Selective enforcement at OU

[Digetydog]

It seems at best the ACLU could get the kids re-instated at OU (after a very public trial). Since these kids are probably hoping to be hire-able and un-assaulted, they'll probably just hope this all blows over as fast as possible.

I am curious as to what lengths people think free speech should be sheltered from consequences of their actions. The First Amendment protects from legal ramifications from the government; it only applies here to the extent that you consider a public university the government. So alternatively, would you have the same issue if it was an SMU student yelling it in the face of one of our players? It'd no longer by protected speech.

There is a difference between government action and private action.

If either of these men came to me looking for a job, I am free (and likely) to tell them to [deleted] off. As a private citizen, I am free to shun them.

But, OU is an arm of the State Government. They are not allowed to punish people for their speech.

[Puckhead48E]

Much like the Chad here in Philly, I think some here have lost the plot....seriously. First, using the argument that the original act in question is even somewhat related to the act of yelling fire in a crowded theater shows you either don't get the concept being discussed...or you are part of the group that OU was pandering to when they immediately reacted without any due process. Second, you can have hate speech in your honor code, but you also have to have a mechanism for enforcing those reported violations. So, in the case of idiots yelling crap at minorities as they walked across campus...the incident would have to be reported and investigated.

Here's the funny thing...there are many aspects of our mixed society that we now take for granted that were not always that way. Like, say, women's suffrage or the concept of equal protection under the law. How did these changes, from a time of male-dominated white privilege based society to today's ethnic melting pot, come to be? They didn't just happen...a little jiggle of a nose or a pull of an ear and voila...progress!!! No, they happened because someone or some group became the first to express an idea that was so foreign and verboten that it engendered fear and often a violent response. Well, that crazy document we love (but so many often ignore) protected that right...and slowly but surely, society caught up to the tenets expressed therein that were far ahead of their time. At one point in time, saying blacks and whites could use the same bus or that women could vote was viewed as badly as this speech here. Was it the same? Absolutely not. But can it be legislated to separate the right to say one or the other without undue punishment to the speaker because they offended a group? No. So you have to begrudgingly allow both, and then enforce other rules to punish those that go too far. The key is, there must be a process. Rant over. Eagles suck.

[Rebel10]

It seems at best the ACLU could get the kids re-instated at OU (after a very public trial). Since these kids are probably hoping to be hire-able and un-assaulted, they'll probably just hope this all blows over as fast as possible.

I am curious as to what lengths people think free speech should be sheltered from consequences of their actions. The First Amendment protects from legal ramifications from the government; it only applies here to the extent that you consider a public university the government. So alternatively, would you have the same issue if it was an SMU student yelling it in the face of one of our players? It'd no longer by protected speech.

There is a difference between government action and private action.

If either of these men came to me looking for a job, I am free (and likely) to tell them to [deleted] off. As a private citizen, I am free to shun them.

But, OU is an arm of the State Goverment. They are not allowed to punish people for their speech.

What about if he were working on your job and used racist or sexist slurs? Are you saying you couldn't disciple them?

[Puckhead48E]

Good lord...we are now stooping to a level that might bring some hate speech against idiots out of me!

[Rebel10]

I am surprised that no one was appalled that some people spoke, probably from a distance, at African American athletes calling them the "N" word as they were walking across campus at SMU on multiple occasions.

[Digetydog]

Unpopular opinions, no matter how abhorrent, should receive First Amendment protection. Threats of violence should not. It's tough to see how this instance could realistically rise to a threat of violence that would cause it to lose Constitutional protection

So what should have been done to those that called the SMU football players the "N" word as they were going across the SMU campus if they had been caught? Nothing? Even at the basketball game the announcer says that they will remove anyone student or otherwise if the use racist slurs at the game. Do you think that should be stopped because of free speech?

1) Because SMU is a private school, the First Amendment would not be a factor in what the school could or could not do. If SMU wanted to punish a student for that kind of conduct, they can.

2) Let's pretend it happened at UT. Walking up to a person and calling them the 'N Word is not free speech. It is harassment and UT is free to take action.

BUT - if the Austin Chapter of the KKK decided to have a march down MLK Blvd (they would call it 19th Street), Austin couldn't stop them and UT (which borders MLK) could not stop them. Once they had the proper permits, they would be free to march around in the their stupid white hats spewing their hatred. Furthermore, UT could not punish any students for joining the march.

