The OU Frat Boys

[LDF]

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?

 

you really do not know what due process means.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

 

now, the school admin arbitrarily took it upon themselves in dealing, rather harshly with the situation, thereby creating, what i would assume be a huge civil actions. that admin, while trying to do good, screwed the pooch.

 

those students, i do not care for what reasons, have rights, which the school admin did not follow. i am sure they school board will deal with that at a later time.

Edited March 26, 2015 by LDF

[Jenksismyhero]

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?

 

Couple things here (and i'm basing this on my now 8-9 year old recollection of constitutional law): you're getting at the procedural due process requirements of the 14th amendment. That doesn't really apply here when you're talking about a government actor taking away or infringing on someone's constitutionally protected rights based on their own rules. Procedural due process is to make sure that you have access to courts, speedy trials, ability to testify, etc. It's a way of ensuring that you're able to adjudicate whatever dispute you have as per your rights.

 

Substantive due process is a little different. It gets at going after states/government actors for infringing on rights of the people as enumerated under the Constitution. So when we say that these students weren't provided "due process under the law," what we're really saying is that the University failed to uphold it's legal obligation to abide by the Constitution and refrain from enacting laws/rules that infringe on the rights of the people. It has created and applied its own rules that don't comply with the Constitution.

 

Now, specifically with this case, I think you could make the case that BOTH versions of due process were missing since the President unilaterally expelled the students without any hearing or involvement from the students to tell their side of the story. But that's a road that can be confusing, because you're right, school's don't have to go to court to expel students, but they might have to have some kind of procedure, be it a student union/congress hearing, a board of directors hearing, etc. I'm not sure if they did/do in this case.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

There's also the consideration that "due process" isn't strictly and exclusively a constitutional concept. If you are a teacher working under a tenure contract, for example, you can only be fired for cause and you must receive due process to show that there is cause. This can be through administrative hearings etc., not through the legal system. I was originally using the term in that broader sense, though constitutional due process should apply as well given the constitutional issues.

 

Public universities are free to set admissions standards, but it doesn't follow that they are then free to accept or expel someone for any reason at all. Think of a government job. Yes, the government can absolutely set professional qualifications, but you cannot be fired or denied a job because of your political/social viewpoints. If you went around shouting racist chants in the workplace, that would be different, but if you kept it to yourself at work and attended KKK rallies at night, you couldn't be fired for it.

 

edit: and just to be clear, I don't think the students are pressing any sort of constitutional violation claims here, even if its pretty clear that that's what the university did.

Edited March 25, 2015 by StrangeSox

[LDF]

There's also the consideration that "due process" isn't strictly and exclusively a constitutional concept. If you are a teacher working under a tenure contract, for example, you can only be fired for cause and you must receive due process to show that there is cause. This can be through administrative hearings etc., not through the legal system. I was originally using the term in that broader sense, though constitutional due process should apply as well given the constitutional issues.

 

Public universities are free to set admissions standards, but it doesn't follow that they are then free to accept or expel someone for any reason at all. Think of a government job. Yes, the government can absolutely set professional qualifications, but you cannot be fired or denied a job because of your political/social viewpoints. If you went around shouting racist chants in the workplace, that would be different, but if you kept it to yourself at work and attended KKK rallies at night, you couldn't be fired for it.

 

edit: and just to be clear, I don't think the students are pressing any sort of constitutional violation claims here, even if its pretty clear that that's what the university did.

 

you are correct.... very good. but i like to clarify one thing. administrative hearings was a by-product of due process and what it mean. just like someone org using roberts rules of order as the guide book, but by-laws is an extension of the roberts rules order.

 

re bold, excellent.

 

re 2 bold, not as of yet. but i wouldn't be surprise. even if it is to get their stupid, hateful idioms.

[Texsox]

you really do not know what due process means.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

 

now, the school admin arbitrarily took it upon themselves in dealing, rather harshly with the situation, thereby creating, what i would assume be a huge civil actions. that admin, while trying to do good, screwed the pooch.

 

those students, i do not care for what reasons, have rights, which the school admin did not follow. i am sure they school board will deal with that at a later time.

 

You don't really understand my question.

 

What is the process for a student to be expelled? You keep saying they have rights. I agree. Their current right is now a civil matter with the court system. Students get expelled for grades, there is a process that is followed. Students get expelled for other actions on campus, a process is followed. What right do you believe the students have in this case before being expelled? Each university establishes the process for their school to expel students.

 

Arbitrary? I assume then that you know the process that is established at that university, could you please let us know what it is? Depending on the infraction at my university the matter is referred to either a faculty committee, Dean of the College (if appropriate), Academic Dean, or in extraordinary circumstances, to the University President. Having the issue decided by the president doesn't violate any of their rights. His decision may have been wrong, even illegal, but again, the process the university used did not. Do you believe there is some other process that every public university student is legally entitled to and what is that? Do they have to assemble six tenured faculty members? Call a special meeting of the board? Bring in a federal judge before expelling anyone?

 

The due process that is now available to the students is a civil matter where they may sue the school for readmission. But any court action happens after, not before the expulsion. The process at a university to expel someone doesn't need to include a trail.

 

Now if you want to change the discussion to did the school violated the student's rights and unfairly expelled them, I believe the kids have a better than average chance to win. But the process at the school is fine. Someone has to make the decision at the school. If the decision made violates a student's rights, then the student has a legal avenue. But I don't see anywhere in the decision making process violated any of the students rights.

 

Laws get established that are later overturned on constitutional grounds, courts make decisions that are later over turned. The law or action being judged may violate someone's rights, but the process to pass the law or the prior court case isn't the process. And the process the university used does not as well.

[Texsox]

Even simpler

 

I believe the university's process was legally fine. I also believe that process may have resulted in a decision that violates the student's rights. Just like some same sex marriage laws were passed in a legally acceptable way but the outcome were later ruled unconstitutional. No one says the process was bad, just the result. Because we sometimes write unconstitutional laws we don't demand to change the way we write laws.

[LDF]

You don't really understand my question.

 

What is the process for a student to be expelled? You keep saying they have rights. I agree. Their current right is now a civil matter with the court system. Students get expelled for grades, there is a process that is followed. Students get expelled for other actions on campus, a process is followed. What right do you believe the students have in this case before being expelled? Each university establishes the process for their school to expel students.

 

Arbitrary? I assume then that you know the process that is established at that university, could you please let us know what it is? Depending on the infraction at my university the matter is referred to either a faculty committee, Dean of the College (if appropriate), Academic Dean, or in extraordinary circumstances, to the University President. Having the issue decided by the president doesn't violate any of their rights. His decision may have been wrong, even illegal, but again, the process the university used did not. Do you believe there is some other process that every public university student is legally entitled to and what is that? Do they have to assemble six tenured faculty members? Call a special meeting of the board? Bring in a federal judge before expelling anyone?

 

The due process that is now available to the students is a civil matter where they may sue the school for readmission. But any court action happens after, not before the expulsion. The process at a university to expel someone doesn't need to include a trail.

 

Now if you want to change the discussion to did the school violated the student's rights and unfairly expelled them, I believe the kids have a better than average chance to win. But the process at the school is fine. Someone has to make the decision at the school. If the decision made violates a student's rights, then the student has a legal avenue. But I don't see anywhere in the decision making process violated any of the students rights.

 

Laws get established that are later overturned on constitutional grounds, courts make decisions that are later over turned. The law or action being judged may violate someone's rights, but the process to pass the law or the prior court case isn't the process. And the process the university used does not as well.

 

nice attempts to double talk. you are all over this with many types of points. look at some of your earlier post. all i have been saying is due process due diligence. the act of expelling a student is the school rights for academic reasoning or suspension. however for this kind of action, not only to the students but also for closing the frat house down, i bet there are a process that needed to be follow with a time of an appeals process.

 

no one need to see that procedurally there were some mistakes and that is what i have been saying. again, i am talking and have been talking about rights, the students rights.

 

now go and look at some of what you spewed.

[LDF]

Even simpler

 

I believe the university's process was legally fine. I also believe that process may have resulted in a decision that violates the student's rights. Just like some same sex marriage laws were passed in a legally acceptable way but the outcome were later ruled unconstitutional. No one says the process was bad, just the result. Because we sometimes write unconstitutional laws we don't demand to change the way we write laws.

 

how can that be accepted, you are making a contradiction. it is legally fine and yet violates student rights???

 

get real

[Balta1701]

SAE president says they first learned the chant on a national leadership cruise organized by the fraternity's national organization.

