OU SAE to Sue University, Possibly President Boren

KFOR ^ | MARCH 12, 2015

[TBP]

OK.

[dennisw]

I find this report hard to believe but Oklahoma is a right wing state so maybe.....

It will be nice to see David Boren with lotsa egg on his face

[bigbob]

And they will win. Either a settlement or the lawsuit. Watch and see.

[OKSooner]

" maybe it will get David Boren out of everyone's face at last. Lefty totalitarian. "

True dat, but he's a master fund-raiser too, and very well-connected IYKWIM.

[SunkenCiv]

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

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

Boren went way off the reservation on this and he deserves to have his ass sued off.

He’s let gay bashing women beating Joe Mixon come back to the team. The only thing that OU is worried about is their precious football and basketball teams and how this will affect recruiting.

[Steve_Seattle]

They ought to have Boren fired for allowing the foul-mouthed rapper Waka Flocka to perform at the university (Flocka cancelled his show to protest the frat incident). Flocka’s music is filled with the n-word, obscenities, and obscene gestures, yet it is considered appropriate for UO students.

[Steve_Seattle]

Boren’s statement on the Mixon case gives another reason for firing him - he’s a liar.

[tanknetter]

According to the SAE Website the building was the property of the university. The wanted to make it clear that it was the university who was evicting the students and not the fraternity. Of course since they revoked the OU chapter's charter then the former frat boys had no reason to be living there so the University could tell them to leave.

Yes, the University owned the building. That isn't in dispute.

What matters here is who leased the building from the University, what the terms of the lease were (particularly regarding evictions and repossession) and what laws (which take precedence over any lease agreement or University policy) are applicable under the circumstances.

Based on my knowledge of local chapter fraternity operations (20+ years ago), there are four big options here:

1.) The individual brothers rented their rooms directly from the University (least likely, almost certainly not the case)
2.) The chapter leased the building from the University and rented the rooms out to the individual brothers (possible, but unlikely)
3.) A local chapter house corporation, run by local alumni, leased the building from the University and rented out the rooms. (most likely)
4.) The national fraternity leased the building from the University and rented out the rooms. (possibly, but unlikely. Especially given the national's statements)

Under the most-likely possibility (house corporation), the fact that the National revoked the charter may not be relevant, since the National wouldn't be party to the lease agreement. So the National simply saying "We've shut down the chapter and kicked the brothers out" wouldn't apply - the relevant player(s) will be the local house corporation (an entity affiliated with, but still separate and distinct from, the National).

Understand please the structuring of fraternities, particularly as it relates to financial matters, can be incredibly complex and convoluted. As an undergraduate junior I was asked, then pressured, to take over as my chapter's treasurer. I sat down with the outgoing treasurer, the Chapter Advisor, the Chapter's House Corporation President and Treasurer and the regional Consultant from the National. Based on what the four alumni were willing to tell me (the outgoing chapter treasurer was clueless) and the bonding/liability documents they wanted me to sign my brain screamed "Ponzi Scheme" (in retrospect it really wasn't one of those) and I ran from it like a scalded dog.

(Aside, I discussed the matter with my Dad, who at that point had a couple decades worth of experience in corporate management at the executive level. He told me that, based on what I told him, if something went wrong I'd be the first and possibly only one led away in handcuffs. And despite being Protestant Irish, orange is definitely not a color that looks good on me.)

My guess here is that, given that plus the statements and actions involved by the various players, laws were violated in the breaking of the lease and the eviction process. Which, given the Constitutional issues of the two kids being expelled, shouldn't be surprising and should be assumed to have been done for the sake of short-term expediency with an understanding by Boren and the University that they'll end up having to either pay out a court judgement or (more likely) or settlement sometime down the road.

[Steve_Seattle]

I love to see college administrators squirm; I have little respect for the breed.

[SamuraiScot]

every frat brother these guys had . . .

Okay, that's an interesting fall-back position. It may even happen. But you said they'd never sue. They're suing.

No one knows exactly what will happen, but I think it's significant that Holder and the hive have gone so over the top that some kids reciting a boorish chant almost as nasty as something you'd hear any Sunday at Reverend Wright's church are in a position to turn a PC university upside-down and start shaking. The culture war will soon be fully engaged.

