“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”



Exactly!

Except several court cases have ruled that hate speech is in fact protected speech under the first amendment so that is a fact of law...and whether you find that contemptible or not, it makes punishing a student at a public university for what some may view as hate speech unconstitutional. For the record, it takes a fine tooth comb to find anything that could truly be labeled hate speech in that PRIVATE text thread.

Also, it is not illegal to kill someone with a gun under certain circumstances.

Dude. How are you NOT understanding this? Everyone has a right to what they say and think. Yes, there are protections for that. It's great. Yay. Want to be a private racist? Cool. Want to be a private Nazi? Umm, alright. Are you an anarchist/Satanist in private? Suuuuuure, whatever. It's all gravy baby.

The SECOND those private thoughts and actions breach the private world, you are LIABLE for your actions. Look at Donald Sterling. Hulk Hogan. Alabama's own Roy Moore. Al Franken.

PhiAlpha, I don't know how old you are, but it's 2019 man. Of course you're free to say what you want. You are REALLY free to say what you want in your private life. In your home. In a text to a loved one or friend. But when you start posting that **** on public forums or you take it to public streets a la Charlottesville, that's when there is a problem.

And the fact of the matter is, regardless of president or political affiliation or anything, the state university of Oklahoma, the biggest most prominent school in the state CANNOT allow or tolerate this sort of thing. Period. The things that have been happening at OU for the past, what...5 years now? should never ever happen. We're at something like 5 public showings of racism at OU. Consequences for that sort of negative vehemence and blatant discrimination need to be harsh.

You don't get a pass on abuse and speech just because you have the right to say what you want.

Dude. How are you NOT understanding this? Everyone has a right to what they say and think. Yes, there are protections for that. It's great. Yay. Want to be a private racist? Cool. Want to be a private Nazi? Umm, alright. Are you an anarchist/Satanist in private? Suuuuuure, whatever. It's all gravy baby.

The SECOND those private thoughts and actions breach the private world, you are LIABLE for your actions. Look at Donald Sterling. Hulk Hogan. Alabama's own Roy Moore. Al Franken.

PhiAlpha, I don't know how old you are, but it's 2019 man. Of course you're free to say what you want. You are REALLY free to say what you want in your private life. In your home. In a text to a loved one or friend. But when you start posting that **** on public forums or you take it to public streets a la Charlottesville, that's when there is a problem.

And the fact of the matter is, regardless of president or political affiliation or anything, the state university of Oklahoma, the biggest most prominent school in the state CANNOT allow or tolerate this sort of thing. Period. The things that have been happening at OU for the past, what...5 years now? should never ever happen. We're at something like 5 public showings of racism at OU. Consequences for that sort of negative vehemence and blatant discrimination need to be harsh.

You don't get a pass on abuse and speech just because you have the right to say what you want.

clearly you are the one that doesn't understand this ...

OU can NOT legaly do anything to any student for that students SPEACH

clearly you are the one that doesn't understand this ...

OU can NOT legaly do anything to any student for that students SPEACH

I understand that. And I hope they go after them anyway. And face their own repercussions involving it. Because I'd rather the university I went to fought racism/bigotry/sexism than not do anything about it.

Dude. How are you NOT understanding this? Everyone has a right to what they say and think. Yes, there are protections for that. It's great. Yay. Want to be a private racist? Cool. Want to be a private Nazi? Umm, alright. Are you an anarchist/Satanist in private? Suuuuuure, whatever. It's all gravy baby.

The SECOND those private thoughts and actions breach the private world, you are LIABLE for your actions. Look at Donald Sterling. Hulk Hogan. Alabama's own Roy Moore. Al Franken.

PhiAlpha, I don't know how old you are, but it's 2019 man. Of course you're free to say what you want. You are REALLY free to say what you want in your private life. In your home. In a text to a loved one or friend. But when you start posting that **** on public forums or you take it to public streets a la Charlottesville, that's when there is a problem.

And the fact of the matter is, regardless of president or political affiliation or anything, the state university of Oklahoma, the biggest most prominent school in the state CANNOT allow or tolerate this sort of thing. Period. The things that have been happening at OU for the past, what...5 years now? should never ever happen. We're at something like 5 public showings of racism at OU. Consequences for that sort of negative vehemence and blatant discrimination need to be harsh.

