Jump to content


Did the racist Sooner student deserve to get expelled?


Boomer Sooner Friggin' Hillbillies  

19 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

They did something really bad and that shouldn't go without consequences.

 

That said, college students say and do outrageous things sometimes that they do not mean. This is their lives we are talking about. By expelling them, Oklahoma University is mainly saving face. And they reserve that right, sure, but it seems harsh. ColoradoHusk is right too, though. People have probably been expelled for much less.

 

I just think, what couldn't have been accomplished by a severe censure and suspension?

Link to comment

I just think, what couldn't have been accomplished by a severe censure and suspension?

 

The University would have come under fire. Trust me. It would have been ugly and there for everyone to see in the media and when those kids came back to school they would have been targets along with the entire frat as well as the OU adminstration.

Link to comment

 

If the kid is under scholarship I could see the expulsion being right. But if the kid is paying the University money for his education it becomes a completely different argument in my opinion. Like I said, I'm glad he's gone, he got what he deserved, but you have to look at things from both sides. Just b/c I don't agree with racist, bigots, etc doesn't mean they don't have that freedom. It's why the USA is the USA. It's based on freedom of thought, speech, belief, etc. When we start taking away peoples rights and freedoms, then I will become very worried about my own.

I'll disagree with the assertion that this kid having the right to spew racism is what makes the USA the USA. He doesn't have the right to distribute child pornography, for example, because that's a line too far. We simply haven't defined the line to utterly include hate speech. Many countries do, and they are to be applauded. The fact that America doesn't define hate speech specifically as a crime doesn't make America better. It makes us worse. We should be better than that.

 

All speech is not equal. It was never meant to be 100% equal, and it should not be 100% equal.

 

 

I'm far more concerned that I don't have the "right or freedom" to add a deck to my house without the government's approval (and I see no threads in this forum decrying that right being taken away) than I am with this kid getting expelled. If what this kid did is constitutional, the Constitution is wrong.

 

Distributing child pornography is against the law, being racist isn't. All of your examples you have given in this thread haven't really been equal to what is being talked about. Like I've mentioned, don't try to prove that the way you feel is "right", the way you have to look at things in the real world is not about what you think or feel.

 

And what the kid did is by law constitutional, so I guess the constitution is wrong and you should relocate to those other countries that better fit your beliefs and what you think is "right". Oh wait, I guess you have the right to choose to stay. Man this country sucks.

 

I mean if being racist, bigoted, etc is against the law don't you think that the Westboro pukes would be in jail by now. They picket frickin funerals for crying out loud.

Link to comment

The Tinker Case...Supreme Court ruled that if the speech is NOT disruptive the students can stay...if it is disruptive the school can do what they need to do.

 

Skokie Case...Nazi's had the right to march in Skokie IL, even though that town has a huge Jewish population.

 

Judges look at each case individually...in school cases (most of them) the general rule is that if it is not disruptive it is okay...

 

Interesting side story: 16 year old boy at a high school near a marine base (where most of the boys had Marine parents and were planning to enlist themselves) decides he wants to start wearing a "Marines Are Dumb" shirt to school...

 

The principal pulls the kid aside and says "Son, I am gonna want you to change that shirt or turn it inside out"

The kid, of course, being a jackass says "I don't have to, it is my right to wear it, the Bill of Rights protects my freedom of expression"

 

The principal replies "Yep, I know it does...the problem is...I can't protect you once you walk off the school property and about 15 soon-to-be marines decide they want to beat the piss out of you"

 

Principal made him put a new shirt on...did he "infringe" on his rights? Sure...did he save the kid an ass beating? Yep.

Link to comment

 

 

If the kid is under scholarship I could see the expulsion being right. But if the kid is paying the University money for his education it becomes a completely different argument in my opinion. Like I said, I'm glad he's gone, he got what he deserved, but you have to look at things from both sides. Just b/c I don't agree with racist, bigots, etc doesn't mean they don't have that freedom. It's why the USA is the USA. It's based on freedom of thought, speech, belief, etc. When we start taking away peoples rights and freedoms, then I will become very worried about my own.

I'll disagree with the assertion that this kid having the right to spew racism is what makes the USA the USA. He doesn't have the right to distribute child pornography, for example, because that's a line too far. We simply haven't defined the line to utterly include hate speech. Many countries do, and they are to be applauded. The fact that America doesn't define hate speech specifically as a crime doesn't make America better. It makes us worse. We should be better than that.

 

All speech is not equal. It was never meant to be 100% equal, and it should not be 100% equal.

 

 

I'm far more concerned that I don't have the "right or freedom" to add a deck to my house without the government's approval (and I see no threads in this forum decrying that right being taken away) than I am with this kid getting expelled. If what this kid did is constitutional, the Constitution is wrong.

 

Distributing child pornography is against the law, being racist isn't. All of your examples you have given in this thread haven't really been equal to what is being talked about. Like I've mentioned, don't try to prove that the way you feel is "right", the way you have to look at things in the real world is not about what you think or feel.

 

And what the kid did is by law constitutional, so I guess the constitution is wrong and you should relocate to those other countries that better fit your beliefs and what you think is "right". Oh wait, I guess you have the right to choose to stay. Man this country sucks.

 

I mean if being racist, bigoted, etc is against the law don't you think that the Westboro pukes would be in jail by now. They picket frickin funerals for crying out loud.

