SAE fraternity expulsions might be unconstitutional

[Delta4Embassy]

"The University of Oklahoma’s decision Tuesday to expel two students who played “a leadership role” in singing a racist chant that went viral after it was caught on video may assuage critics. But civil liberties experts say it could also be unconstitutional.
...
“It appears the university is trying to recast free speech as conduct, characterizing it as creating a hostile educational environment,” Paulson said. “If that’s upheld, any politically incorrect statement made on campus and amplified by social media could be punished.”
...
Private institutions like private colleges or the national Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity have wide leeway to discipline or expel students for racist speech if it violates their codes of conduct. But the University of Oklahoma is a public research university, and civil liberties groups say it should be treated as an arm of the government.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit organization that focuses on civil liberties in academia set out the difference in a statement: “As a private organization, the SAE national fraternity is free to punish the chapter, as it has done. Other citizens and groups are free to refuse to associate with the fraternity members based on their expression, and students, faculty, and administrators may of course condemn it. If the expression itself is evidence of other unlawful activity, such activity may be investigated. But the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled time and time again that government institutions like the University of Oklahoma may not punish people for expression protected by the First Amendment.”"
Expulsion of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon Members Raises Questions

Coulda told ya that.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If we wish to have a 1st Amendment, this is the kind of thing we need to shout from the rooftops in defense of. We may not like it, but to retain our own rights to say what we think, we must tolerate others' their own speech rights.

 

[martybegan]

another article from Volokh:

What speech is going to justify expulsion next if the OU SAE expulsion is accepted as proper - The Washington Post

There is, as I’ve mentioned before, no First Amendment exception for supposed “hate speech.” But if there is such an exception, there certainly is no First Amendment foundation for distinguishing speech that is actually or supposedly anti-black from speech that is anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic, anti-women, or anti-men. If the University of Oklahoma president’s position is accepted as legally sound, then there’d be no legal basis for protecting the other kinds of speech while expelling students for this sort of speech.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

What they did was wrong but it's free speech and I've said it before, I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it.

They used poor judgement

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Agree with the first part, 2nd part's irrelevant.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

If I took any of the pansy left cowards in this forum to a University of Oklahoma Sooners basketball or football practice session, how many times would we hear "niqqer" yelled out at the top of someone's lungs during a 60-minute session? Would you be willing to waddle your lily-white ass down on the field or onto the court and confront the people who used the word "niqqer" during the practice session, I mean on account of your lily-white ass is so egregiously offended? Would you...coward? I'm laughing my ass off as I type this.

 

[deltex1]

Agree with the first part, 2nd part's irrelevant.

Your "I coulda told you that" is irrelevant also....

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Agree with the first part, 2nd part's irrelevant.

Your "I coulda told you that" is irrelevant also....

One's in the context of a constitutional violation, the other's context is a personal opinion. If you don't get the difference that's your problem.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Agree with the first part, 2nd part's irrelevant.

Your "I coulda told you that" is irrelevant also....

One's in the context of a constitutional violation, the other's context is a personal opinion. If you don't get the difference that's your problem.

Hands you one katyusha

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Agree with the first part, 2nd part's irrelevant.

Your "I coulda told you that" is irrelevant also....

One's in the context of a constitutional violation, the other's context is a personal opinion. If you don't get the difference that's your problem.

Hands you one katyusha

The rocket? Uh, thanks.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Agree with the first part, 2nd part's irrelevant.

Your "I coulda told you that" is irrelevant also....

One's in the context of a constitutional violation, the other's context is a personal opinion. If you don't get the difference that's your problem.

Hands you one katyusha

The rocket? Uh, thanks.

Think hard...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society."
Hate Speech on Campus American Civil Liberties Union

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Debating Hate Speech

Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should hate speech be discouraged? The answer is easy—of course! However, developing such policies runs the risk of limiting an individual’s ability to exercise free speech. When a conflict arises about which is more important—protecting community interests or safeguarding the rights of the individual—a balance must be found that protects the civil rights of all without limiting the civil liberties of the speaker.

In this country there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently. However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful.

Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object."

Success on Campus
Here’s how one community recently approached an incidence of hate speech by calling attention to it rather than attempting to suppress it—by encouraging speech that pointed out how out of place the hate speech was in a community that values the dignity of all.

