When I saw the videos of the members of the University of Oklahoma’s ΣAE fraternity singing racist songs on a bus, I was thoroughly appalled. Not only were they singing about how they’d never have a black person in their fraternity, but, using the “n” word, they sang about lynching, saying that “you can hang them [blacks] from a tree.” Apart from the lynching, it reminded me of my father’s experience at Penn State in the 1930s, when no fraternity—out of about 40—would ever accept a Jewish student, except for the two all-Jewish fraternities, the only place they could go. Clearly, racism is alive and well on campuses, as is anti-semitism and sexism. They’ve just gone underground, so it’s no longer kosher to utter these sentiments in public. When they become public, as they did in this case, disapprobation and punishment is swift. At least we’ve moved that far in society. The elimination of bigotry begins when it’s no longer socially acceptable to be a bigot in public.
In light of this overt racism, the University of Oklahoma expelled two students who were both identifiable and making the offensive chant. The university also closed the fraternity house, giving the members only a day to remove their belongings and find other housing. I found the fraternity closure a bit draconian, for it punishes every fraternity member for the transgressions of only some of them.
But I also find the expulsion of the two students unacceptable—on grounds of free speech. The University of Oklahoma is a public university, an arm of the state government, and as such it’s governed by the First Amendment. That means that free speech is permitted—even speech that is horribly offensive—so long as it doesn’t incite immediate violence. Those racist students were therefore free to say what they wanted without fear of punishment.
Now I know that this sounds horrible, as if I’m condoning racism, and that the first reaction of many people is to say, “How can you permit that hate speech and the demonization of African-Americans? We must wipe it out!” And I agree that every effort should be made to expunge racism from America (or anywhere else). But there’s a larger principle at stake here, for banning “hate speech” is a slippery slope. One person’s hate speech is another person’s incitement to discussion. Why were the fraternity brothers so opposed to blacks joining their group? And what about the anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic remarks recently made on the UCLA campus? Should we ban those, too, since they create a “climate of hate” for Jewish students? What about the Muslim students who think that Jesus and Mo tee shirts are just as bad as racist chants? In my view, all of that should be allowed. Both legally and for the good of free discussion, all views must be heard.
Lest you think I’m being selective here, I would also defend fraternities’ right to make anti-Semitic chants, calling for the refusal of fraternities to accept Jews and even for people to gas them. Such sentiments would of course appall me, and make me uncomfortable, but I would fight back with every bit of speech I could muster. That is life. Colleges are microcosms of the real world, and out there there is racism, sexism, and anti-semitism that is not censored. Why should students be protected from it in college? If we are to allow free speech, then we must allow the most offensive of speech; otherwise the principle means nothing. The courts have agreed with this.
Because of this, I see no legal grounds for either expelling or punishing the students beyond the University admonishing them and telling them why. What is appropriate in this case is for black students to fight back with their own speech, calling out the racism for what it is and even calling for shunning the offending students. In a private university, where free speech rights don’t apply, the racist students could of course be expelled, but I would be leery of that, too.
I’m sure many readers will disagree with me, since it seems that I’m condoning racism or discrimination against minorities. I’m not; I’m arguing that free speech is a greater good than banning speech that is offensive. Banning speech does not stifle people’s bigotry—it just drives it underground. What eliminates bigotry is a free exchange of ideas, even if the ideas you battle make you intensely uncomfortable. I suppose I have faith (sorry to use that word) that airing all views will, in the end, help promote Enlightenment values.
I’m not alone in my views, for even some liberal legal scholars agree. My colleague Geoff Stone, who is about as liberal as a constitutional lawyer comes, argues as much in The New York Times:
[University of Oklahoma President David] Boren, in an interview Monday as he considered what action to take, said he was examining the relevance of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial discrimination by agencies that receive federal funds and, federal officials have said, forbids creation of a “racially hostile environment” in schools.
But Title VI is addressed to literal discrimination, and statements by students in a private setting do not come near to violating it, said Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor of law at the University of Chicago. A university could discipline students for disrupting classes with irrelevant or uncivil speech, Mr. Stone said, or otherwise disrupting the operations of the school.
“But it’s hard to make that case here,” he said of the Oklahoma situation. “The statements were made in the innocuous setting of a bus, and any disruption came from the showing of the video, not from the students’ speech,” Mr. Stone said.
. . . On Tuesday, the university’s president, David L. Boren, notified two students that “You will be expelled because of your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.”
Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, and prominent legal blogger, wrote that “similar things could be said about a vast range of other speech,” including praise for Muslim groups like Hamas that call for destruction of Israel, which could make Jews uncomfortable, or calls by black students for violent resistance to white police officers, which white students could interpret as hostile. [You can see Volokh’s argument in a piece in The Washington Post, which also addresses the argument that this speech violates nondiscrimination laws or constitutes a threat to the personal safety of African-Americans.]
