The OU Frat Boys

[Texsox]

Yes. But they do not now. Which is kind of my point. Whatever level of immorality the placement of violent fictional entertainment means to today's society, it's certainly superior to days of mob justice killing hundreds and intimidating a whole section of the populace. A chant referencing those times positively is despicable and clearly outside the norms of this country as seen by the reaction. So I have a hard time believing violent entertainment has debased the countries morality when they would view references to actual violence as outrageous.

 

Excellent points. I agree it is "clearly superior", "we do not do that now", and it "clearly (is) outside the norms of this country".

 

So are we going to continue and decided that is would be superior to also have the same reaction to people using any violent depictions against (for example) women? I believe we will agree that we've decided that racially charged violence is bad. Perhaps we will expand that

 

In the arena of lynching we have moved that, over time, into the unacceptable zone. What else should be there?

[Texsox]

Yes. But they do not now.

 

I'm not 100% with you on that point. '

 

 

If a violent fight breaks out most people pull out their cell phones to . . .

 

A. Call police

B. Take pics for Instagram

C. Video for Vine

D. Document the carnage

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Yes. But they do not now. Which is kind of my point. Whatever level of immorality the placement of violent fictional entertainment means to today's society, it's certainly superior to days of mob justice killing hundreds and intimidating a whole section of the populace. A chant referencing those times positively is despicable and clearly outside the norms of this country as seen by the reaction. So I have a hard time believing violent entertainment has debased the countries morality when they would view references to actual violence as outrageous.

 

I guess I was more going for societies across the world and throughout time have always embraced depictions of violence, and especially in American culture, and violent rap and video games aren't some grave new threat. Same conclusion, slightly different angle.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not 100% with you on that point. '

 

 

If a violent fight breaks out most people pull out their cell phones to . . .

 

A. Call police

B. Take pics for Instagram

C. Video for Vine

D. Document the carnage

Something breaking out and you happening to be there isn't the same as getting all excited to go see that negro lynching or any other public execution.

 

[StrangeSox]

Yeah if any of these arguments fly, you're opening the door to restricting speech at the whim of school administrators. For basically anything. Stand-in's and protests for things you probably support ARE disruptive and interfere with school goals.

 

It's much easier to keep the rule as is - does it incite immediate violence? Is it a targeted threat that can be appreciated as real? If so, fine, we can restrict the speech. If not, even if it's terrible and awful, you have the right to say it and not be punished for it (by the school/government).

 

Giving school administrators that much power would be absolutely terrible. And you'd still need to get a chant said in a private event which was recorded and distributed without the chanters knowledge as reaching public incitement, educational disruption etc. There are tenured professors at schools who say things approximately as terrible and still receive tenure protections.

 

[Texsox]

Something breaking out and you happening to be there isn't the same as getting all excited to go see that negro lynching or any other public execution.

 

Being more interested in filming that doing anything to stop the violence seems like a clear vote for what is more important in our society. How about a good hockey fight to fire up the crowd? Corner seats at car races sell out first. When boxing isn't enough we increase the potential violence to sell tickets. Video games continue to become more and more violent. If the violence doesn't matter than we wouldn't need to continue to increase the carnage to keep people interested. The same level of movie violence that was shocking in the 1950s is really lame by today's standards. The best explanation I can think of is we are much more accepting of these violent acts in our entertainment today than two generations ago.

 

Entertainment both reflects and reinforces what is happening in society. We've done a nice job of reducing some forms of violence and making them something we talk about and no longer accept. Child physical and psychological abuse, sexual assaults against men and women, spousal abuse, racially motivated attacks . . . yet there are other areas we still need to look at.

[Texsox]

Giving school administrators that much power would be absolutely terrible. And you'd still need to get a chant said in a private event which was recorded and distributed without the chanters knowledge as reaching public incitement, educational disruption etc. There are tenured professors at schools who say things approximately as terrible and still receive tenure protections.

 

And when we take away power from school administrators we have to accept situations like second grade students who bring a butter knife to school being arrested, an Eagle Scout with a hatchet locked in his car trunk being expelled from school, etc.

[StrangeSox]

And when we take away power from school administrators we have to accept situations like second grade students who bring a butter knife to school being arrested, an Eagle Scout with a hatchet locked in his car trunk being expelled from school, etc.

"Zero tolerance" policies are often dumb as well. It's not like your choices are zero tolerance or allowing public university administrators to kick people out without due process over private speech.

