OK - OU fraternity "SAE" sings racist chant on bus

[SuzDuJour]

great! could you provide a link to the SAE killings you claim to recall? how come silence didn't ensue with you?

you could be on a bus right now singing further hostile things directed at me, should I be concerned?

also, that Mixon guy was black

So singing about hanging blacks is okay with you because nobody on that bus actually did what they gleefully sang about?

 

[Nova]

Every article I've read about these students in the past several days has stated that they are from Dallas.

So the point is what? Texas boys have such forceful personalities that Okies can't help but follow along?

That's hardly better than if Oklahoma kids were the instigators.

 

[Nova]

I think it is a good sign that there is so much white outrage at the song these idiots were singing.

However, as a mother of two college daughters, it frustrates me to no end that there seems to be so little outrage at the fact that college males can sing or rap to music which is misogynistic and frequently advocates violence towards women. Why is this not considered creating a hostile environment? Why is it not considered "hate speech"? Why are no students being expelled for singing these songs?

They are on many campuses. The UCLA incidents I mentioned above involved more misogynistic incidents than racial ones--and one kind was deemed as bad as the other.

 

[nrdsb4]

So the point is what? Texas boys have such forceful personalities that Okies can't help but follow along?

That's hardly better than if Oklahoma kids were the instigators.

The ONLY point was in response to a poster who said the media was not reporting enough on the fact that the students were not from Oklahoma. I made no judgment about the implications of where they were from, so maybe your comment or question should be addressed to the poster who thought the issue was important.

 

[nrdsb4]

They are on many campuses. The UCLA incidents I mentioned above involved more misogynistic incidents than racial ones--and one kind was deemed as bad as the other.

Are students at UCLA being expelled for singing along to misogynist music which describes and advocates violence towards women? Because THAT was the issue I was discussing. Music continues to be produced and purchased which has these themes front and center and I would be willing to bet they could be heard in dorms at almost every public university on any given day.

 

[nrdsb4]

The author of this article is a professor of constitutional law at UCLA. He explains why speech which is considered to be pretty despicable is nevertheless speech which is protected against government retaliation. In these cases, public universities are considered to be "government entities." Note he does not assert that ALL speech is protected, but much of what reasonable, decent human beings considers to be disgusting, morally bankrupt, odius, etc. is nevertheless protected by the first amendment at public universities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ity-may-not-expel-students-for-racist-speech/

 

[al66pine]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ity-may-not-expel-students-for-racist-speech/
from nrdsb4 post^ explaining why the law school prof thinks the U Pres's expulsion of students is not constitutionally permissible. FWIW:

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

"UPDATE: The university president wrote that the students are being expelled for “your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.” But there is no First Amendment exception for racist speech, or exclusionary speech, or — as the cases I mentioned above — for speech by university students that “has created a hostile educational environment for others.”
"2. Likewise, speech doesn’t lose its constitutional protection just because it refers to violence — “You can hang him from a tree,” “the capitalists will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes,” “by any means necessary” with pictures of guns, “apostates from Islam should be killed.”

"3. To be sure, in specific situations, such speech might fall within a First Amendment exception. One example is if it is likely to be perceived as a “true threat” of violence (e.g., saying “apostates from Islam will be killed” or “we’ll hang you from a tree” to a particular person who will likely perceive it as expressing the speaker’s intention to kill him); but that’s not the situation here, where the speech wouldn’t have been taken by any listener as a threat against him or her. Another is if it intended to solicit a criminal act, or to create a conspiracy to commit a criminal act, but, vile as the “hang him from a tree” is, neither of these exceptions are applicable here, either."
bbm

 

[IzzyBlanche]

So the point is what? Texas boys have such forceful personalities that Okies can't help but follow along?

That's hardly better than if Oklahoma kids were the instigators.

I am the one who wrote the post that nrdsb4 was replying to. My point was that the university, and to some extent Oklahoma as a whole, is now being vilified by many as racist, when the ringleaders weren't even from Oklahoma. That doesn't seem justified to me.

Just FYI, I wouldn't advise calling people from Oklahoma "Okies" as a matter of course. I know you've read the Grapes of Wrath. During that era the term was used solely as a pejorative, and many Oklahomans, especially those of older generations, still see it that way. Just like some Native Americans find "Indian" insulting and others don't.

(Merle Haggard was from Bakersfield, not Muskogee. Just sayin, I know you didn't mention him.)