You don't get a pass on abuse and speech just because you have the right to say what you want.

If you’ve followed me over the last 5 years, you should realize by now that due to issues I’ve had to deal with on this exact subject, I’m prettt well versed in the legalities of how the university can and cannot respond to things like this.

It would seem that you are the one who really doesn’t get it and i don’t understand what is so difficult about this concept for so many people posting here. It is 2019 and the constitution is still the constitution as to the speech it allows. You could argue that it would be best for the biggest school in the state not to tolerate such speech and they’ve shown over and over again that they do not. You could also argue that students should be punished and expelled for saying and doing hateful or racist things, but as long as those actions fall under the category of constitutionally protected speech, the university can’t do anything other than condemn and discourage it. OU is a PUBLIC university funded by the state and federal government and because that is the case, you are incorrect in your comments. Anyone at OU is allowed to say and do what they want, publicly or privately, without punishment or expulsion by the institution as long as it falls under the category of protected speech. If it were a private institution like the University of Tulsa or a corporation, the rules are different, but that is not the case here. You don’t have to like it and you can rage your little liberal head off and call me a nazi/racist man bear pig if you want, that is your right as well, but it doesn’t change the law. Look no farther than the fact that neither Boren nor Gallogly have expelled anyone for any of the incidents you mentioned (at any rate only 3 of them were actually committed by current students so I’m not sure what you wanted him to do about the other 2). If it was allowed, especially Boren would’ve done it. They’ve both been lucky that in every case so far, the biggest offenders have withdrawn.

I understand that. And I hope they go after them anyway. And face their own repercussions involving it. Because I'd rather the university I went to fought racism/bigotry/sexism than not do anything about it.
You fight it through education, advocacy and counter-speech... NOT via censorship in whatever form.

I understand that. And I hope they go after them anyway. And face their own repercussions involving it. Because I'd rather the university I went to fought racism/bigotry/sexism than not do anything about it.

Yes and you would apparently rather the University be involved in a massive, highly publicized lawsuit (that they would be guaranteed to lose) and condemned nationally for limiting free speech and promoting the censorship of its student body because you are being a child and are letting your emotions cloud your judgement. They should publicly condemn it, say they don’t agree with it, and do whatever they can legally do to condemn the students actions and that is all.

You fight it through education, advocacy and counter-speech... NOT via censorship in whatever form.

This exactly.

It sounds like Supreme Court rulings and the law. Are you really that dense or desperate to prove a point? At this point you’re no better than Soonerheart on the other side of this. It’s not defending hate, it’s defending a person’s right to speak freely without being censored or punished by the government just because others or the government don’t agree with you.

And yes, killing is defended under the constitution. What’s the point of being allowed to bear arms if they can’t be used under certain circumstances to defend yourself?
Surely even you have to admit that though guns and speech are both constitutional rights, both can be used to commit crimes.

Yes and you would apparently rather the University be involved in a massive, highly publicized lawsuit (that they would be guaranteed to lose) and condemned nationally for limiting free speech and promoting the censorship of its student body because you are being a child and are letting your emotions cloud your judgement. They should publicly condemn it, say they don’t agree with it, and do whatever they can legally do to condemn the students actions and that is all.

You're dead on. I agree with this 100%.

Except when it becomes a trend. I get 5, 10 years is a blip on the radar for OU. When another situation happens, what does OU do? And when another happens. OU has received less donations this year, I'm not necessarily blaming that on any one thing. But what if more situations do occur. OU becomes even more on blast, and attendance starts dropping and money starts dropping. This is hypothetical stuff and a what/if game, but it's real.

Anyway, when we talk about "going after" those students, all we are talking about is expelling them. Those kids can go to any number of universities, assuming anyone wants them after something happens. No one is censoring anything. It's out there. I'd rather OU be known for cutting ties with troublesome students than known for having an environment where the same thing keeps happening. At some point OU saying "we don't agree with those students" means nothing when there is a longer drawn out trend.

You're dead on. I agree with this 100%.

Except when it becomes a trend. I get 5, 10 years is a blip on the radar for OU. When another situation happens, what does OU do? And when another happens. OU has received less donations this year, I'm not necessarily blaming that on any one thing. But what if more situations do occur. OU becomes even more on blast, and attendance starts dropping and money starts dropping. This is hypothetical stuff and a what/if game, but it's real.

