this pragmatically. Their very presence would be a gigantic distraction, both to the campus, and individual students as they go about their business, go to class, attend games, etc. etc. The security issues would be a nightmare.

    They're a potential cancer on OU, and, like all tumors, it's best to extract it as soon as possible.

  • Migrant Log Picker||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • kbolino||

    It is amazing how the intentions get thrown out of the window when inconvenient. I thought colleges were supposed to be places for open and inquisitive minds, where the preconceptions of the students were challenged?

  • We The Living||

    I can't help but wonder when it was exactly that we entered this new Victorian era, where any admittedly vulgar, offensive or socially unacceptable speech immediately led to demands for the speaker to be silenced. I also wonder when it was that colleges got so soft. I mean, c'mon, vigils with taped mouths and prayer circles? Really?

    But if you really want to see some shrill hysterics, try making your same statement in one of the FB comment sections of the mainstream news outlets. Made that mistake once before and between the pearl clutching, fainting spells and repeated demands that I "GO SUCK DONKEY BALLS, YOU RACIST @$$HOLE!" it was kind of entertaining in a way.

  • kbolino||

    Ironically, a lot of things were tolerated in the Victorian Era that are intolerable today. And you could get away with a lot of shit if you were discreet. Oscar Wilde, for example, was hoist by his own petard more than anything else.

    But I'd take someone spamming "go suck donkey balls" ten times over and twice on Sunday versus "I'm going to tell your boss and try to get you fired" or similar sentiments. There seems to be little respect for the lives of other people nowadays.

  • Sudden||

    The security issues would be a nightmare.

    And this is precisely why they harbored such uncouth attitudes to begin with.

  • GILMORE||

    " Their very presence would be a gigantic distraction, both to the campus, and individual students as they go about their business, go to class, attend games, etc. etc. The security issues would be a nightmare."

    - Rationale for School Segregation and Banning Women from the Military, etc.

  • ||

    As a black dude, while I find their words pretty reprehensible, the univeristy since it's public do not have the right to throw those guys out. What they said was disgusting but why should we allow these guys rights to be trampled beause they said something that was awful and offensive? This is not a road that we want to go down on.

  • JayH||

    Universities have been going down this road for at least 30 years now...

  • Tony||

    H/T to a Facebook friend: apparently SAE is the only existing fraternity to originate in the antebellum South (Alabama). They like confederate flags. As to the mystery of why this could happen with multiple students involved, the answer appears to be self-selection.

  • kbolino||

    Tell me, what does it take to clear the stain of original sin?

  • Tony||

    Doing whatever it takes to achieve equality of opportunity among the races. Not actively continuing racist actions would be a good start.

  • kbolino||

    So expelling the chapter and recommending the expulsion of the students, which is exactly what the national organization of the fraternity did, is what exactly?

  • Tony||

    Punishing shockingly bad behavior by its members?

  • kbolino||

    And that's insufficient?

  • ||

    That's stupid. People should never ever be punished for what those who
    looked like them did years ago.

  • cfskyrim||

    Everybody is starving and has 2 bucks to their name. Thank God for equality, am I right Tony?

  • Tony||

    It's a good thing there's more than $700 million to go around.

  • ||

    So they all get $10, maybe even $100 according to your zero sum attitude to economics ?

    eh Tony?

    Tony how old were you when your father abandoned you ?

  • Independent_Forever||

    While what they say is terrible, we have to ask ourselves...is it free speech for all OR only those who claim they have this right while denying it to others? Seems to me this nation has heard racist & hateful speeches from people who have worked in and been invited TO the White House with no consequences. I'm not saying these iditos shouldn't face consequences and it sounds like their actions just got them kicked right out which is also valid. As we all know "freedom isn't free" and while you can do a lot in this country it doesn't mean it is without risks or consequences. That's the choice you make... but there is way too much hypocrisy going around that singling this group out seems superficial and for appearances versus wanting real reform. Blame the education system for fostering racism...the university system is FULL of intolerant, activist, left-winged demagogues who trash this country and the people of this nation every chance they get...HOW ABOUT we go after them?

  • JohnQ||

    Well, like any citizen of the US I despise freedom of speech. It is offensive to me, and it is not regulated enough. Which is just one reason I quit calling us "Americans". That word has such poetic connotations....
    If kids are caught saying bad things, it's doubly heinous to me. I want them caught and punished as that is just how we citizens of the US roll.
    The most important thing, is that we keep the Constitution as it is, and neither update it, or obey it.
    As it turns out, non democratic countries like it vague and strict at the same time.
    God bless our universities for leading the way into the fight for political orthodoxy..

  • Calidissident||

    How the fuck did a story about blatant racism by a white people and turn into a conversation about the real problem here is angry SJWs and black people not being punished when being racist? Seriously, a story about white racism turned into a circlejerk about how unfair white men are treated.