[Rebel10]

Unpopular opinions, no matter how abhorrent, should receive First Amendment protection. Threats of violence should not. It's tough to see how this instance could realistically rise to a threat of violence that would cause it to lose Constitutional protection

So what should have been done to those that called the SMU football players the "N" word as they were going across the SMU campus if they had been caught? Nothing? Even at the basketball game the announcer says that they will remove anyone student or otherwise if the use racist slurs at the game. Do you think that should be stopped because of free speech?

1) Because SMU is a private school, the First Amendment would not be a factor in what the school could or could not do. If SMU wanted to punish a student for that kind of conduct, they can.

2) Let's pretend it happened at UT. Walking up to a person and calling them the 'N Word is not free speech. It is harassment and UT is free to take action.

BUT - if the Austin Chapter of the KKK decided to have a march down MLK Blvd (they would call it 19th Street), Austin couldn't stop them and UT (which borders MLK) could not stop them. Once they had the proper permits, they would be free to march around in the their stupid white hats spewing their hatred. Furthermore, UT could not punish any students for joining the march.

Again, I don't believe they walked up to the players. Interesting point from someone who said that they never really heard the "N" word until they got to SMU.

[Digetydog]

Again, I don't believe they walked up to the players. Interesting point from someone who said that they never really heard the "N" word until they got to SMU.

It really doesn't matter if they walked up to them or screamed it at them from across the quad, calling someone the N-Word is harassment. It is direct, personal, threatening and has the real potential to cause violence. It is not protected speech.

[Rebel10]

Again, I don't believe they walked up to the players. Interesting point from someone who said that they never really heard the "N" word until they got to SMU.

It really doesn't matter if they walked up to them or screamed it at them from across the quad, calling someone the N-Word is harassment. It is direct, personal, threatening and has the real potential to cause violence. It is not protected speech.

Good point. Agreed.

[alyssa]

It's only BLACK AND WHITE.
It's ONLY Black and White.

Some SMU people (through the years) have said words that are racist to me and mine but it seems to be okay because we still don't count as equal. Some people have a long way to go.

[Grant Carter]

I am surprised that no one was appalled that some people spoke, probably from a distance, at African American athletes calling them the "N" word as they were walking across campus at SMU on multiple occasions.

How do you know no one was appalled? I was appalled to hear about it and I imagine many others were. However, for you to say no one was appalled does mean that at least one person was not appalled - you. Simple logic.

[East Coast Mustang]

I'd say the two studnets who videotaped it and subsequently turned the videos over to the Black student group at OU were pretty appalled...

[Rebel10]

I am surprised that no one was appalled that some people spoke, probably from a distance, at African American athletes calling them the "N" word as they were walking across campus at SMU on multiple occasions.

How do you know no one was appalled? I was appalled to hear about it and I imagine many others were. However, for you to say no one was appalled does mean that at least one person was not appalled - you. Simple logic.

I was mostly referring to the low reaction imo to the incident on the board and I should have stated it as such. Good point.

[Rebel10]

I'd say the two studnets who videotaped it and subsequently turned the videos over to the Black student group at OU were pretty appalled...

I was not talking about the OU incident. I was talking about the SMU incidents.

[Prideful Pony]

But, OU is an arm of the State Government. They are not allowed to punish people for their speech

It's not a strong belief by any means, but calling a state university a part of the government (in the same sense as other gov bodies) just doesn't feel right to me. There's a requirement to create a learning environment that I think might justify a less lenient stance on non-classroom free speech. Would a student in a philosophy or english class have the right to read their essay on African-American inferiority under the guise of free speech?

Let's pretend it happened at UT. Walking up to a person and calling them the 'N Word is not free speech. It is harassment and UT is free to take action.

BUT - if the Austin Chapter of the KKK decided to have a march down MLK Blvd (they would call it 19th Street), Austin couldn't stop them and UT (which borders MLK) could not stop them. Once they had the proper permits, they would be free to march around in the their stupid white hats spewing their hatred. Furthermore, UT could not punish any students for joining the march.

What if the UT student simply walks around campus singing the same SAE song in places where he'd be conspicuously overheard? Or if, unbeknownst to the SAEs, there was someone of mixed race at the party they were throwing? I agree with the premise of allowing the KKK march, but I'm not sure how you draw your line between harassment and free speech.

So alternatively, would you have the same issue if it was an SMU student yelling it in the face of one of our players? It'd no longer by protected speech.

I think at that point it could be considered assault or harassment, definitely to go up to someone's face and say that. Joking around with your friends in privacy? And someone happened to record it? I don't think that's quite the same thing.

I don't think a party bus for presumably an official function of a school-registered organization is "in private". And like I mentioned above, does the situation change if one of the other students on the bus is of mixed heritage?