Anyway, when we talk about "going after" those students, all we are talking about is expelling them. Those kids can go to any number of universities, assuming anyone wants them after something happens. No one is censoring anything. It's out there. I'd rather OU be known for cutting ties with troublesome students than known for having an environment where the same thing keeps happening. At some point OU saying "we don't agree with those students" means nothing when there is a longer drawn out trend.

Except that expelling them is illegal and it wouldn’t stand up in any court they chose to challenge it in. At best OU loses, is out a lot of money, and the student is allowed to come back. At worst they are out $100s of millions.

Also, expelling someone for something they say said is the definition of censorship.

Surely even you have to admit that though guns and speech are both constitutional rights, both can be used to commit crimes.

Sure. You can defend yourself with a gun, but can’t commit murder. You can say what you want but can’t yell fire! In a movie theater, directly threaten or defame someone.

There are limits, but over and over again the courts have ruled that “hate speech” isn’t one of them.

Except that expelling them is illegal and it wouldn’t stand up in any court they chose to challenge it in. At best OU loses, is out a lot of money, and the student is allowed to come back. At worst they are out $100s of millions.

Also, expelling someone for something they say said is the definition of censorship.

At every college including OU there is a code of conduct and other policies.

There are limits set and that can be further defined by any school.

At every college including OU there is a code of conduct and other policies.

There are limits set and that can be further defined by any school.

And they probably should add something to their code of conduct specifically addressing this, if anything for the positive PR, but I’m still not completely sure it would make that much of a difference or hold up in court if someone was expelled based on that and decided to challenge it. Especially in the case of something like the two idiot girls in that video that was recorded off campus, outside of any university event.

Slightly off topic, but since I've never had kids (nor been expelled), I have no clue, and I'm curious about something. Can kids get expelled from K-12 public schools for something they've "said" (I know they can get expelled for many other reasons, not sure about this one, though). If so, then why can't kids get expelled from a public university for something they've "said"?

They have talked about adding more specific language about racist talk and conduct.

Still, if you were idiot enough to put such nonsense into writing as a student then the better course of action would be to move on to another school and recognize the error of your ways, not trying to sue a big state university.

They have talked about adding more specific language about racist talk and conduct.

Still, if you were idiot enough to put such nonsense into writing as a student then the better course of action would be to move on to another school and recognize the error of your ways, not trying to sue a big state university.

Got dang, thank you. People are weird man.

Slightly off topic, but since I've never had kids (nor been expelled), I have no clue, and I'm curious about something. Can kids get expelled from K-12 public schools for something they've "said" (I know they can get expelled for many other reasons, not sure about this one, though). If so, then why can't kids get expelled from a public university for something they've "said"?

Students can get expelled from a university because of things they’ve “said” as can public K-12 students, just not things they said that fall under the category of protected speech.


Using two examples involving hate speech:

Example 1: Expelling some idiot for painting his/her face black and saying the N word would not be constitutional in either case.

Example 2: Expelling a student for telling another minority student (or any student for that matter) that he was going to gather up a mob and lynch him tomorrow would definitely be legal as it presents a direct threat of imminent harm (or something to that effect, not sure of the exact legal wording)

I understand that. And I hope they go after them anyway. And face their own repercussions involving it. Because I'd rather the university I went to fought racism/bigotry/sexism than not do anything about it.
Fighting bigotry, racism, and sexism that affects someones well being is great and I fully support that! If they make any threats against anyone of any color, I support going after them. Fighting free speech is another thing and even if that speech if racist or bigoted in nature, it is THEIR right to say it and not fear repercussions from the government in way shape or form for practicing free speech.

They have talked about adding more specific language about racist talk and conduct.

Still, if you were idiot enough to put such nonsense into writing as a student then the better course of action would be to move on to another school and recognize the error of your ways, not trying to sue a big state university.

No doubt, but it doesn’t change the fact that the student would likely win the challenge and that expelling him/her would still likely be unconstitutional and would put the university in legal jeopardy. It’s also the exact reason these situations have pretty much resolved themselves for the most part without the university having to expel anyone. They’ve voluntarily withdrawn as the beginning of their punishment.

