Selective enforcement at OU

[Grant Carter]

Is a university not allowed to have a code of conduct?

Who said that a university cannot have a code of conduct?

Several on this thread have suggested that the expulsions would not hold up in court.

Saying that the expulsions will not hold up in court is not the same thing as saying a university cannot have a code of conduct.

[smusportspage]

All deserved expulsion. Travis hit the nail on the head here...they got it right with SAE, but fall way, way short on violence and everyone should hold up on patting Boren on the back too much.

All may have deserved expulsion, but constitutionally speaking the expulsion of the two SAEs might not hold up in court. See here for someone who can offer a slightly better explanation than me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... st-speech/

The kids would have transferred anyways, and may never sue OU -- or they might, if they want to avoid having to disclose on applications for colleges, jobs, and grad schools that they were expelled from college. But I'd like to think the "social free market" would work this one out on its own and the kids' damaged reputations and having to transfer schools would have been enough punishment for the crime.

I'm also a little wary of throwing kids out of school for using constitutionally protected speech. The nutjobs have hijacked higher education to such an extent that who knows what a slippery slope that could potentially create. Look what happened at UCLA recently: http://www.browndailyherald.com/2015/03 ... candidate/

And UC-Irvine: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... le-anyway/

"You can hang them from a tree" is considered "constitutionally protected speech" in this context? Sorry, as President Boren said, there is no room for such "threatening racist behavior" at OU.

[West Coast Johnny]

Also, as a state school you're on pretty shaky ground expelling kids for something they said.

Good post and I agree with everything you say. Freedom of speech protects even these [deleted] holes.

[StallionsModelT]

I remember there were some anti-American rallies at college campuses after 9/11 where students burned the American flag and made public statements that were encouraging acts of violence and supporting Al-Qaeda. What these little brats did was incredibly stupid and if they were smart they'd never step foot on that campus ever again. That said, legally I do wonder if OU has a leg to stand on here with expulsion.

[East Coast Mustang]

All deserved expulsion. Travis hit the nail on the head here...they got it right with SAE, but fall way, way short on violence and everyone should hold up on patting Boren on the back too much.

All may have deserved expulsion, but constitutionally speaking the expulsion of the two SAEs might not hold up in court. See here for someone who can offer a slightly better explanation than me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... st-speech/

The kids would have transferred anyways, and may never sue OU -- or they might, if they want to avoid having to disclose on applications for colleges, jobs, and grad schools that they were expelled from college. But I'd like to think the "social free market" would work this one out on its own and the kids' damaged reputations and having to transfer schools would have been enough punishment for the crime.

I'm also a little wary of throwing kids out of school for using constitutionally protected speech. The nutjobs have hijacked higher education to such an extent that who knows what a slippery slope that could potentially create. Look what happened at UCLA recently: http://www.browndailyherald.com/2015/03 ... candidate/

And UC-Irvine: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... le-anyway/

"You can hang them from a tree" is considered "constitutionally protected speech" in this context? Sorry, as President Boren said, there is no room for such "threatening racist behavior" at OU.

I believe there has to be some type of actual, immediate threat of violence to qualify as an exception to constitutionally protected free speech. I think it's highly doubtful this would qualify

[Puckhead48E]

All deserved expulsion. Travis hit the nail on the head here...they got it right with SAE, but fall way, way short on violence and everyone should hold up on patting Boren on the back too much.

All may have deserved expulsion, but constitutionally speaking the expulsion of the two SAEs might not hold up in court. See here for someone who can offer a slightly better explanation than me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... st-speech/

The kids would have transferred anyways, and may never sue OU -- or they might, if they want to avoid having to disclose on applications for colleges, jobs, and grad schools that they were expelled from college. But I'd like to think the "social free market" would work this one out on its own and the kids' damaged reputations and having to transfer schools would have been enough punishment for the crime.

I'm also a little wary of throwing kids out of school for using constitutionally protected speech. The nutjobs have hijacked higher education to such an extent that who knows what a slippery slope that could potentially create. Look what happened at UCLA recently: http://www.browndailyherald.com/2015/03 ... candidate/

And UC-Irvine: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... le-anyway/

"You can hang them from a tree" is considered "constitutionally protected speech" in this context? Sorry, as President Boren said, there is no room for such "threatening racist behavior" at OU.

Not a single direct threat was uttered. What was said was ignorant and stupid...and proof that drunk kids will say stupid [deleted] to impress their boys and to try and impress the ladies. This was a contained environment with no chance of said statements overflowing into responding actions directed at any specific group. I understand the rush to expel...they didn't want to look bad nationally and regionally because that hits them in the pocket. Would have preferred the entire fraternity accompany the two leading idiots as they spoke at every minority frat/sorority/student group/etc, as well as addressed anyone at an event. Pretty sure that would have resulted in the same outcome and would have shown the intent by the school was to teach them and others why this is wrong, not kick them out so the school doesn't look bad.

[PonyKai]

"You can hang them from a tree" is considered "constitutionally protected speech" in this context? Sorry, as President Boren said, there is no room for such "threatening racist behavior" at OU.

Divorce yourself from the optics of this act and you have the chief officer of a public institution declaring that engaging in a certain type of speech causes you to forfeit your interest in public higher education without any kind of pre-dismissal process.