[Texsox]

how can that be accepted, you are making a contradiction. it is legally fine and yet violates student rights???

 

get real

 

Sorry LDF I know you are a smart guy so I must not be writing this clearly.

 

You are confusing the system in place versus the decision that was made.

 

The example I gave are laws that have been written that are overturned by the courts as violating constitutional rights. Remember the checks and balances? So a state government writes a law barring same sex couples to marry. The law gets overturned later and ruled unconstitutional. A state writes a law restricting abortion that is later overturned. We don't say the system that we use to write the laws is wrong and needs to be changed, do we? I'm surprised you can't follow that.

 

Courts make decisions that get overturned on appeal because of constitutional issues. Do we then change the court system? The system didn't violate anyone's rights, the resulting decision did.

 

In this case, if a universities system is all expulsions are adjudicated through the college president. How is that SYSTEM violating anyone's rights? I agree the decision probably was wrong and needs review by the courts. But any SYSTEM they had in place could still result in the same decision to expel. Name a system that could be in place that couldn't arrive at a decision that was unconstitutional? We can't even do that with our current legal system.

[Texsox]

SAE president says they first learned the chant on a national leadership cruise organized by the fraternity's national organization.

 

Shocking

[LDF]

Sorry LDF I know you are a smart guy so I must not be writing this clearly.

 

You are confusing the system in place versus the decision that was made.

 

The example I gave are laws that have been written that are overturned by the courts as violating constitutional rights. Remember the checks and balances? So a state government writes a law barring same sex couples to marry. The law gets overturned later and ruled unconstitutional. A state writes a law restricting abortion that is later overturned. We don't say the system that we use to write the laws is wrong and needs to be changed, do we? I'm surprised you can't follow that.

 

Courts make decisions that get overturned on appeal because of constitutional issues. Do we then change the court system? The system didn't violate anyone's rights, the resulting decision did.

 

In this case, if a universities system is all expulsions are adjudicated through the college president. How is that SYSTEM violating anyone's rights? I agree the decision probably was wrong and needs review by the courts. But any SYSTEM they had in place could still result in the same decision to expel. Name a system that could be in place that couldn't arrive at a decision that was unconstitutional? We can't even do that with our current legal system.

 

ok, i understand what you are saying but you are trying to jam everything in a 1 case verdict fits all. you agree that the universities may have violated their civil rights. all i am saying is the president may have overstep his or her authority in expelling those he or she expelled by using a wide blanket.

 

all i am saying is the students has rights. what they were doing is despicable. i am a minority and if i can see this, as much as i hate to admit it, they may have a huge maelstrom brewing. then the press will step in.

 

there is something call due diligence, that the school may not have follow, in otherwords, dotting the I's and crossing the T's.

 

~~~ edit - Tex, i owe you an apology for coming across as a stupid jerk. you didn't do anything to deserve me treating you as such. again i am sorry.

 

the end. at least for me

 

peace.

Edited March 31, 2015 by LDF

[Texsox]

ok, i understand what you are saying but you are trying to jam everything in a 1 case verdict fits all. you agree that the universities may have violated their civil rights. all i am saying is the president may have overstep his or her authority in expelling those he or she expelled by using a wide blanket.

 

all i am saying is the students has rights. what they were doing is despicable. i am a minority and if i can see this, as much as i hate to admit it, they may have a huge maelstrom brewing. then the press will step in.

 

there is something call due diligence, that the school may not have follow, in otherwords, dotting the I's and crossing the T's.

 

~~~ edit - Tex, i owe you an apology for coming across as a stupid jerk. you didn't do anything to deserve me treating you as such. again i am sorry.

 

the end. at least for me

 

peace.

 

And I was stating the President probably has the authority, and should have. The buck has to stop somewhere and that is usually at the highest office in any organization. I do believe the decision may have been violated.

 

Somehow one small point that I didn't think really amounted to anything became a focus, which it should not have been.

 

Thank you for the apology, but it really isn't necessary and just is the nature of the medium we are using to communicate. If we had been talking and listening we would have zoomed past that in a couple seconds and realized we agreed on 99% of the issues.

[LDF]

And I was stating the President probably has the authority, and should have. The buck has to stop somewhere and that is usually at the highest office in any organization. I do believe the decision may have been violated.

 

Somehow one small point that I didn't think really amounted to anything became a focus, which it should not have been.