Expelling a studeng for something like that is a slippery slope anyway. What if a student was recorded expressing an opinion during a classroom conversation/debate to make a point that someone in class was offended by and that the professor, through his own belief system, determined to be hate speech? Then that video was posted and went viral on the internet. Do you expel that student for expressing his/her opinion too? It isn’t limited to racism, what if they were talking in detail about why they don’t believe in homosexuality or something to that effect because of their religion? If a student or professor are offended and determine that to be hate speech, should that student need to worry about openly expressing his/her opinion for fear of facing expulsion? Obviously the current situations are much different than the ones I presented above but it’s not hard to envision it going down that path once it starts.

Got dang, thank you. People are weird man.

No, people just have a better understanding of the constitution and how racism can and can’t be handled at a public university than you do.

Fighting bigotry, racism, and sexism that affects someones well being is great and I fully support that! If they make any threats against anyone of any color, I support going after them. Fighting free speech is another thing and even if that speech if racist or bigoted in nature, it is THEIR right to say it and not fear repercussions from the government in way shape or form for practicing free speech.

Same

No, people just have a better understanding of the constitution and how racism can and can’t be handled at a public university than you do.

Yes, I, the basic layman, don't fully understand something that hundreds of lawyers and politicians don't seem to understand. Sure glad you do. You see the problem here?

Again, if it is an issue of transparency, what is allowable and what is expellable, then that needs to be addressed and fixed. If it needs to be written "don't do idiot racist things or you will be expelled" in the University's code of conduct, do it. If they need to define "idiot, racist things" then define it.

And if someone wants to fight their expulsion, that's fine. I'm sure the many students that aren't super tolerant of racism will welcome them back with open arms to their campus. And I'm sure those many students won't protest said racist student/s back. Because, of course, that is their right.

Yes, I, the basic layman, don't fully understand something that hundreds of lawyers and politicians don't seem to understand. Sure glad you do. You see the problem here?

Again, if it is an issue of transparency, what is allowable and what is expellable, then that needs to be addressed and fixed. If it needs to be written "don't do idiot racist things or you will be expelled" in the University's code of conduct, do it. If they need to define "idiot, racist things" then define it.

And if someone wants to fight their expulsion, that's fine. I'm sure the many students that aren't super tolerant of racism will welcome them back with open arms to their campus. And I'm sure those many students won't protest said racist student/s back. Because, of course, that is their right.

Again, apparently a bunch of lawyers, politicians, and judges do have a pretty solid understanding of it hence the case law and the fact that you don't see a bunch of dumb students expelled for this and similar offenses. This isn't just an opinion that I came up with all by myself. You can put whatever you want in the handbook, and again they probably should put something in it, but even if that were the case, I still have difficulty believing that any expulsion for it could be upheld in court or would even be attempted by the university. Don't you find it surprising that even under Boren, the student code wasn't amended with anti-hate speech rules? I obviously don't know for certain but I'm sure the fact that it would be essentially "just for show" has something to do with it. A student code does not trump the constitution at a state run school, but if you're cool with OU doing something unconstitutional to support your feelings, that's fine...except in court.

What is the case law that allows free speech to trump the state's right to provide an environment conducive to educating its residents?

What is the case law that allows free speech to trump the state's right to provide an environment conducive to educating its residents?

Is the state's right to "provide an environment conductive to educating students" a right provided by the constitution? Because it would seem pretty obvious that denial of a constitutional right by a state institution for something that case law has proven to be protected by the first amendment would trump whatever right you want to make up (The constitution does not provide states with a "right" to provide an environment conductive to educating it's residents).

Students can get expelled from a university because of things they’ve “said” as can public K-12 students, just not things they said that fall under the category of protected speech.


Using two examples involving hate speech:

Example 1: Expelling some idiot for painting his/her face black and saying the N word would not be constitutional in either case.

Example 2: Expelling a student for telling another minority student (or any student for that matter) that he was going to gather up a mob and lynch him tomorrow would definitely be legal as it presents a direct threat of imminent harm (or something to that effect, not sure of the exact legal wording)

Sorry for the length of this but here is the student responsibilities section of the OU Student Code:

II. Student Responsibilities
Students of the University of Oklahoma are responsible for complying with all local, state, and federal
laws. As members of the University community, students are also responsible for familiarizing themselves
with applicable University policies and laws.
In addition, students involved in disciplinary proceedings initiated under this Code, whether as parties,
witnesses, or panelists, have a duty to cooperate and discuss the incident with appropriate University
officials, adhere to stated deadlines, attend scheduled meetings, provide documentation as requested, and
participate in all proceedings. Failure to fulfill these responsibilities may result in a decision being made
without the benefit of the student’s participation or in a student being charged with failing to comply with
the direction of a University official.
Students are responsible for meeting the University’s minimal standards of appropriate conduct and may be
disciplined for engaging in the following types of prohibited conduct:
1. Abusive conduct: Unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe and pervasive that it alters the
conditions of education or employment and creates an environment that a reasonable person
would find intimidating, harassing, or humiliating. The frequency of the conduct, its severity,
and whether it is threatening or humiliating are factors that will be considered by the Office of
Student Conduct in determining whether conduct is abusive. Abusive conduct includes verbal
abuse, physical abuse, or holding a person against his or her will. Simple teasing, offhanded
comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) typically will not amount to
abusive conduct.
2. Alcohol violations: Possessing, using, providing, manufacturing, distributing, or selling
alcoholic beverages on or off campus in violation of law or University policies.
3. Arson: The willful setting fire to or burning of a structure or its contents or the property of
another.
4. Dishonesty: Manufacturing, possessing, providing, making, or using false information or
omitting relevant information to University officials or on University applications; forging,
altering or misusing a University record or document; initiating a false report; or knowingly
using or possessing forged, altered, or false documents or records.
5. Disruption or obstruction of a University activity: Interference with or obstruction or disruption
of University activities such as teaching, research, recreation, meetings, public events, and
disciplinary proceedings.
6. Drug violations: Possessing, using, providing, manufacturing, distributing, or selling drugs or
drug paraphernalia in violation of law or University policies. This includes the use or
possession of prescription drugs other than by the person prescribed or for a purpose or at a
dosage other than what was prescribed.
7. Ethical or professional code violations; violation of licensure board rules or regulations, state or
federal laws, or other applicable regulatory or privileges issues: As defined by the student’s
college or professional association or licensure board, as may be applicable to the student(s), or
applicable laws or regulations.
8. Failing to abide by or complete a University sanction in a satisfactory manner: Failure to adhere
00019356-1
STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES CODE - 3
to sanctions or engaging in other prohibited conduct while on disciplinary probation or
suspension.
9. Failure to comply with the direction of a University official who is performing his or her duties:
This responsibility includes complying with faculty/staff requirements and directions of study
abroad programs and OU Study Centers, including off-limits designations and other restrictions
or instructions.
10. Failure to keep records up to date: Failing to keep Admissions and Records notified of current
school and/or permanent directory information, including email information.
11. Hazing: Any action or situation that recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical
health, safety, or welfare of an individual for the purpose of initiation, participation, or
admission into or affiliation with any organization at the University, as defined by Oklahoma or
federal law.
12. Interfering with, obstructing or disrupting police or fire responses: Tampering with, impairing,
disabling, or misusing fire protection systems such as smoke detectors, fire extinguishers,
sprinklers, or alarms; failing to evacuate during a fire alarm; resisting arrest; failing to abide by
the directions of police or fire personnel.
13. Mental harassment: Intentional conduct that is so extreme and outrageous that a reasonable
person would not tolerate it.
14. Misuse of computing facilities: Misusing computer labs and equipment or technology resources
including the Internet, University networks, computer software, data files belonging to others,
email addresses and accounts belonging to others, or University databases, and violating
University Information Technology computing policies.
15. Misuse or defacement of University property: Damage to or misuse of equipment, property,
furniture, facilities, and buildings belonging to the University.
16. Misuse or defacement of property belonging to another.
17. Retaliation: Taking any adverse action against a person because of, or in retaliation for, the
person’s reporting of a crime or violation of University policy, or in assisting in such a claim or
violation.
18. Discrimination or Harassment: Discrimination or harassment based on race, color, religion,
political beliefs, national origin, age (40 or older), sex (see Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination
and Harassment policy https://www.ou.edu/content/eoo/policies.html), sexual orientation,
genetic information, gender identity, gender expression, disability, or veteran status.
http://www.ou.edu/eoo/policies-procedures/non-discrimination is strictly prohibited. Instances
of such Discrimination or Harassment are referred to the University’s Equal Opportunity Office
(“EOO”) for investigation. Upon a finding of violation by the EOO, the case will be sent to the
Office of Student Conduct for sanctioning, in accordance with the Student Rights and
Responsibilities Code Procedures.
19. Sexual Harassment/Misconduct: Violating the University of Oklahoma Sexual Misconduct,
Discrimination, and Harassment Policy. The following types of conduct, as defined in the
Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Harassment policy, are all prohibited by this Code: (A)
Sex Discrimination, (B) Sexual Harassment, (C) Retaliation, (D) Sexual Violence, (E) Sexual
Exploitation, (F) Dating Violence, (G) Domestic Violence, and (H) Stalking (gender based).
The University of Oklahoma Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Harassment Policy may
be found at: http://www.ou.edu/home/misc.html.
00019356-1
STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES CODE - 4
20. Stalking (not gender based): Engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that
would cause a reasonable person to fear for the person's safety or the safety of others or to
suffer substantial emotional distress.
21. Theft: Possessing property that is known or should have been known to be stolen; taking
property without the consent of the owner, even with intent to return the property; or obtaining
property by false pretenses.
22. Unauthorized entry or exit or attempted entry or exit: Entering or exiting or attempting to do the
same without authority or consent with respect to University facilities, property belonging to
another, and fraternity and sorority houses.
23. Violation of local, state, or federal law or of University policy.
24. Weapons violations or possession of weapons, firearms, explosives, fireworks, ammunition, or
incendiary devices on campus: Actual or constructive possession or control of any weapon,
including but not limited to air pistols, air rifles, lock blades, fixed blades, knives with a blade
longer than four inches, blackjacks, metal knuckles, chemical substances, bombs, or any other
device found to be a violation of this Code by the Office of Student Conduct. Instruments
designed to look like any of the above are included in this prohibition.

Looking through both this code and that of OSU, I could find nothing that specifically covers using racially insensitive language or some form of this. So, as much as we don't like racist actions or language, it doesn't seem to be covered. Because of this, I would think it would be very hard to expel a student for doing something stupid.

Intolerance is not solved with intolerance. Martin Luther King understood this. Many of my friends who far left leaning love to say war can't solve war but are quick to drop that logic when it comes to freedom of speech issues.

Looking through both this code and that of OSU, I could find nothing that specifically covers using racially insensitive language or some form of this. So, as much as we don't like racist actions or language, it doesn't seem to be covered. Because of this, I would think it would be very hard to expel a student for doing something stupid.

Racist actions and or language would likely fall under the provisions of sections 1 and 18. Depending on the exact actions of the racist speaker, that could possibly run afoul of section 13 as well.

Intolerance is not solved with intolerance. Martin Luther King understood this. Many of my friends who far left leaning love to say war can't solve war but are quick to drop that logic when it comes to freedom of speech issues.

This is a cultural education issue. It's like when leftist entertainers Ted Danson, Julianne Hough or Joni Mitchel did blackface acts, I don't think they had any consideration others might be offended by it. At some point, the rules changed that blackface was unacceptable but not everyone got the message. While it may not be possible to expel people who do things like wear blackface, the person can be required to attend sensitivity classes so there is no mistaking it going forward.

It's like people who were raised in area's without consistent parenting, where drug and alcohol used was prevalent, where crime was rampant - may not have been taught right and wrong like most of us - some white kids may have been raised in less than racially sensitive households and never learned that blackface shouldn't be done and certain names shouldn't be called. However, when the mainstream street talk among African American's includes the N-word, when movies show Trenton Tarantino throwing it around frequently, when rap music uses it frequently, it may be hard for some kids to know its not acceptable.

I have an issue with hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. It falls in line with the same people who are so outspoken about women’s rights but turn around and support hip hop and rap(those are my favorite genres of music BTW) because they claim it empowers the African American community(something else I support and can agree on) but yet they don’t acknowledge that, that same genre of music consistently belittles and puts down women using every derogatory term in the book against them. I’m not coming out either for or against rap(again I will say it’s my favorite genre of music)here but there is a massive double standard.

The reason I bring that up is I have noticed many who are SJW’s are the same way and quick to drop their logic when it ends up not working in their favor. There has to be a consistent line of logic to follow and those who claim that racist/bigoted remarks should be met with punishment from the government don’t have one.

Intolerance is not solved with intolerance. Martin Luther King understood this. Many of my friends who far left leaning love to say war can't solve war but are quick to drop that logic when it comes to freedom of speech issues.