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

As horrible as it is, hate speech is not illegal. When hate speech occurs during a crime, then additional penalties can be applied as it becomes a hate crime. But it is the crime which is illegal, not hate speech in and of itself.

What may make this stick if the students were to sue (and I don't believe they will) is not that their speech was racist or hate speech but that they have an implicit threat in the song which could create a "hostile environment" for other students.

In general, honor codes and such do not trump the constitution at public universities.

I've been reading a lot about this on legal forums, and the consensus is that OU president cannot make this about hate speech or racism or honor codes, it must be that these students were creating a reasonable fear among black men that they could be targets of violence.

You are correct. It is not against the law to be hateful and vile. Lord knows there are plenty of people just like that walking around who are at least smart enough not to be filmed being hideous But I think in a college where the leadership is charged with keeping the student body safe. Them kicking them out is the only option. If these men were singing about raping girls, wouldn't that be encouraging violence against women? This is the same thing. While they did not tell people to hang anyone, They are encouraging a culture of hate and violence. I believe the decisions will be upheld in the long run.

In this day and age, To see people so casual about such language is really heartbreaking.

We all need to stand up and make sure every one is treated equally. Although Madonna said women are really the group of people that needs the most help..

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I really don't understand the "hostile learning environment" angle. Can someone explain it to me? Gitana?

The frat boys were on a bus chartered by the fraternity, not a university or even public conveyance, going to a fraternity social event. Most assuredly there were no blacks on the bus to feel intimidated. So how is this creating a hostile learning environment?

It's not as if the SAE members were marching around campus publicly singing the song. My experience of such types is that they are the souls of propriety in public and it is only in private that the racism comes out.

I liken it to a "hostile work environment" linked to issues of sexual harassment. To my knowledge--which may be wrong, hence my question--my male coworkers could go out to a bar on Friday night and discuss my female coworkers and me in the crudest possible terms, but unless they did so or implied it on the job, how could I complain that they were creating a hostile work environment for me? I most likely wouldn't even be aware of the discussion.

I feel the need to repeat, I am not in any way defending what the frat boys said. I am, however, very interested in the situation from a legal standpoint.

 

[i.b.nora]

I believe the difference is that the singing of the song was (1) videotaped and (2) the video was sent to the student newspaper and (3) the video was posted to YouTube.

I think the President of the University did precisely the right thing. And, I believe they were given a time limit to allow them to appeal the expulsion. Instead, the one wrote the most insipid letter of apology (I think the family lawyer actually wrote it) and the other had his parents and their public relations person write his letter.

They remind me of that Texas kid that killed 4 people with his auto and got off with a promise he would go to some kind of rehab place.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

That doesn't make sense to me. No disrespect meant.

Our society doesn't punish people based solely on whether their actions are recorded or not.

By that logic, going back to my hypothetical, my male coworkers could sit around the bar on Friday and discuss in excruciating detail how they would like to rape, torture, and kill my female coworkers and me.

But they would be subject to punishment for such speech only if someone recorded it?

Why would that make a difference? They said it whether it was recorded or not. And if while around me on the job, they didn't say it or even hint about such things, how could I claim they were creating a hostile work environment for me?

I dunno, IANAL.

 

[SuzDuJour]

Hi Izzy!

 

[nrdsb4]

You are correct. It is not against the law to be hateful and vile. Lord knows there are plenty of people just like that walking around who are at least smart enough not to be filmed being hideous But I think in a college where the leadership is charged with keeping the student body safe. Them kicking them out is the only option. If these men were singing about raping girls, wouldn't that be encouraging violence against women? This is the same thing. While they did not tell people to hang anyone, They are encouraging a culture of hate and violence. I believe the decisions will be upheld in the long run.

In this day and age, To see people so casual about such language is really heartbreaking.

We all need to stand up and make sure every one is treated equally. Although Madonna said women are really the group of people that needs the most help..

BBM;

As stated before, this DOES happen every day in dorms all over the country. There is a certain segment of the music industry that produces this kind of product and there are unfortunately plenty of people buying it and playing it loud and proud. And no, the students playing this music in their rooms with their doors open and singing along or in their cars with the windows down- on campus and off- are NOT in fact being expelled, and they are NOT making the national news, with thousands of people calling for their heads on a platter. So it seems to me that it is in fact NOT considered to be the same thing by most people.

 

[nrdsb4]

That doesn't make sense to me. No disrespect meant.

