Posted on 03/13/2015 3:51:24 AM PDT by rickyrikardo
NORMAN, Okla. — 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at kfor.com ...
Basically, the media is saying that protecting the hurt feelings of blacks is more important than protecting the lives of (white?) cops.
OU is a state University and is an "arm of the government."
Had this occurred in a private university, I would absolutely agree that the students would not have a case.
Your example of slander is not a free speech issue. Slander is a criminal offense. Tasteless and socially objectionable speech, in and of itself, is not a crime.
The question is whether the University has the right to expel them (from the University for which they have already gained admittance) solely on the basis of socially objectionable speech.
Could a University expel students for attending and chanting at a legally assembled Pro-life demonstration? A legal Pro-choice rally? A legal political rally for Democrats? A legal political rally for Republicans?
I'm sure you'll agree that the answer is "no" to all the above examples. But, you could find groups of students on a typical college campus who would find each of these to be socially objectionable.
"People don't like that" is not sufficient cause for the University to expel the students.
Could a University expel students for attending and chanting at a legally assembled Pro-life demonstration? A legal Pro-choice rally? A legal political rally for Democrats? A legal political rally for Republicans?
More to the point, would the university expel members of a black fraternity or political organization for chanting "kill whitey" slogans or distributing Black Panther literature? Almost certainly not. They'd be encouraged.
I’m guessing that if the kids sue, their lawyers will have PIs scouring the campus for evidence of such. And will almost certainly find it.
I’m also guessing that there will now be amateur James O’Keefe/Veritas types doing the same.
But this is different. It's in a private setting. No one was threatened. I'm not convinced that the kids thought about those words having meanings.
There has to be a conversation. What that conversation should be about is the double standard. Can you imagine if blacks were punished for singing along with rap music or using slogans that are offensive to whites as a group at protests? Discretion would be a good thing. But where should it start? I would submit that perfomers who appeal to the lowest element of black culture should stop promoting hostile racist behavior.
No doubt, one player quit, and the rest of the players are raising hell, in their jail cells and out. You can barely hear them over their rap music.
I agree that there’s a double standard. And I want to stress that I in no way support governmental (including the administration of a public university) sanction of what is 1st Amendment protected speech.
On the other hand I have no problem with these punks suffering social stigmatization for what they did. And I decry that society doesn’t apply that sort of thing evenly. But just because one group, wrongly, is permitted to get away with something doesn’t mean that it should be excused in everyone else. Two wrongs never make a right.
Obviously, is almost all cases, there’s a great difference between a college athlete and a college student.
The moral of the story just might be to never be in a group unless there are no spy phones allowed.
Thats pretty much what I tell my kids: assume that you are always being surveilled, and assume that anything you do will be portrayed in the worst possible light, if it should benefit someone to do so.
But I’ll also say this: if I were to EVER catch my kids singing a song like that under such circumstances, I WOULD kick their butts. Within the limits of the law, of I. That sort of nonsense, while protected under the 1st Amendment, simply has no place in civilized, polite society.
We agree on that. The best punishment might well have been to tell the parents. It would’ve isolated the jerks from the kids whose parents set standards and demand that they are met.
Any decent lawyer can drive a truck through this one. There was no imminent danger to the welfare or safety of any student, unless Dr. Boren was afraid of riots by blacks, which in that case, he would be guilty of racism.
Also, if there is a lease, then there are rules in the lease that govern how the lease can be terminated.
How you can terminate the lease for ALL based on the actions of TWO when the actions were 1) not on University property and 2) not on the leased property in question are definite grounds for suit.
Whatever Dr. Boren did to the two students is one thing, but to punish the entire fraternity without due process is an overreach, unfair and unlawful. .
And a decent defense attorney can shift it to protect his client. Danger is in the opinion of the University President. He could easily say that he took actions to prevent retribution agains the students expelled.
Also, if there is a lease, then there are rules in the lease that govern how the lease can be terminated.