 

 

 

This thread isn't about the constitution. NUance asked if they deserved to get expelled, not if it was constitutional. You brought up the Constitution in post #8. So I don't have to "prove" anything - answering this thread, I'm OK to give my opinion. And I have.

 

Further, the Constitution is frequently wrong. That's why we amend it. Thinking the Constitution is wrong doesn't mean a person has to leave the country, it means they should strive to change it. And I do.

Link to comment

 

 

 

If the kid is under scholarship I could see the expulsion being right. But if the kid is paying the University money for his education it becomes a completely different argument in my opinion. Like I said, I'm glad he's gone, he got what he deserved, but you have to look at things from both sides. Just b/c I don't agree with racist, bigots, etc doesn't mean they don't have that freedom. It's why the USA is the USA. It's based on freedom of thought, speech, belief, etc. When we start taking away peoples rights and freedoms, then I will become very worried about my own.

I'll disagree with the assertion that this kid having the right to spew racism is what makes the USA the USA. He doesn't have the right to distribute child pornography, for example, because that's a line too far. We simply haven't defined the line to utterly include hate speech. Many countries do, and they are to be applauded. The fact that America doesn't define hate speech specifically as a crime doesn't make America better. It makes us worse. We should be better than that.

 

All speech is not equal. It was never meant to be 100% equal, and it should not be 100% equal.

 

 

I'm far more concerned that I don't have the "right or freedom" to add a deck to my house without the government's approval (and I see no threads in this forum decrying that right being taken away) than I am with this kid getting expelled. If what this kid did is constitutional, the Constitution is wrong.

 

Distributing child pornography is against the law, being racist isn't. All of your examples you have given in this thread haven't really been equal to what is being talked about. Like I've mentioned, don't try to prove that the way you feel is "right", the way you have to look at things in the real world is not about what you think or feel.

 

And what the kid did is by law constitutional, so I guess the constitution is wrong and you should relocate to those other countries that better fit your beliefs and what you think is "right". Oh wait, I guess you have the right to choose to stay. Man this country sucks.

 

I mean if being racist, bigoted, etc is against the law don't you think that the Westboro pukes would be in jail by now. They picket frickin funerals for crying out loud.

 

 

 

This thread isn't about the constitution. NUance asked if they deserved to get expelled, not if it was constitutional. You brought up the Constitution in post #8. So I don't have to "prove" anything - answering this thread, I'm OK to give my opinion. And I have.

 

Further, the Constitution is frequently wrong. That's why we amend it. Thinking the Constitution is wrong doesn't mean a person has to leave the country, it means they should strive to change it. And I do.

 

You should start that amendment. He asked if they deserved to get expelled and I said yes. But I just like to mention that just b/c I thought they deserved it doesn't make it right unlike many people on here who think just b/c it's their opinion that it is absolutely right too. Thanks for helping me prove that point.

Link to comment

You should start that amendment. He asked if they deserved to get expelled and I said yes. But I just like to mention that just b/c I thought they deserved it doesn't make it right unlike many people on here who think just b/c it's their opinion that it is absolutely right too. Thanks for helping me prove that point.

What?

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

If it turns out that racist frat kid is acting within his Constitutional right to freedom of speech in singing that song—which I think is likelydoes that matter? Can OU maintain more stringent standards to regulate speech than the U.S. Constitution allows?

 

But really, that's sort of a hypothetical question. Frat kid did not get kicked out solely because of the racist content of his song. He most likely got kicked out because of all the negative publicity. I'll bet dollars to donuts that if this had been brought to David Boren's attention privately, and was not publicized on any news outlets, the outcome would have been much different. Boren probably would not have kicked SAE off campus and expelled the racist frat kid, absent the huge sh#tstorm of controversy this created. Instead, it probably would have only resulted in a nasty letter from Boren's office and some sort of probation. (I am guessing about this, of course. LOL)

 

If that is indeed the casethat the kid got kicked out because of the publicitydoes he still deserve expulsion? What if this scandal didn't reach the national news, but was only covered by the OU student newspaper? Would he deserve expulsion then? What if no media outlets covered it, would it be okay for Boren to kick him out then?

Link to comment

Without repeating all of the comments above, I agree with Knapp's logic on this one. Actions and words have consequences. My freedoms end when I infringe on the rights of another. In this case, I believe OU acted in their best self-interest plus the interest of other students. Who knows what could have happened on campus if no action was taken - a mini Ferguson perhaps. In our current social/political environment, fast action was needed.

 

BTW: David Boren was one of those dems that I have voted for in the past.

Link to comment

Did he deserve to get expelled? Yes, he damaged the OU brand and I would bet he violated some sort of behavior guideline that OU could cite. However, looking at it from a strictly constitutional angle, I would say his actions, as hateful and distasteful as it may be, would be considered protected speech. But that really isn't the point here. It doesn't matter if OU would win the day in court or not. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by expelling this kid. Even if it got overturned on constitutional grounds, they still win so, that makes what they did (attempted to do) the right thing to do.

 

Is it fair? Not necessarily. Should this one kid be the lone scapegoat? No. Does this do one thing to reverse racism? Yes, but only one thing and little more. Some people, some groups of people, are and will be racist. There's not a whole lot we can do about that but, not accepting it as acceptable behavior is a good starting point so kudos to OU for that.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...