"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."

People of a negative intolerance are intolerant of someone strictly due to their sex, or height, or sexual orientation, or whatever else.

People of a positive intolerance are intolerant of those who would seek to belittle others, harm others, threaten others, steal from others, verbally abuse others and so on.

There SHOULD always be tolerance with all things, as best any individual can muster. We need to always strive to tolerate the intolerant. But there does come a point where the true negatively intolerant start to directly effect others' well being.

So pardon me, I will NOT tolerate such intolerance.

^^^^ you can rationalize it all you want, but that speaks to me as you don’t fully support free speech.

No one here is saying you should be able to threaten anyone of any color. No is saying you should be able to scream fire in a movie theatre. No one here is saying you should be able to harass or cause physical harm to anyone.

^^^^ you can rationalize it all you want, but that speaks to me as you don’t fully support free speech.

No one here is saying you should be able to threaten anyone of any color. No is saying you should be able to scream fire in a movie theatre. No one here is saying you should be able to harass or cause physical harm to anyone.

My ideals on intolerance have nothing to do with free speech. No one is denying free speech. I'm not even referring to the occurances at OU. I'm just speaking generally.

As I've said, there is a difference between your private life and public life. In private you can say and do all you want. But again the second that stuff is made public, there are problems and consequences.

There is no such thing as intolerance in private. You just do you and no one should ever be able to say otherwise. But when you start speaking out in public in attacking ways, there's problems. Free speech does not equate to freedom from consequences.

My ideals on intolerance have nothing to do with free speech. No one is denying free speech. I'm not even referring to the occurances at OU. I'm just speaking generally.

As I've said, there is a difference between your private life and public life. In private you can say and do all you want. But again the second that stuff is made public, there are problems and consequences.

There is no such thing as intolerance in private. You just do you and no one should ever be able to say otherwise. But when you start speaking out in public in attacking ways, there's problems. Free speech does not equate to freedom from consequences.Well, of course anyone can do what they want in private so as long as they don’t get caught. That’s hardly free speech just because you are able to do in private, IMO.

I'm guessing this falls in the "federal money-federal rules" category? When a school accepts federal funding I would think that adherence to federal guidelines regarding speech and conduct are a primary condition. And this would supersede any state, local or institutional rules?

I'm guessing this falls in the "federal money-federal rules" category? When a school accepts federal funding I would think that adherence to federal guidelines regarding speech and conduct are a primary condition. And this would supersede any state, local or institutional rules?

Something like that, but I think it has more to do with the fact that public universities are owned and operated by the state government whereas private universities are not and can function more like a corporation in regard to their rules.

Something like that, but I think it has more to do with the fact that public universities are owned and operated by the state government whereas private universities are not and can function more like a corporation in regard to their rules.

The federal government has taken the approach that ANY school that takes federal money from ANY source or interaction is subject to federal rules. I think that is another thing driving the religious liberty objections movement.

At every college including OU there is a code of conduct and other policies.

There are limits set and that can be further defined by any school.

No. Codes of Conduct promulgated by public universities can't supersede the Constitution. I can explain it, but the ACLU does a better job.

https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus

I'm guessing this falls in the "federal money-federal rules" category? When a school accepts federal funding I would think that adherence to federal guidelines regarding speech and conduct are a primary condition. And this would supersede any state, local or institutional rules?

It's because the Bill of Rights is a proscription on *government* activity. Private schools are not the government, so if you choose to attend one of them, their rules apply--and they can absolutely make those rules up as they go along.

Always nice when practitioners of the law step in to provide clarity — separating fact from fiction and educated accuracy from supposition/opinion.

Threads like this illustrate just how little understanding there is about constitutional rights as well as the difference between public/government boundaries versus private entity exemptions from many of those same boundaries (e.g. "freedom of speech" restrictions).

The federal government has taken the approach that ANY school that takes federal money from ANY source or interaction is subject to federal rules. I think that is another thing driving the religious liberty objections movement.

https://www.thefire.org/spotlight/public-and-private-universities/

Not 100% sure of the accuracy, but this is an interesting page.

No. Codes of Conduct promulgated by public universities can't supersede the Constitution. I can explain it, but the ACLU does a better job.

https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus

Thank you. That puts into much better words what I was trying to say. This was basically the case we were building for if Boren had actually tried to expel any students involved in the SAE Incident. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed and Boren realized that would’ve been a giant overstep in his authority so it never came to that.