The lease was with SAE. When SAE terminated the chapter then they were the ones ending the lease.
Good—then Dr, Bowen can say on the stand what the imminent danger was exactly. Good luck with that without proof.
Also, a lease has a termination period, regardless of who terminates it. That is to allow an orderly exit from the property. Immediate termination in a lease is not a normal part of a lease, unless the lease specifically lays out the cause in which it can be invoked.
But you knew that.
This will never go to trial. Once the publicity is done the lawyer will let it quietly fade away.
Also, a lease has a termination period, regardless of who terminates it.
Then I suppose that OU could sue SAE headquarters for disbanding the fraternity and ending the lease but I doubt that they'll do that.
That is to allow an orderly exit from the property. Immediate termination in a lease is not a normal part of a lease, unless the lease specifically lays out the cause in which it can be invoked.
The University did say that any student who needed assistance finding alternate housing could contact the Dean of Students. But in terms of the former fraternity members living in the former fraternity house, they were there becasue they were members of SAE. When SAE went then their right to rooms in the building went.
But you knew that.
No, I don't have your imagination.
Speculation on your part. A lot of harm has been done to multiple parties. The ACLU is also involved. The present arrangements will not be upheld without compensation being paid out. Plus I hope Dr. Boren can find employment for the black cook the fraternity hired who is now jobless.
Then I suppose that OU could sue SAE headquarters for disbanding the fraternity and ending the lease but I doubt that they'll do that.
Actually, the brothers could have a case against the SAE/OU for improper termination of the lease without proper process, according to what the lease actually says. OU could care less about SAE--OU has their own troubles now.
The University did say that any student who needed assistance finding alternate housing could contact the Dean of Students. But in terms of the former fraternity members living in the former fraternity house, they were there because they were members of SAE. When SAE went then their right to rooms in the building went.
Again, did SAE terminate their charter and lease according to the due process everyone agreed to when they signed their papers. No proof of that has been offered. Also, the Dean of Students can be helpful, but the frat brothers paid money to live in that house for the semester. Who is going to reimburse them? What if it costs them more to live in campus provided housing for the remainder of the semester--who pays the difference?
That is why there has been harm to multiple parties.
No, I don't have your imagination.
Imagination not necessary. Logic helps though.
And on yours.
Plus I hope Dr. Boren can find employment for the black cook the fraternity hired who is now jobless.
He was an SAE employee, not a university one. As was the housemother. The SAE national headquarters has said on their website that they are taking all steps possible to see that neither one suffers financially from this and will do all they can to see that they get new employment. So I suspect that both will be alright.
Actually, the brothers...
Former brothers.
...could have a case against the SAE/OU for improper termination of the lease without proper process, according to what the lease actually says. OU could care less about SAE--OU has their own troubles now.
Highly doubtful since the students had no more of a lease with SAE than the average student has with the university. Dorm rooms are not leased. When I went to college I signed a dorm agreement that basically said that the university could boot me on a whim if I didn't follow the rules. I doubt that the agreement with the fraternity was much different.
Again, did SAE terminate their charter and lease according to the due process everyone agreed to when they signed their papers.
There is likely something in the agreement that allows them to terminate the chapter for cause, something along those lines. And SAE certainly had cause, given the highly negative publicity the OU chapter brought down on them.
But since neither of us has access to the agreement then it's all speculation on both our parts. But one would assume that SAE knew whether they were wihin their rights when the ended the charter. They're not idiots.
Also, the Dean of Students can be helpful, but the frat brothers paid money to live in that house for the semester.
Another case where their beef is with SAE and not the University. I would assume they would be within their rights to demand a refund.
What if it costs them more to live in campus provided housing for the remainder of the semester--who pays the difference?
The students I'm sure. They could sue SAE for the difference but I'd be surprised if they won. Again, all the fraternity has to do was to say it was all for cause and the fault of the local chapter and not them.
Who didn’t know this would happen?
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.