    Note that I'm not saying one has to support expelling them and I'm not referring to people arguing against it, just the people who went beyond that to "ok, it's bad, but not that big a deal, real problem is people angry about the video" and "but they wouldn't punish a black frat!" The mental gymnastics here would be rightly criticized if a left-wing site used the same logic.

  • kbolino||

    John has a problem making his point without overplaying his hand. His equivocating is pretty bad but the argument that the university should not be taking action based upon the viewpoints--however egregious or disgusting--of the students has merit. I think you are as much mischaracterizing the discussion as John is mischaracterizing the issues at play here.

  • Calidissident||

    I wasn't just referring to John. Look at how many people are making this about "SJWs" and how they let black frats operate (because multiple people here were under the impression that historically black fraternities excluded people who aren't black), etc. I acknowledged that merely arguing against the university action isn't the same thing as that, so I'm not sure what else you want me to say.

  • kbolino||

    I may have skipped your second paragraph on initial reading.

    And yeah, I know it wasn't just John, but he did seem to be the most vocal about it.

  • cfskyrim||

    Eh, let them be racist. I'm still not convinced that racism and bigotry (the Internet's two favorite words) are the end all, be all of evil. I can think of several greater human sins than being racist.

    However, the national branch (or whatever you would call them) does have the right to not associate with these guys so I agree that they have the right to revoke their charter.

    I don't know enough about the agreement between a frat and university to comment on whether the university has the right to expel or kick these guys off campus.

  • Praveen R.||

    The N word itself doesn't share my outrage meter that much even if I find it extremely distasteful and wouldn't mind giving any person using that word to denigrate people.
    What outrages me is some people here are passing off the whole thing as a mere immature thing. Making jokes about one of the most heinous dark spots in US History (lynchings of blacks) is part of immaturity and you are glad you didn't have camera phones growing up? Even in my worst immature phase, I made some gay jokes, but never even remotely talked about harming them or referring to them as subhuman .

    What is most interesting is what goes in their mind that they think its funny singing about blacks hanging from trees when it has been a factual incident happened many times over. It comes across as celebrating that dark period in US history rather than joking hypothetically about something that is distasteful but is unlikely to happen). That is not even in the same universe as enjoying saying nigger.

    I personally do not care if these kids are suspended or not. But you bet I would posters all over campus with their pictures and quotes of what they said. Free speech works both ways.

  • JayH||

    Sticks and stones...

    Since nothing actually happened, this is a crock.
    "deeply evil" would be a mob lynching.
    "deeply evil" would be mass shooting, be-headings, genocide...
    Frat boys being inappropriate is such a snooze.

    Anyone who thinks that naughty words are a big deal should do a little contemplating on their world view.

  • Sudden||

    This. Nevermind that said naughty words are alluding to an action that hasn't taken place for two generations. And nevermind that these naughty words are likely to provoke deeds against their speakers that arise to actual violence.

  • JayH||

    No one has made any case that the words will "provoke deeds". That is a stretch and completely unfounded.

  • Empress Trudy||

    I would go with the drug/alcohol/dehydration/exhaustion/drug interaction excuse.

  • ||

    The students should absolutely not be expelled or punished. Hate/ stupidity is its own reward.

    As for the fraternity's expulsion by the school, I think that's more complicated. Fraternities/ sororities at some schools get privileges from the schools that non-greek students are not able to get. Given that, I don't see anything wrong with the school making stupid demands on them like giving up their freedom of speech. If this was group of students who had independently formed a cohabitational group outside the bounds of the university, I would see it differently.

  • Patrick in Michigan||

    http://chimptube.tv/upload/Who.....rebel_v995

    All I'm sayin... they do it to us, white people like me, do it to them...

  • Dread Pirate Roberts||

    Considering that it wasn't all that long ago that white supremacy was noncontroversial and completely in the mainstream, I'll take the swift action as a positive sign that progress has been made.

  • We The Living||

    What these frat boys did was appalling, but some of the reactions from these campus groups and social media has been well beyond hysterical. Was their little song vile and disgusting in the extreme? Absolutely. But in a society governed by rules and laws rather than by feelings and emotions, an offense must have a provable, objective outcome in order for it to be punishable. "They're offensive and racist" simply doesn't cut it.

    Now, the decision of the national fraternity to disavow and disband this chapter was the right call. Being a private organization, the fraternity had a right and a moral obligation to do so when members are exposed engaging in this behavior. But beyond that, the university has no place meting out punishment for a group singing an admittedly horrible song. If it can be proven that this fraternity has engaged in discrimination (being that they've had black students try to pledge at this particular frat house and were turned away) or indeed incitement to violence (somebody was actually inspired to lynch a black person at the university), then that is another matter entirely. But frankly, anything short of that doesn't justify a demand for expulsion or any other disciplinary action from the university.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online