 

Thank you for the apology, but it really isn't necessary and just is the nature of the medium we are using to communicate. If we had been talking and listening we would have zoomed past that in a couple seconds and realized we agreed on 99% of the issues.

 

many thanks again. now for the important part.......

[Texsox]

many thanks again. now for the important part.......

 

Do you believe that these guys went into SAE as racists or was it a result of being exposed to the racism and wanting to fit in? In other words, had they never joined that Fraternity would they still hold those views?

 

 

[LDF]

Do you believe that these guys went into SAE as racists or was it a result of being exposed to the racism and wanting to fit in? In other words, had they never joined that Fraternity would they still hold those views?

 

you have to remember 1 thing, esp with me, i am a minority, i keep saying that b/c my point of view, my life experiences are way different than yours, and many other people. ex. i had a huge argument on this subject, personal point of view with a major players in the african american community, he, this person, later admitted i was right, but had a problem admitting it. b/c i was not african american. another point is, i was fired for 8 months b/c of the civil rights we were trying to establish and i got my job back, but i got it back by the federal labor board.

 

so i really have a harsh opinion on civil rights and i wholeheartedly believe in that, the USA is not perfect but there are many rights that we in today's society have, b/c of this fight that was wage in the past, now i am retired and it still irks me, in today's age, their is still hatred based on race. nothing in life will ever be perfect, and i know this.

 

here is a stupid event i did when i was healthy and young. believe me i done some crazy things, like when my lawyers and i, right after hurricane Rita, were coming down from the 4th floor of our town in city hall. now these racial white supremacy group were giving a hand symbol to me. now i got pissed, so i turn to my lawyers and said, let hit the town tonite, i want to pick up some white women and do the crazy thing, she never will want to go back to the white guys. my lawyers were shaking his head and laughing.

 

true story, but you have to know 2 things, 1 i am half hispanic and the 2 i am half apache. so i can not keep my mouth shut even if i tried....... the challenge of a confrontation is too great.

 

so back to your question, hatred, racial, religious or of any kind is a learned experience. societies and clubs, have a certain parameters and this club may have had a rep..... whether the school wanted to admit it or not.

 

now, they have a right to org, to keep their agenda, but they do not have a right to force their point of views, their hatred on other by force of will.

Edited March 31, 2015 by LDF

[Texsox]

I ask to learn. I agree I see things as a 50+ year old white guy.

[LDF]

I ask to learn. I agree I see things as a 50+ year old white guy.

 

i hope i wasn't being harsh.... i am an old fart, 1 mexican breakfast from dieing.... what a way to go.... eating great food and right in the middle of great sex. life is so simple.

 

ignorance is not bliss. as long as people want or has a need to learn, it is there. look to your older uncles, aunts and you will learn bundles of things.

[Texsox]

i hope i wasn't being harsh.... i am an old fart, 1 mexican breakfast from dieing.... what a way to go.... eating great food and right in the middle of great sex. life is so simple.

 

ignorance is not bliss. as long as people want or has a need to learn, it is there. look to your older uncles, aunts and you will learn bundles of things.

 

Not harsh at all. One of the things I love about teaching in Weslaco, Texas on the border and now in San Antonio is I learn what it is like to grow up as a first or second generation Mexican-American. Now that I am in San Antonio I hear stories about being almost every minority and branch of the military kid there are. Most people who study and teach literature score high in empathy.

 

You are killing me with the breakfast reference. Fresh homemade tortillas with butter, frijoles with a sheen of lard on top, fresh fried eggs with salsa, a little chorizo or bacon . . .

[LDF]

 

maybe i am being bias and this should be for the food link, but there is no better breakfast than a good mexican breakfast..... the only thing that will make it better, sharing with your love ones.

 

 

[cabiness42]

maybe i am being bias and this should be for the food link, but there is no better breakfast than a good mexican breakfast..... the only thing that will make it better, sharing with your love ones.

 

Taco Bell serves breakfast now.

[LDF]

Taco Bell serves breakfast now.

oh man that is extremely funny.... i wish i can find an adjective to describe it.

 

[Texsox]

Taco Bell serves breakfast now.

[Texsox]

maybe i am being bias and this should be for the food link, but there is no better breakfast than a good mexican breakfast..... the only thing that will make it better, sharing with your love ones.

 

x2