[Texsox]

"Zero tolerance" policies are often dumb as well. It's not like your choices are zero tolerance or allowing public university administrators to kick people out without due process over private speech.

 

You are correct.

 

Who defines "due process"? Remember we are beginning with a process that excludes certain individuals from this public university. The university is not a public square that anyone can enter. If these guys had been employees of a company and fired over the behavior what would the "due process" be? They are not being prosecuted and thrown in jail, the due process for a legal procedure. There have been no efforts by the university to prosecute them in a court of law. I'm not certain what due process you are creating here.

 

And I'm not certain how you are deciding this is private speech or why you are drawing a distinction.

[StrangeSox]

Due process isn't only a legal procedure. E.g. If you're a tenured teacher, you have due process protections and can be fired only if cause is shown, not just arbitrarily; public employees actually enjoy free speech protections that private employees do not.

 

That the speech was made in private is central to any claims about it being harassment, creating hostile environment for others on campus, etc.

 

What other speech do you think a public university administrator should be able to unilaterally kick students it for? What about speech by professors? What effect do you think that will have on academic freedom, and how do you get around the first amendment problems with this being a public institution?

[Kyyle23]

This reminds me of my freshman and sophomore years at SIU when Matthew Hale was making waves as a great student in the Law program and a white supremacist on his free time. SIU put up with him and just wanted him to pass the bar and go away

[LDF]

Due process isn't only a legal procedure. E.g. If you're a tenured teacher, you have due process protections and can be fired only if cause is shown, not just arbitrarily; public employees actually enjoy free speech protections that private employees do not.

 

That the speech was made in private is central to any claims about it being harassment, creating hostile environment for others on campus, etc.

 

What other speech do you think a public university administrator should be able to unilaterally kick students it for? What about speech by professors? What effect do you think that will have on academic freedom, and how do you get around the first amendment problems with this being a public institution?

due process is about having the ability or process to have your day in court. to make a defense for those actions. as you said, showing cause in your statement has nothing to due with the process. it is more of the side effect of what happens, or the outcome.

 

these people, regardless of what happen, have a right to have their day in court. the school admin, while noble for quick actions, did not afford them a chance for a defense.

 

the other part of your post, i am lost. so don't mind me. i always enjoy your post. kind of edgy.

 

peace

Edited March 22, 2015 by LDF

[LDF]

You are correct.

 

Who defines "due process"? Remember we are beginning with a process that excludes certain individuals from this public university. The university is not a public square that anyone can enter. If these guys had been employees of a company and fired over the behavior what would the "due process" be? They are not being prosecuted and thrown in jail, the due process for a legal procedure. There have been no efforts by the university to prosecute them in a court of law. I'm not certain what due process you are creating here.

 

And I'm not certain how you are deciding this is private speech or why you are drawing a distinction.

 

the due process is a lame men term in this situation to say, the admin people quickly and harshly reacted in a negative way, close the frat house down. now, if it was b/c of a criminal doings, which there are degrees of the act, those student in that frat house has to appear in a board of inquiry. this board also has different levels of action, especially in a disciplinary sense.

 

that is the due process, due diligence which they were denied

 

from google.

Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person

[Texsox]

Again, who defines the due process? What if the due process is the President has final decision? Or a committee of three reviews the available information and makes a decision? I imagine there is an appeal process in place that would be available to the student. Is that process enough? Placing the burden on the students to appeal? Seems like an efficient way to manage these situations.

 

I do not believe they have a legal right to attend that university. If they did then the university would not be able to set any standards for admission.

[Balta1701]

Again, who defines the due process? What if the due process is the President has final decision? Or a committee of three reviews the available information and makes a decision? I imagine there is an appeal process in place that would be available to the student. Is that process enough? Placing the burden on the students to appeal? Seems like an efficient way to manage these situations.

 

I do not believe they have a legal right to attend that university. If they did then the university would not be able to set any standards for admission.

They also have the right to challenge that ruling in court and allow a court to judge those actions. The university as a state-organized institution will have some bylaws written into their rules by the state and the exact text of those rules will outline whether or not the university has that ability. That is the due process they would have access to.

[LDF]

Again, who defines the due process? What if the due process is the President has final decision? Or a committee of three reviews the available information and makes a decision? I imagine there is an appeal process in place that would be available to the student. Is that process enough? Placing the burden on the students to appeal? Seems like an efficient way to manage these situations.

 

I do not believe they have a legal right to attend that university. If they did then the university would not be able to set any standards for admission.