Matt Hale, a notorious racist, was recently asked to speak at the University of Illinois at Springfield. Hale is the leader of the World of the Creator, a white supremacist group. His presence on campus was controversial. Several students, faculty, and community members thought that the university should cancel his appearance. Instead, he was allowed to speak. Hale’s audience was not impressed. He came across as having a confusing set of beliefs that were out of place in a democratic, multicultural society. Several faculty and students spoke out against his message of hatred.

By allowing Hale to speak, the university recognized free speech rights but also provided a means for community members to respond. Communitarian and libertarian goals were both met."
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...es_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"The Court ruled that "a State [may not] forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to produce such action…"[6] In a series of subsequent decisions, the Court has tried to clarify this decision by arguing that speech is protected by the First Amendment if it is not obscene, libelous, slanderous, treasonable, or presents a "true threat" to person.

These rulings go to the heart of hate speech laws and campus codes which seek to punish hate speech to teach people that racism is unacceptable and harmful.[7] These decisions make writing such codes a near impossibility. They begin with cases which most scholars agree were meant to protect dissent. For example, in Hess v. Indiana (1973), Gregory Hess was brought to trial for encouraging anti-war demonstrators to escalate their activities. At one point, he yelled, "We'll take the fucking street later."[8] The Supreme Court overturned Hess' conviction on the grounds that his speech was protected because it was not "obscene," did not constitute "fighting words," and was unlikely to produce imminent lawless action."
The Center For First Amendment Studies CSULB White Papers

 

[emilynghiem]

No it s not constitutional for the University of Oklahoma to expel students for racist speech UPDATED in light of the students expulsion - The Washington Post

Here is another argument that it is not constitutional because the university is public.

When this issue came up at a private university, I pointed out that the First Amendment
also guarantees "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."

If the students' protests and chants caused a disruption, caused public outcry where the other students, admin and fraternity organization don't want this associated with them and their programs, they have the right to respond as within their beliefs to "restore the peace."

I don't think it is too late for those students to make amends and work things out.
Since no physical harm was done, the disrupted relations can be repaired.

I would certainly say this incident incited a BREACH or DISRUPTION of the peace.
And yes, people have equal First Amendment rights to assemble and petition to redress
grievances in response.

The first step the students, school and fraternity took was to distance themselves
from the source of the breach. Then it can be worked out from there.

Since the student leading the chants came from a Catholic Jesuit school,
I would hope he receives support and counseling from the Catholic
or Christian advocates for Peace and Justice, and takes a Restorative Justice
approach to correcting this breach, instead of any kind of retributive lawsuit to make a political statement.

I'd be MORE than willing to help the students and chapter come up with a constructive
community project to work out the issues with race relations that this brings up.

Both the students, faculty and chapter organization members and leaders
ALL HAVE equal First Amendment rights to respond as they did.

You don't lose your rights just because you are affiliated with a public program.
And yes, there are responsibilities that come with those rights and laws.

The right peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances
is part of the same law as Freedom of Speech.

I hope the students involved receive assistance in mediation
so this can be resolved in full, and restore good faith relations.

No lawsuits are necessary if people petition and redress issues directly,
which I support the students, staff and organizations in doing.


=======================================
Rice Thresher, September 8, 1995
The Thresher Online LETTER Chants violated First Amendment right September 8 1995

In response to the letter from Bolie Williams IV (Thresher, Sept. 1),
if Rice University claims not to discriminate on the basis of religion,
then students who believe in free speech should be accommodated equally
as those, like Williams, who may not consider it an inalienable human right.

However, one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms
to show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach
of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.

The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,
it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation
temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.

Unlike Williams, I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective
when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society."
Hate Speech on Campus American Civil Liberties Union

Game. Set. Match.

The community also has equal freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.
Don't forget the rest of the First Amendment.

 

[PratchettFan]

What they did was wrong but it's free speech and I've said it before, I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it.

They used poor judgement

In this, Sassy, we are in total agreement.

 

[martybegan]

"Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society."
Hate Speech on Campus American Civil Liberties Union

Game. Set. Match.

The community also has equal freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.
Don't forget the rest of the First Amendment.

What they don't have is an expectation of government to do their work for them.

 

[regent]

None of our rights are absolute.

 

[PratchettFan]

None of our rights are absolute.

True. But when you don't have the right to make an ass out of yourself then you have no rights at all.