Our society doesn't punish people based solely on whether their actions are recorded or not.

By that logic, going back to my hypothetical, my male coworkers could sit around the bar on Friday and discuss in excruciating detail how they would like to rape, torture, and kill my female coworkers and me.

But they would be subject to punishment for such speech only if someone recorded it?

Why would that make a difference? They said it whether it was recorded or not. And if while around me on the job, they didn't say it or even hint about such things, how could I claim they were creating a hostile work environment for me?

I dunno, IANAL.

A lot of legal eagles are stating essentially the same thing. The racists had no intention of sharing their rhetoric with the subject of the songs. There was no intent to harass or create fear or a hostile environment. They were just expressing their racist philosophy in what they believed was a private setting. I don't condone the speech, but I don't necessarily buy the hostile environment argument either.

I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to have expertise in constitutional issues. But the majority of opinion pieces I have read which were written by people who do have that expertise seem to agree that Boren's position would not win if challenged in court. I think he probably realizes that, but wants to err on the side of the AA students' comfort.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Hi Izzy!

Hello old friend! Nice to see you around as always.

 

[daisytrail]

I think it is an extremely old chant and the students actually had no clue about its meaning. The "N" word used to be a derogatory term to describe the dregs of society no matter the race. I remember my older brothers using it to insult each other.

The fraternity should have retired that chant around the same time the National Guard was shooting innocent students at Kent State and young men of all colors were getting blown up in SE Asia.

JMO

Are your brothers black? To me that stuff about derogatory when applied any race. It is a word of color prejudice specifically. It has been used by British people in the past to apply to people from Pakistan or India for instance. It is not about white people and how white people can be trashy. It's historical origins are of racial insult of people deemed to be inferior by people who feel a sense of racial entitlement because they have lighter skin. Think about it: If it is used as insult and originally was used by white people to refer to black people specifically to characterize the inferiority (and often enslavement). You don't some how "cleanse" it by turning it around and using it on other white people because it is still being used as a term of insult. Your brothers were not using it to compliment each other, were they? It is like when men use the word p***y to insult each other. It is still insulting to women even if it is not directed towards women. When I refer to the N-word, I am specifically talking about the form of it that ends in 'er' and not the form of it used in casual speech or rap lyrics, although I think even that form still is silly when it spews from the mouths of white people. I recognize that these words can be used in transgressive way, such as the postmodern adaptation of the word queer, but I still don't much like any of these.

I am older. I am old-fashioned. They grate on my ears.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transgressive?s=t

 

[daisytrail]

Lynchings were pretty much equal opportunity in the early history of this country. The Hatfields and McCoys feuded over a pig and a lynching and mass destruction followed. My family moved to Texas when I was in the third grade and I was referred to by the teacher as a Yankee. It's part of the culture that apparently still permeates.

JMO

A culture that needs to change pronto! You don't mitigate this history of lynching for black people by pulling in the Hatfields and McCoys.

 

[daisytrail]

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12281851/joe-mixon-rejoins-oklahoma-sooners-suspension-assault

OU Football player who used gay slur kept his athletic scholarship with tuition and board paid after punching a female, breaking her jaw and shattering her eye socket.


http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/oklahoma-stands-tall-against-racism-weak-against-violence-031015 "Oklahoma Stands Tall Against Racism, Weak Against Violence"


Anyone else see a problem here?

Sure do. However, the problem is not just that there was a gay slur because not only white privilege is involved but also football privilege. Remember Joe Paterno.

 

[daisytrail]

The chant should not have had to be "retired" -- the meaning was always derogatory, and was always clear, especially with its direct reference to lynching. It has nothing to do with "all colors." It is a slur against black people. Nothing mitigates that fact.

I lived in Oklahoma for 15 years, and am not surprised at all by the usage there -- the racism was alarming; and the apparent "shock" of some authorities has as much or more to do with the effect it might have on recruiting athletes for OU football as it does on matters of actual substance. The mask slipped a little; the chickens came home to roost.

Two decades ago the place where I lived had a "don't let the sun set on you here" billboard -- also featuring the 'n'-word -- on the outskirts of town. So the only shock I can register has to do with the fact that people seem so surprised at the existence of that chant at the most significant university in the state, the one held to be the more progressive of the two major state institutions.

I saw a sign like that outside Bowie, Texas, in the 1970s. I was shocked even back then. It seems like just when we take a few steps forward, we are thrown back into this ****!