“If the U of O were a private institution, it could do as they please, but this is a publicly supported institution and therefore has to completely observe the First Amendment.”
That is absolutely not true.
A student would be expelled if he went to each class every day and stop up and sang the song about hanging black people from trees.
A student would be expelled if he exercised his right of free speech by plagiarizing a paper for a class.
Under the circumstances, the chant might be viewed as disturbing the peace.
We have so much oversensitivity today that it’s easy to grumble about this. After all, how many black people have been called on the carpet for saying uncomplimentary things about “crackers” and “honkies”?
A student would be expelled if he exercised his right of free speech by plagiarizing a paper for a class.”
As hateful as the U of O students chant was, there is no legal ground on which the students could be expelled for it. If, on the other hand, the students were attending a private institution, that institution could impose any rules on their students insofar as being able to be students there they chose to. Now if as you suggest, a student were to chant in class, that would be considered a disruption irrespective of the free speech issue and he could be removed for that reason. Remember, these SAE members were not on campus when this took place. It is my opinion, shared by several legal scholars on TV the past few nights , that to expel them for what they were saying is a violation of the First Amendment to which the school leadership has to adhere.
It is nonsensical to try and equate this to plagiarism. Plagiarism has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment per se, but rather presents an ethical problem. In this case you don't expel the offender because of the content of his writings, but rather the fact that they are the work of others being presented as your own.