Expelled Oklahoma U fraternity to sue university, possibly President Boren

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Attending the University is not a 'right', it is a privilege, for which they applied and pay tuition. That comes with responsibilities, such as 'I agree to follow the rules and code of conduct'.

Break the rules and you are subject to disciplinary action.

So let them take it to court. It's going to be a tough case, since everyone has already issued apologies, including the SAE.

OU SAE Board Racist chant has been going on for years issues apology KFOR.com

What if one of those rules is the student must attend Christian services twice a week?

Now you are engaging in mental masturbation.

Uh huh. Of course that wouldn't be allowed because you don't agree with it.

Sorry. The Constitution guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not guarantee you the right not to be offended. If you don't like someone's speech you are free to shout them down. You are not free to shut them up.

They are free to say anything they like. Freedom of speech does not protect you from getting consequences for breaking a contract. And it's ridiculous of you to think the University has no right to enforce a code of conduct.

When it is with the government, yes it does and a governmental agency cannot enforce a code of conduct that violates the Constitution. Constitutional rights apply to everyone - even the people you don't approve of.

If that video had been of a group of young people spewing out anti-Christian sentiments and the university had expelled them for it, would you hold the same position?

of course she wouldn't Carla is too simple minded to understand that even those she disagrees with have rights.

 

[PratchettFan]

Again, handbook rules cannot overrule constitutional rights. F.I.R.E has gotten many handbooks re-written due to unconstitutional issues.

Attending the University is not a 'right', it is a privilege, for which they applied and pay tuition. That comes with responsibilities, such as 'I agree to follow the rules and code of conduct'.

Break the rules and you are subject to disciplinary action.

So let them take it to court. It's going to be a tough case, since everyone has already issued apologies, including the SAE.

OU SAE Board Racist chant has been going on for years issues apology KFOR.com

What if one of those rules is the student must attend Christian services twice a week?

Now you are engaging in mental masturbation.

Uh huh. Of course that wouldn't be allowed because you don't agree with it.

Sorry. The Constitution guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not guarantee you the right not to be offended. If you don't like someone's speech you are free to shout them down. You are not free to shut them up.

That's not entirely correct. You are not free to use the government to shut them down, that would be a correct statement.

And certainly expelling them from a public university COULD be construed as using the government to shut them down.

I stand corrected.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Is the rap singer a student at OU? Sorry, you're lost in this conversation.

No, rappers make millions spewing hateful racist and sexist comments. These kids were raised listening to this shit. Then you don't expect them to do the same?

So much for personal responsibility. Their parents should have taught them a thing or two.

Rappers are put on a pedestal, especially by liberals who say they have the freedom to spew their hatred, but when one of their young fans spews the same garbage. You want them crucified. Can I say hypocrite?

You don't know WTF you're talking about. I don't listen to rap...never have.

I took responsibility for my own children. They didn't get life lessons from popular music.

You can't blame the actions of these frat boys on music, anymore than you can blame gun deaths on video games.

Ridiculous.

It's today's culture, kids are gonna react the same as the rappers. I can't stand rap myself, always have.

Kids that aren't taught anything at home....

 

[Carla_Danger]

What if one of those rules is the student must attend Christian services twice a week?

Now you are engaging in mental masturbation.

Uh huh. Of course that wouldn't be allowed because you don't agree with it.

Sorry. The Constitution guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not guarantee you the right not to be offended. If you don't like someone's speech you are free to shout them down. You are not free to shut them up.

They are free to say anything they like. Freedom of speech does not protect you from getting consequences for breaking a contract. And it's ridiculous of you to think the University has no right to enforce a code of conduct.

When it is with the government, yes it does and a governmental agency cannot enforce a code of conduct that violates the Constitution. Constitutional rights apply to everyone - even the people you don't approve of.

If that video had been of a group of young people spewing out anti-Christian sentiments and the university had expelled them for it, would you hold the same position?

of course she wouldn't Carla is too simple minded to understand that even those she disagrees with have rights.

You have the right to act as ignorant as you sound.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Now you are engaging in mental masturbation.

Uh huh. Of course that wouldn't be allowed because you don't agree with it.