 

that due process is establish and govern by the constitutions of the land, back by the supreme courts and enforced and protected by the police.

 

those appeals process has nothing to do with civil liberties. there is a reason why the governing body in the country back in the time of the establishment of the laws, thought, people does not have the ability to govern themselves and that is why a separate but an equal branch of the country is needed. to fairly judge the situation, without bias and prejudice.

[greg775]

Didn't Obama or his press secretary actually praise OU for kicking those guys out of school? I thought I saw that somewhere. I wonder if there's any update on this story.

[LDF]

Didn't Obama or his press secretary actually praise OU for kicking those guys out of school? I thought I saw that somewhere. I wonder if there's any update on this story.

 

being a minority, sure i can praise them, but the fact of the matter, they will now have their day in court, to spew out their stupidity, and they may win.

[Texsox]

that due process is establish and govern by the constitutions of the land, back by the supreme courts and enforced and protected by the police.

 

those appeals process has nothing to do with civil liberties. there is a reason why the governing body in the country back in the time of the establishment of the laws, thought, people does not have the ability to govern themselves and that is why a separate but an equal branch of the country is needed. to fairly judge the situation, without bias and prejudice.

 

What I believe you are missing is the university selects who is allowed to enroll in that university. The qualifications are set by the university not the constitution. Likewise, the university is allowed to establish a series of local rules to allow you to continue to attend the university, or not. Again, that is not set in the constitution.

[Texsox]

They also have the right to challenge that ruling in court and allow a court to judge those actions. The university as a state-organized institution will have some bylaws written into their rules by the state and the exact text of those rules will outline whether or not the university has that ability. That is the due process they would have access to.

 

I agree. Isn't that what I have been saying?

[LDF]

What I believe you are missing is the university selects who is allowed to enroll in that university. The qualifications are set by the university not the constitution. Likewise, the university is allowed to establish a series of local rules to allow you to continue to attend the university, or not. Again, that is not set in the constitution.

 

that is kool, but let me counter, you are missing the point, when the government tried to enforce school enroll in the 60's and the president sent the military to protect those students, that was the turning point.

 

now, it might revert back to it, in actuality, a reverse of it. they, the school admin, can not be neglect of the law.

 

now the schools can enforce their disciplinary rules, but that has to be done in the scoop of the law and the constitution of the land.

[LDF]

I agree. Isn't that what I have been saying?

 

maybe in a quasi way, or maybe i am not understanding it.

 

if it is on me, i am sorry.

[Jenksismyhero]

What I believe you are missing is the university selects who is allowed to enroll in that university. The qualifications are set by the university not the constitution. Likewise, the university is allowed to establish a series of local rules to allow you to continue to attend the university, or not. Again, that is not set in the constitution.

 

Constitutional rights trump the rights of public universities to operate as they wish. It's really that simple. A university can't decide to exclude blacks, women, etc just because their local rules say they can. Not sure what you're missing here.

[Texsox]

Constitutional rights trump the rights of public universities to operate as they wish. It's really that simple. A university can't decide to exclude blacks, women, etc just because their local rules say they can. Not sure what you're missing here.

 

I completely agree with your points.

 

Schools expel students all the time and it is not a civil matter in court. So any due process does not require any court involvement. So again I ask, who sets the due process for the University of Oklahoma? As long as the process they select protects the constitutional rights of the student it is ok. What law would be broken if the due process is a decision by the university president? Who at the university should make the decision? The school would not be adjudicating this in a court room initially. Legally I'm not certain if there is a difference in a due process of a faculty committee, school board hearing, or school president hearing before action. These are not the first people to ever be expelled from a public university, there should be prior law to establish that covers this.

 

But to suggest that this should follow a due process similar to our court system isn't necessary. Constitutional rights of speech are not you can say anything, anytime, and anyplace without penalty.

 

What due process do you think is legally required in expelling a student from a university?

 

[Texsox]

that due process is establish and govern by the constitutions of the land, back by the supreme courts and enforced and protected by the police.

 

those appeals process has nothing to do with civil liberties. there is a reason why the governing body in the country back in the time of the establishment of the laws, thought, people does not have the ability to govern themselves and that is why a separate but an equal branch of the country is needed. to fairly judge the situation, without bias and prejudice.

 

What due process has been established to expel someone from a university? Are you suggesting it becomes a civil matter for a court to decide? If not the courts, then it would be the university. What law established who at the university judges the case?