And the decision to suspend SAE's charter was SAE's, not David Boren's. Boren could have suspended university recognition, but that would not have any impact on SAE's right to exist, although since the school owns the former SAE home, they certainly could have evicted SAE, but that's about it. In this case, SAE nationals and local alumni condemned this behavior and pulled the plug.

Media reports differ on who owns the home, but SAE should be back any semester now. Generally when a major chapter is shuttered in Greek Life, it stays closed about 4-5 years before they ramp up again.

And the decision to suspend SAE's charter was SAE's, not David Boren's. Boren could have suspended university recognition, but that would not have any impact on SAE's right to exist, although since the school owns the former SAE home, they certainly could have evicted SAE, but that's about it. In this case, SAE nationals and local alumni condemned this behavior and pulled the plug.

Media reports differ on who owns the home, but SAE should be back any semester now. Generally when a major chapter is shuttered in Greek Life, it stays closed about 4-5 years before they ramp up again.

The University owns the land that the SAE House is on but our SAE chapter housing corporation owns the building itself. I actually don’t think they could’ve legally evicted us from it, but like you said (and unlike Boren said during his grandstanding adventure), the national and local fraternity boards were why chapter was closed, Boren didn’t have the authroity to do that either. Most of the media reports surrounding that deal have been unsurprisingly lazy.

It's surprising that the media reports were as lazy as they are. I can tick off several OKC media people who were involved in a fraternity or sorority in their undergrad days. I guess it'd be a bad assumption on my part to think that just because those folks were involved in FSL that they've thought much about the 1st Amendment or Free Assembly clauses of the U.S. Constitution as applied to those groups. They also have likely not thought a great deal about the Supremacy Clause and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states through 5th and 14th Amendment incorporation.

PhiAlpha, I think most SAE alums at OU have thought a lot about those issues for very good reasons--and you're probably a lot more educated than even the rest of the FSL community as a whole on those issues because of how your chapter was thrown under the bus.

Retiring already.

What a failure.

http://www.ou.edu/web/news_events/articles/news_2019/ou-president-jim-gallogly-announces-plans-to-retire

Good riddance.

What a sad, horrible chapter in the school's history.


I'm quite sure this 'retirement' was forced upon him.

What a sh*t show. Hopefully they get a *qualified* leader and ou can come back stronger.

I am laughing a little bit tho. But Oklahoma needs ou to be strong.

To the clown earlier up in this thread claiming Gallogly would be here for years, I really don't hate to do this, but

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

On a more serious note, I really hope the BoR can get it's crap together and hire a quality President again.

So keeping tuition level and getting teacher raises is a failure...got it! Damn the student and teachers, but don't you dare let the flower beds have weeds in them.

Not saying he was perfect, but he was not as bad as this board made him out to be. Just my opinion, and I know I will be lambasted for it.

Good riddance.

What a sad, horrible chapter in the school's history.

I'm quite sure this 'retirement' was forced upon him.

Yes, very happy! Select the next President in the light of day, not in back room deals. good riddance

Weeds were very far from the biggest criticisms about Gallogly.

Weeds were very far from the biggest criticisms about Gallogly.

I know. But he had a few highlights (he got alcohol sales at sporting events, something the beloved Boren would never allow) and he kept tuition stagnant in a state that consistently cuts higher ed.

His vendetta with Boren is probably what is getting him to "retire". It was petty.

^

He could have done all that and not made a complete jackass of himself and caused the school national embarrassment.

^

He could have done all that and not made a complete jackass of himself and caused the school national embarrassment.

+1, if you’re gonna do stuff like that. Do it quietly. Still transparently, but not advertising it to the world.

^

He could have done all that and not made a complete jackass of himself and caused the school national embarrassment.

Agreed. That is why I think he is being forced to retire.

You can bet some big donors turned up the heat.

Donations were way down. Even a first-year business student knows you can't cut your way to prosperity.


All this makes me very curious about his prior business background. Would be very interesting to interview people from his previous employment.

^

He could have done all that and not made a complete jackass of himself and caused the school national embarrassment.

Unfortunately a lot of damage has been done that will take awhile to repair. They better knock it out of the park with the next hire.