Sorry. The Constitution guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not guarantee you the right not to be offended. If you don't like someone's speech you are free to shout them down. You are not free to shut them up.

They are free to say anything they like. Freedom of speech does not protect you from getting consequences for breaking a contract. And it's ridiculous of you to think the University has no right to enforce a code of conduct.

When it is with the government, yes it does and a governmental agency cannot enforce a code of conduct that violates the Constitution. Constitutional rights apply to everyone - even the people you don't approve of.

If that video had been of a group of young people spewing out anti-Christian sentiments and the university had expelled them for it, would you hold the same position?

of course she wouldn't Carla is too simple minded to understand that even those she disagrees with have rights.

You have the right to act as ignorant as you sound.

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

 

[Liminal]

March 12, 2015: "The local chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon is planning to pursue legal action against the University of Oklahoma, and possibly OU President David Boren.

The group has hired high-profile attorney, Stephen Jones to represent them.

Jones told NewsChannel 4 the group is outraged over President Boren shutting down the fraternity house and branding all SAE members as racists and bigots.

Jones says the two students who were expelled because of the incident have apologized sincerely for their remarks, and now the incident is being exploited."

OU SAE to sue university possibly President Boren KFOR.com

Why does your thread title misrepresent the content of the link? Did you bother reading it?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Uh huh. Of course that wouldn't be allowed because you don't agree with it.

Sorry. The Constitution guarantees you the right to freedom of speech. It does not guarantee you the right not to be offended. If you don't like someone's speech you are free to shout them down. You are not free to shut them up.

They are free to say anything they like. Freedom of speech does not protect you from getting consequences for breaking a contract. And it's ridiculous of you to think the University has no right to enforce a code of conduct.

When it is with the government, yes it does and a governmental agency cannot enforce a code of conduct that violates the Constitution. Constitutional rights apply to everyone - even the people you don't approve of.

If that video had been of a group of young people spewing out anti-Christian sentiments and the university had expelled them for it, would you hold the same position?

of course she wouldn't Carla is too simple minded to understand that even those she disagrees with have rights.

You have the right to act as ignorant as you sound.

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

They are free to say anything they like. Freedom of speech does not protect you from getting consequences for breaking a contract. And it's ridiculous of you to think the University has no right to enforce a code of conduct.

When it is with the government, yes it does and a governmental agency cannot enforce a code of conduct that violates the Constitution. Constitutional rights apply to everyone - even the people you don't approve of.

If that video had been of a group of young people spewing out anti-Christian sentiments and the university had expelled them for it, would you hold the same position?

of course she wouldn't Carla is too simple minded to understand that even those she disagrees with have rights.

You have the right to act as ignorant as you sound.

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

It's ENTIRELY about free speech you moron and a court will decide whether their speech rose to the level of creating a hostile environment , which is exactly all I have said in this thread.

You are a stupid little child who has temper tantrums when she doesn't get her own way, and you have zero business being in a serious discussion.

 

[martybegan]

They are free to say anything they like. Freedom of speech does not protect you from getting consequences for breaking a contract. And it's ridiculous of you to think the University has no right to enforce a code of conduct.

When it is with the government, yes it does and a governmental agency cannot enforce a code of conduct that violates the Constitution. Constitutional rights apply to everyone - even the people you don't approve of.

If that video had been of a group of young people spewing out anti-Christian sentiments and the university had expelled them for it, would you hold the same position?

of course she wouldn't Carla is too simple minded to understand that even those she disagrees with have rights.

You have the right to act as ignorant as you sound.

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

 

[Carla_Danger]

When it is with the government, yes it does and a governmental agency cannot enforce a code of conduct that violates the Constitution. Constitutional rights apply to everyone - even the people you don't approve of.

If that video had been of a group of young people spewing out anti-Christian sentiments and the university had expelled them for it, would you hold the same position?

of course she wouldn't Carla is too simple minded to understand that even those she disagrees with have rights.

You have the right to act as ignorant as you sound.

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

of course she wouldn't Carla is too simple minded to understand that even those she disagrees with have rights.

You have the right to act as ignorant as you sound.

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

hey dumb dumb, you'll note that NO ONE is arguing that the frat, which is a private organization, didn't have the right to pull their charter.

This is ENTIRELY about the school. And they are going to be hard pressed to prove that these songs impeded anyone's educational experience.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You have the right to act as ignorant as you sound.

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

hey dumb dumb, you'll note that NO ONE is arguing that the frat, which is a private organization, didn't have the right to pull their charter.

This is ENTIRELY about the school. And they are going to be hard pressed to prove that these songs impeded anyone's educational experience.

You are incorrect. Proving this created a hostile learning environment is going to be the easy part.

Hell, someone on that bus felt it was a hostile environment, or they wouldn't have turned over the cell phone video.

OU is losing football players who don't want to attend school in such an environment.

 

[martybegan]

of course she wouldn't Carla is too simple minded to understand that even those she disagrees with have rights.

You have the right to act as ignorant as you sound.

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

Basically you are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a witch hunt.
And again, how is this creating a hostile learning environment?
The real hostility is now any student realizes they can be expelled for unpopular opinions. Going to go after opponents of Gay Marriage yet.

You are a Fascist, and a Coward.

 

[martybegan]

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

hey dumb dumb, you'll note that NO ONE is arguing that the frat, which is a private organization, didn't have the right to pull their charter.

This is ENTIRELY about the school. And they are going to be hard pressed to prove that these songs impeded anyone's educational experience.

You are incorrect. Proving this created a hostile learning environment is going to be the easy part.

Hell, someone on that bus felt it was a hostile environment, or they wouldn't have turned over the cell phone video.

OU is losing football players who don't want to attend school in such an environment.

Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!!!

 

[martybegan]

You have the right to act as ignorant as you sound.

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

hey dumb dumb, you'll note that NO ONE is arguing that the frat, which is a private organization, didn't have the right to pull their charter.

This is ENTIRELY about the school. And they are going to be hard pressed to prove that these songs impeded anyone's educational experience.

Actually in their addled lefty **** mind, all they need to know is the person is from the right identity group, then any disagreement = hostile environment.

 

[JFK_USA]

Since the university no doubt has codes of conduct and a bunch of legalese that probably none of these drunk frat boys bothered to read before they signed, not so much.

Oh, look everyone, Mac is coming out in favor of racist frat boys.

That's the same simplistic, idiotic argument all liberals use: "The college has a code of conduct therefore the expulsion was constitutional."

But they don't wonder whether the code of conduct was broken at all. The relevant section in the code of conduct says that the harassment has to be based on a protected class and "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively keeps the targets of discrimination from getting an education,” says Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Link SAE s speech may be protected by First Amendment - OUDaily.com News

Will OU show a judge that someone was kept from getting an education because of this video? Who are the "targets" in the video?

Then we see what legal experts say: "the code could not take precedence over First Amendment rights." Link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/u...oma-students-leads-to-free-speech-debate.html

Related: Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

But if the University did nothing, they could have faced a Title VI lawsuit from the Civil rights act of 1964 by allowing racial discrimination. Thus hurting their image as a university and potentially losing federal funds.

The university was put in a rock and a hard place. However, the fraternity national chapter disbanned the fraternity before OU kicked them off campus so it's going to be a tough win. Also, those students were kicked off for "Creating a hostile education environment" so that's likely going to be upheld because its obvious that they did.

 

[Carla_Danger]

You have the right to act as ignorant as you sound.

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

Basically you are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a witch hunt.
And again, how is this creating a hostile learning environment?
The real hostility is now any student realizes they can be expelled for unpopular opinions. Going to go after opponents of Gay Marriage yet.

You are a Fascist, and a Coward.

Those frat boys signed a CONTRACT. If you sing songs about lynching gay people, this will also create a hostile learning environment, and OU has a right to protect that.

 

[martybegan]

you're the one who won't even acknowledge that public colleges have already been denied the right to complete control speech by federal courts.

Talk about ignorant.

This isn't about freedom of speech, you idiot. The students were expelled over conduct. When you sing songs about lynching "N's it creates a hostile environment, and those students were in violation of school policy, for which they signed a contract.

And the stretch begins. What they did was speech. Its speech a lot of people (including some of their defenders) do not like. It was not done in front of people who might have been offended, it was not directed at any person in particular, and it was not endorsed by anyone in any position of power (which is usually needed to create a "hostile environment"

Even the ACLU agrees that the University probably went too far.