[DoodleDawg]

What matters here is who leased the building from the University, what the terms of the lease were (particularly regarding evictions and repossession) and what laws (which take precedence over any lease agreement or University policy) are applicable under the circumstances.

If your scenario is the most likely then one would expect that this chapter house corporate would have come forward by now and said, "Hey, wait a minute." But nobody has come forward, nobody is complaining that the University had no right to strip the building of the ASE letters or expel the students. So it is far more likely that the university leased the building either to corporate ASE or to the local ASE chapter. In either case when the charter was revoked the legal agreement was voided.

Which, given the Constitutional issues of the two kids being expelled, shouldn't be surprising and should be assumed to have been done for the sake of short-term expediency with an understanding by Boren and the University that they'll end up having to either pay out a court judgement or (more likely) or settlement sometime down the road.

The lawyer retained by the local alumni is already backtracking on legal action and has denied that he is planning a lawsuit. I think they're hoping it all dies down and the kids can sneak back in.

[Oliviaforever]

I will and do condemn of any one or of any class who expressing violence against people of another race.

I will not defend the white kid who says blacks should be hung from trees. I will not defend that black that says he wants to whitey. I will not defend the Muslim who says that Jews should be thrown in the gas chamber.

A university should be able expel any of these people from their school, especially when the speaker’s statements are made public.

[Oliviaforever]

“Okay, that’s an interesting fall-back position. It may even happen. But you said they’d never sue. They’re suing.”

And when the expelled students are cross-examined by the army or OU lawyers, the former students will have to not only repeat what they said on that bus, but affirm it as constitutionally protected speech to state that he blacks should be hung from trees.

The racially mixed jury would side with the OU lawyers.

[DoodleDawg]

But you said they'd never sue. They're suing.

Don't jump the gun. The lawyer's been taking it back this afternoon and talking about resolving the issue through other means.

[tanknetter]

If your scenario is the most likely then one would expect that this chapter house corporate would have come forward by now and said, "Hey, wait a minute."

...

The lawyer retained by the local alumni ...

Just to clarify, the local alumni are, imho (and scenario) the House Corporation. Just not being identified as such.

[Regal]

“Have you ever told a racist joke?

Because if he has told ONE racist joke then he is AS racist as these men who sang ONE racist song.”
_____________

To answer your question, no I have never told a racist joke. As a matter of fact I have stopped people from telling racist jokes in front of me, the same way I will not tolerate blasphemy in my presence.

And you are saying this is the one and only time they sang this song (that they claim was taught to them by fraternity brothers)?

[tanknetter]

The racially mixed jury would side with the OU lawyers.

The case won't be won or lost with a jury. It'll be won or lost on appeal.

See the Volokh piece on WaPo, which cites a number of both Circuit Court (Iota Chi vs GMU) and SCOTUS (there's a whole list of them here.

The amount of legal precedent on the punk's side here is massive. And that's before bringing in his initial statements about protecting the students' Constitutional rights, almost immediately followed by his tossing him out. To the point where I'd think that, if sued by the expelled students, Boren might just just whip out the old OU checkbook and ask "How much?"

Which is, I'll repeat, exactly what I think he's decided to do. How much is it worth in cash, several years out, to avoid crippling protests and disturbances on-campus TODAY?

[PLMerite]

"A university should be able expel any of these people from their school, especially when the speaker’s statements are made public."

Certainly, after whatever due process applies. Unless the students and their parents signed away all of their Constitutional Rights, there should at least have been a hearing.

[SamuraiScot]

but affirm it as constitutionally protected speech to state that he blacks should be hung from trees.

I don't know that they'd even have to testify. Either way, what if you asked the same jury if black fraternities should be shut down overnight and black students should be kicked out for playing the standard lyrics of rap music, which the middle-aged white women on the jury—and possibly the middle-aged black women—have never seen written on a page? Standard raps go into lurid detail about raping women, shooting cops, and hating whitey. Specifically, playing them in a dorm room (or on a private bus, apparently) flagrantly violate Title IX of the Federal la-di-da rules on colleges that are supposed to protect females from males who create a "hostile environment."

The fraternity boys' lawyer asks, "Don't rappers have a right of free speech? Or are you here to decide that from now on, African-American boys should be kicked out of college for playing or rapping their music?"