Putting aside the Due Process arguments, there's a reason that hate speech laws are basically D.O.A. in this country under the Fist Amendment- it ain't a good idea to let the government decide what's Shakespeare and what's Hitler.

[SMU Section F]

"You can hang them from a tree" is considered "constitutionally protected speech" in this context? Sorry, as President Boren said, there is no room for such "threatening racist behavior" at OU.

Divorce yourself from the optics of this act and you have the chief officer of a public institution declaring that engaging in a certain type of speech causes you to forfeit your interest in public higher education without any kind of pre-dismissal process.

Putting aside the Due Process arguments, there's a reason that hate speech laws are basically D.O.A. in this country under the Fist Amendment- it ain't a good idea to let the government decide what's Shakespeare and what's Hitler.

I think you're right, but, from a PR standpoint, Boren probably believes that it would be better for OU's image to come down hard and risk it being overturned by the courts. This would make it appear that OU is the "good guy" and the courts are the "bad guy". Additionally, I don't believe the affected students will choose to contest the expulsion, because they would appear to many to be "doubling down" on their racism.

[StallionsModelT]

College is a business. Boren is the CEO. He can't have it out in the public domain that OU condones and harbors racists. While I think there is no real legal standing for expelling these kids based on that video, I totally understand the PR nightmare this is for OU and why Boren is doing it.

[Digetydog]

All deserved expulsion. Travis hit the nail on the head here...they got it right with SAE, but fall way, way short on violence and everyone should hold up on patting Boren on the back too much.

All may have deserved expulsion, but constitutionally speaking the expulsion of the two SAEs might not hold up in court. See here for someone who can offer a slightly better explanation than me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... st-speech/

The kids would have transferred anyways, and may never sue OU -- or they might, if they want to avoid having to disclose on applications for colleges, jobs, and grad schools that they were expelled from college. But I'd like to think the "social free market" would work this one out on its own and the kids' damaged reputations and having to transfer schools would have been enough punishment for the crime.

I'm also a little wary of throwing kids out of school for using constitutionally protected speech. The nutjobs have hijacked higher education to such an extent that who knows what a slippery slope that could potentially create. Look what happened at UCLA recently: http://www.browndailyherald.com/2015/03 ... candidate/

And UC-Irvine: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... le-anyway/

"You can hang them from a tree" is considered "constitutionally protected speech" in this context? Sorry, as President Boren said, there is no room for such "threatening racist behavior" at OU.

While OU could certainly try to justify their actions based upon that concept, the courts would analyze the relevant speech in the context in which it was made. In this case, the offending speech was not made or directed towards anyone as a threat. Although it was certainly not funny, the students would argue, probably persuasively, that the entire song was intended to be humorous and was not intended to threaten anyone.

Even if they could legally kick them out because of their speech, they almost certainly violated the student's due process rights by summarily expelling them. I would bet $100 that the students were entitled to have charges presented against them, to have the opportunity to meaningfully respond to the charges, and to have the opportunity for a hearing prior to getting expelled by Boren.

All in, there is very little chance that OU would ultimately win.

For a good explanation, see:
1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... st-speech/
2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... -they-sue/

Prediction: once things start to settle down, the students and the school will reach a settlement that removes the expulsion from their record in return for an agreement that they agree not to enroll in the school again.

[peruna81]

Digetydog, the issue for the SAE students involved is you can't unsee what has been seen, and their 'careers' such as they were, are forever stained. The school took summary action, and as you described, I would wonder if any form of due process was followed, or for that matter necessarily involved. Stallion or one of the other barristers could shed more light here. I would be very surprised if the students involved would settle for this seemingly small bone if larger $$ were available. The damage is done. Some would sadly counsel to get paid for the university's actions.

I agree that Boren has put the school and himself on what appears to be tenuous ground...but for a cause that many would agree is just. Just wonder, like you, if it was LEGALLY sound....

[footballdad]

Blatant hypocrisy and kowtowing to the race hustlers. Boren & OU would get much more blow back from the national media and the Sharpton/Jackson/Holder contingent if he didn't 'do something'.

Absolutely these kids are idiots for their speech, but there are way too many VIOLENT idiot's like Joe Mixon getting second chances.

[redpony]

I in no way condone the actions of those kids. Their conduct was totally inexcusable. However, I have to wonder if Boren would have taken the same action had that been a black fraternity singing a song about 'hanging honkies'. IMO the rules should apply equally to all. Unfortunately we have the Sharptons/Jacksons/Holders creating more problems than they solve and they are supported by the most racist president in recent history. JMHO

[Stallion]

I wonder whether a student that filed suit could recover much other than rather minimal damages from OU since the proximate cause of most of their "damage" will be not from OU expulsion but rather from the Youtube video that circled the nation BEFORE OU expelled them. OU was not the cause of their damage. Assuming there was no expulsion how many universities would admit these kids BASED solely on the Youtube video. Probably not many. In fact, many universities and for that matter employers admit that they consider all kinds of information gathered from the internet in deciding whether to admit students or hire empliyees. Therefore, its going to be hard to claim that OU's expulsion was the proximate cause of most of their "damages". Rather a unique case on damages

[SMU Section F]

I in no way condone the actions of those kids. Their conduct was totally inexcusable. However, I have to wonder if Boren would have taken the same action had that been a black fraternity singing a song about 'hanging honkies'.

There is no reason to think he wouldn't, outside of wild conjecture.

IMO the rules should apply equally to all.

We can dream.