ACLU of Oklahoma Statement in Response to the University of Oklahoma s Announcement of VP of Diversity Position American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma

Bring it on! Obviously, any lawsuit is going to involve extensive discovery, which is likely to determine when the offensive songs were written, who wrote them, how long they have been a part of life at SAE, and lead to significant detrimental publicity for both the local chapter and its members and alumni, and also for the national fraternity.

Let the SAE make a public spectacle of themselves, demanding the right to chant about lynching "N's" in trees!

The UCLA also states that "the University of Oklahoma has an obligation to protect all of its students from a hostile learning environment that impedes their educational opportunities."

And that's exactly what OU is doing.

Basically you are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a witch hunt.
And again, how is this creating a hostile learning environment?
The real hostility is now any student realizes they can be expelled for unpopular opinions. Going to go after opponents of Gay Marriage yet.

You are a Fascist, and a Coward.

Those frat boys signed a CONTRACT. If you sing songs about lynching gay people, this will also create a hostile learning environment, and OU has a right to protect that.

The contract can't remove rights. You don't seem to get that.

 

[martybegan]

Since the university no doubt has codes of conduct and a bunch of legalese that probably none of these drunk frat boys bothered to read before they signed, not so much.

Oh, look everyone, Mac is coming out in favor of racist frat boys.

That's the same simplistic, idiotic argument all liberals use: "The college has a code of conduct therefore the expulsion was constitutional."

But they don't wonder whether the code of conduct was broken at all. The relevant section in the code of conduct says that the harassment has to be based on a protected class and "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively keeps the targets of discrimination from getting an education,” says Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Link SAE s speech may be protected by First Amendment - OUDaily.com News

Will OU show a judge that someone was kept from getting an education because of this video? Who are the "targets" in the video?

Then we see what legal experts say: "the code could not take precedence over First Amendment rights." Link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/u...oma-students-leads-to-free-speech-debate.html

Related: Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

But if the University did nothing, they could have faced a Title VI lawsuit from the Civil rights act of 1964 by allowing racial discrimination. Thus hurting their image as a university and potentially losing federal funds.

The university was put in a rock and a hard place. However, the fraternity national chapter disbanned the fraternity before OU kicked them off campus so it's going to be a tough win. Also, those students were kicked off for "Creating a hostile education environment" so that's likely going to be upheld because its obvious that they did.

The school would not be liable because they did not endorse what the Frat did.

"Creating a Hostile Environment" Charges are merely an attempted end run around the 1st amendment.

 

[JFK_USA]

Since the university no doubt has codes of conduct and a bunch of legalese that probably none of these drunk frat boys bothered to read before they signed, not so much.

Oh, look everyone, Mac is coming out in favor of racist frat boys.

That's the same simplistic, idiotic argument all liberals use: "The college has a code of conduct therefore the expulsion was constitutional."

But they don't wonder whether the code of conduct was broken at all. The relevant section in the code of conduct says that the harassment has to be based on a protected class and "so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively keeps the targets of discrimination from getting an education,” says Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Link SAE s speech may be protected by First Amendment - OUDaily.com News

Will OU show a judge that someone was kept from getting an education because of this video? Who are the "targets" in the video?

Then we see what legal experts say: "the code could not take precedence over First Amendment rights." Link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/u...oma-students-leads-to-free-speech-debate.html

Related: Why expelled Oklahoma frat boys would have an excellent chance in court - The Washington Post

But if the University did nothing, they could have faced a Title VI lawsuit from the Civil rights act of 1964 by allowing racial discrimination. Thus hurting their image as a university and potentially losing federal funds.

The university was put in a rock and a hard place. However, the fraternity national chapter disbanned the fraternity before OU kicked them off campus so it's going to be a tough win. Also, those students were kicked off for "Creating a hostile education environment" so that's likely going to be upheld because its obvious that they did.

The school would not be liable because they did not endorse what the Frat did.

"Creating a Hostile Environment" Charges are merely an attempted end run around the 1st amendment.

But if they didn't kick them out, the public opinion would be they implicitly endorse the mentality of the fraternity.

That hurts recruiting not only for football but for their university as well. Why risk the future of your university on 2 idiots?