Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No, it’s not constitutional for the University of Oklahoma to expel students for racist speech
Washington Post -Volokh Conspiracy ^ | By Eugene Volokh March 10 at 11:29 AM

Posted on 03/10/2015 3:21:42 PM PDT by Perdogg

Some University of Oklahoma students in the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity were videorecorded singing (as best I and others can tell),

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma
KEYWORDS: sigmaalphaepsilon; uofoklahoma
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
I am opposed to racism, but it is ridiculous to expel them.
1 posted on 03/10/2015 3:21:42 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
I am opposed to racism, but it is ridiculous to expel them.

What part of the constitution applies? Which constitution?

2 posted on 03/10/2015 3:28:52 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

The US constitution.

These guys are not employees of the school. They are paying customers.


3 posted on 03/10/2015 3:31:33 PM PDT by cuban leaf (The US will not survive the obama presidency. The world may not either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

Read the article


4 posted on 03/10/2015 3:32:44 PM PDT by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

People may not like what these guys said, but they broke no laws.


5 posted on 03/10/2015 3:33:52 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

>>>Read the article<<<

bwahahahaha. Some members shoot from the hip. .....back in my day we just said stuff without reading the article.....and we liked it.


6 posted on 03/10/2015 3:34:21 PM PDT by BJ1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Now they’re going after the house mother for SINGING ALONG to a rap song that used the N word. GMAFB.


7 posted on 03/10/2015 3:35:43 PM PDT by Impy (They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the CHICAGO WAY, and that's how you beat the rats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

The part where a government ( a state university) institution cannot forbid free speech. That part.


8 posted on 03/10/2015 3:38:45 PM PDT by DesertRhino (I was standing with a rifle, waiting for soviet paratroopers, but communists just ran for office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

That’s a good point. Christian florists and bakeries still have to serve sodomite customers, according to the injustice system, even if it goes against their beliefs to help celebrate sodomy.


9 posted on 03/10/2015 3:41:26 PM PDT by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I don’t agree with racism but I also believe in freedom of speech as far as the government is concerned (private parties can sue and that’s OK too).

The constitution is usually only implicated if the federal government is involved. If UO is a state university, then it is a question of the state constitution or state laws whether booting them out is illegal. The U.S. Constitutions forbids federal action not usually state action.


10 posted on 03/10/2015 3:42:23 PM PDT by PapaNew (The grace of God & freedom always win the debate in the forum of ideas over unjust law & government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BJ1

>>bwahahahaha. Some members shoot from the hip. .....back in my day we just said stuff without reading the article.....and we liked it.<<

Wait. You are supposed to read the article? When did this start???


11 posted on 03/10/2015 3:42:53 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (islam: The hands of the Chinese, the mouths of the arabs, the minds of the French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

That question was nor for real, was it?

Must have forgot the /sarc tag.


12 posted on 03/10/2015 3:43:53 PM PDT by X-spurt (CRUZ missile - armed and ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Lawyers are sobbering at the prospects of owning a part of Oklahome University


13 posted on 03/10/2015 3:45:15 PM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
The constitution is usually only implicated if the federal government is involved. If UO is a state university, then it is a question of the state constitution or state laws whether booting them out is illegal. The U.S. Constitutions forbids federal action not usually state action.

Not since the 14th Amendment was passed. The 14th Amendment applied all of the Bill of Rights to state governments as well as the federal government. So state governments can have state constitutions that require state and local governments to be MORE protective of the rights enumerated in the US Constitution, but they cannot be less protective of those rights.

14 posted on 03/10/2015 3:48:50 PM PDT by CA Conservative (Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

>>The constitution is usually only implicated if the federal government is involved. If UO is a state university, then it is a question of the state constitution or state laws whether booting them out is illegal. The U.S. Constitutions forbids federal action not usually state action.<<

A State can’t ignore the USC. But an institution — any institution — can have you sign your rights away.

I was a California State Employee a ways back and we were prohibited from displaying anything political or campaigning when at work.

But that was at work. On my time I could say what I wanted but I could not imply my relationship with the State was part of my speech.

If the kids signed an agreement which included self-restriction the legal question would be is it so broad as to be open to interpretation.

If everything is silent (unlikely) then there may not be a legal avenue here for the School against the kids. The ones expelled may have a cause of action. For big bucks.


15 posted on 03/10/2015 3:49:23 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (islam: The hands of the Chinese, the mouths of the arabs, the minds of the French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The first amendment has the provision to be stupid.


16 posted on 03/10/2015 3:49:51 PM PDT by BigEdLB (We're experienceing the rule of a Roman Emperor, Barack I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf; Kaslin
These guys are not employees of the school. They are paying customers.

So how is the Federal Government restricting their free speech?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

17 posted on 03/10/2015 3:50:27 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

How did OU forbid free speech?


18 posted on 03/10/2015 3:50:56 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
The 14th Amendment applied all of the Bill of Rights to state governments as well as the federal government.

To be precise, that didn't begin to happen beyond the slavery issue until the mid-20th century, when some of our more Soviet-minded Chief Justices decided that not only did the Constitution say only what they thought it did—rather than what it says—but that their thoughts apply as law to the States as well as to the hungry Federal Leviathan.

But my guess is that the OK Constitution has a 1A of its own, and that it says about what the Federal one says. Which is to say, I'll bet Boren and his U of Oklahoma are toast.

19 posted on 03/10/2015 3:59:29 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
The "Incorporation Doctrine" used to expand the 14A, is not constitutional and invalidly overturned the Slaughterhouse precedent. It is one of the many judicially active things that SCOTUS has done to amend the Constitution from the bench and give the feds massive, basically unlimited, unconstitutional power.

(It's possible you and I talked about this sometime ago, not sure.)

20 posted on 03/10/2015 4:08:48 PM PDT by PapaNew (The grace of God & freedom always win the debate in the forum of ideas over unjust law & government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson