The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
On a similar note, though, I have never understood what the appeal is of fraternities and sororities. I'm pretty certain I broke my dad's heart a little when I chose a college that explicitly banned Greek houses.
On a similar note, though, I have never understood what the appeal is of fraternities and sororities. I'm pretty certain I broke my dad's heart a little when I chose a college that explicitly banned Greek houses.
I haven't read the articles that you posted, but surely the students violated some code of student conduct that suffices to expel them, no?
On a similar note, though, I have never understood what the appeal is of fraternities and sororities. I'm pretty certain I broke my dad's heart a little when I chose a college that explicitly banned Greek houses.
I haven't read the articles that you posted, but surely the students violated some code of student conduct that suffices to expel them, no?
I imagine you could find some technicality elsewhere to nail them. But here's one piece of what Volokh said--there's a lot more in there, though:
Eugene Volokh wrote:
The university president wrote that the students are being expelled for “your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.” But there is no First Amendment exception for racist speech, or exclusionary speech, or — as the cases I mentioned above — for speech by university students that “has created a hostile educational environment for others.”
On a similar note, though, I have never understood what the appeal is of fraternities and sororities. I'm pretty certain I broke my dad's heart a little when I chose a college that explicitly banned Greek houses.
I haven't read the articles that you posted, but surely the students violated some code of student conduct that suffices to expel them, no?
I imagine you could find some technicality elsewhere to nail them. But here's one piece of what Volokh said--there's a lot more in there, though:
Eugene Volokh wrote:
The university president wrote that the students are being expelled for “your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.” But there is no First Amendment exception for racist speech, or exclusionary speech, or — as the cases I mentioned above — for speech by university students that “has created a hostile educational environment for others.”
I guarantee that there's some generic, nebulous provision in the code of conduct that forbids things such as "inciting hostility among students and faculty detrimental to the university and it's core mission." 1st amendment free speech doesn't apply across the board in the manner Volokh implies.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
Chris_H_2 wrote:
I guarantee that there's some generic, nebulous provision in the code of conduct that forbids things such as "inciting hostility among students and faculty detrimental to the university and it's core mission." 1st amendment free speech doesn't apply across the board in the manner Volokh implies.
It would be a fascinating case to see if it goes through the courts. One other possible counterargument is if one considers attending college a privilege instead of a right. And there's also the possibility that even if this move is found unconstitutional months/years later, it was still necessary for Boren to do from a PR and human decency standpoint.
I hate when people act like the 1st amendment provides you with protection from any and all consequences. Not that you're doing that GH, but it always comes up in cases like this.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
Orpheus wrote:
I hate when people act like the 1st amendment provides you with protection from any and all consequences. Not that you're doing that GH, but it always comes up in cases like this.
The best/worst times is the butthurt reaction from people who get called out on the stupid or terrible thing they just said.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
Bammer wrote:
My frat was fun.
Could you expound on that a bit? I knew it would never be for me but I can understand how it could be for others--what kind of value did you get that you might not have from other extracurricular activities?
I hate when people act like the 1st amendment provides you with protection from any and all consequences. Not that you're doing that GH, but it always comes up in cases like this.
I was under the impression that the idea of protected speech protected the speaker only from prosecution from the government. Perhaps I am incorrect in the spirit of the law.
That said, imagine the consequences if they stayed on campus. Ostracized much? That may also be the reason they have to go, if it didn't cause an unsafe campus at the time, once released it almost certainly does now.
I get the longing to belong and the brotherhood aspect of the fraternity thing, how it's professional networking that stuff, but seriously, when they start asking you to write that check to be a member as if prestige mattered.... man keep it. My college only had honor societies. I'm glad for it.
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm Posts: 31614 Location: Garbage Dump
Electromatic wrote:
Orpheus wrote:
I hate when people act like the 1st amendment provides you with protection from any and all consequences. Not that you're doing that GH, but it always comes up in cases like this.
I was under the impression that the idea of protected speech protected the speaker only from prosecution from the government. Perhaps I am incorrect in the spirit of the law.
Yes, this is correct. You may not be able to be prosecuted for saying something racist at work, but your employer can sure as hell fire you.
An enigma of a man shaped hole in the wall between reality and the soul of the devil.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 5:13 pm Posts: 39822 Location: 6000 feet beyond man and time.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
Orpheus wrote:
I hate when people act like the 1st amendment provides you with protection from any and all consequences. Not that you're doing that GH, but it always comes up in cases like this.
I was under the impression that the idea of protected speech protected the speaker only from prosecution from the government. Perhaps I am incorrect in the spirit of the law.
Yes, this is correct. You may not be able to be prosecuted for saying something racist at work, but your employer can sure as hell fire you.
Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 9:32 pm Posts: 31614 Location: Garbage Dump
BurtReynolds wrote:
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
Electromatic wrote:
Orpheus wrote:
I hate when people act like the 1st amendment provides you with protection from any and all consequences. Not that you're doing that GH, but it always comes up in cases like this.
I was under the impression that the idea of protected speech protected the speaker only from prosecution from the government. Perhaps I am incorrect in the spirit of the law.
Yes, this is correct. You may not be able to be prosecuted for saying something racist at work, but your employer can sure as hell fire you.
What if you say something racist outside of work?
I think that can be tricky territory, and it is largely dependent on what your contract with your employer contains. A lot of them do have clauses about representing the company even when off the clock. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the whole thing.
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 9:55 pm Posts: 13819 Location: An office full of assholes
Green Habit wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
I guarantee that there's some generic, nebulous provision in the code of conduct that forbids things such as "inciting hostility among students and faculty detrimental to the university and it's core mission." 1st amendment free speech doesn't apply across the board in the manner Volokh implies.
It would be a fascinating case to see if it goes through the courts. One other possible counterargument is if one considers attending college a privilege instead of a right. And there's also the possibility that even if this move is found unconstitutional months/years later, it was still necessary for Boren to do from a PR and human decency standpoint.
So I thought about this some more, and I realized that I forgot that we're dealing with a state actor. So the issue really is what you noted about education being a right v. privilege.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