But not every legal scholar agrees. As the Times notes:
In a break with most legal experts, Daria Roithmayr, a law professor at the University of Southern California who has written about the interplay of law and racism, said that a plausible argument could be made that the students’ action caused a “material disruption” in the university’s educational mission and was not protected by the First Amendment.
“The entire university now has to repudiate the bigotry of a fraternity,” she said, and for black students, “it’s a massive disruption.”
The University of Oklahoma has a code of “rights and responsibilities” prohibiting “conduct that is sufficiently severe and pervasive that it alters the conditions of education or employment and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating, harassing or humiliating.”
Whether the Saturday night chant amounted to such a violation, legal experts said, the code could not take precedence over First Amendment rights.
I agree with the “legal experts”, because any group can argue that speech that makes them uncomfortable, or demonizes them, constitutes a disruption. Instutional discrimination is a different matter: if fraternities are considered part of a public university (I’m not sure what their status is), then discriminating on ethnic, religious, or sexuality grounds for membership is illegal.
Some people might raise this objection: Isn’t sexual harassment, construed as creating a climate in the workplace that devalues and discriminates against women, among others, also illegal? And couldn’t that be effected through speech and conduct? But this is an issue of personal harassment and possible job discrimination persistently directed at specific individuals, which repeatedly targets people in enclosed spaces that they cannot avoid—issues not at play in the Oklahoma case. But there are gray areas. What if a professor says things in class, unrelated to his course, that students construe as creating a hostile environment?
In the end, the courts will (and should) adjudicate this issue. My bet is that if the Oklahoma students were to contest their expulsion on First Amendment grounds, they would win. In the meantime, I think we should avoid the immediate and instinctive desire to levy the maximum punishment against people who say odious and bigoted things in a public institution.
Your view is not just constitutional and enlightened, it’s practical.
Practical in the sense that it’s an easy standard to understand and enforce. It doesn’t call for someone to make judgement calls in gray areas. Nothing arbitrary. Bring on the clash of ideas at the crossroads of learning.
That’s all well and good, so long as there is space for the legitimate clash of ideas. When the authorities side with the bigots, the minorities so targeted might never be heard. That is my only concern.
Although not a perfect parallel, it brings to mind John Oliver’s illustration of “the climate change debate”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg.
Apologies if anyone else already posted this.
I think those students should be expelled from a public university because they are using public property to discriminate against others. The university itself can’t discriminate and I should not have to support that with my tax money.
If they say these things on their own time, on their own property or in a private university then they can exercise their freedom of speech as they wish.
No free speech on public property would gut a lot of the first amendment, even eliminating the political back and forth it was invented to protect. So, you can object to some government policy but not while on the sidewalk? The police can arrest you for saying anti-governmental things in public, just not in your home? That sounds good to you?
Public areas are IMO exactly where it is most important to protect free speech. Because the first amendment was intended to prevent the government from shutting down public disagreement with them.
This is exactly right.
And: No one has a right to “not be offended”.
Exactly. “Free speech only on your own land” means “Shut up, poor people.”
Exactly, sounds like NewEnglandBob has it backwards, it is public property which should be most protected, where freedom of expression is most vital. In your own privacy you have the freedom to censor, to choose what you will expose yourself to, but in public, everyone should have the space available, in equal proportion, to voice their opinion.
In many universities the fraternity houses aren’t university property, just near by, so I am not sure that would work even if desirable.
On the other hand if they are on campus, I think that one should be very careful, for the reasons Jerry has outlined. I also have a big problem with universities, schools – anyone “policing” those connected when not officially acting, etc.
The universities are allowed to disciplie people. They can discipline someone for talking in class or using a cell phone or breaking other University rules. None of these are 1st Amendment issues and neither is discipline for speech they find offensive and against University rules.
The glaring difference would seem to be that talking in class and the other examples listed are about physical behavior, not content.
Talking in class is *on campus*, while *at a university activity*.
And I think you didn’t think because you have no evidence that the bus where this took place was on public property nor that it was on transportation provided by the University. It’s entirely possible that the students paid for this transportation to an event out of their own funds.
You’ve really got that backwards. If you leave free speech only for private institutions, those institutions will manipulate it in whatever way suits their own agenda and you’re left with a situation where those with the most money get to set the narrative in society. That’s why free speech has to be a public concept. It has to be available to all people equally.
What those students said was terrible, but I agree, they should not have been expelled.
we should all exercise our own right to free speech by condemning SAE as strenuously as possible and I think it is way past time for Universities to examine whether or not the “Greek system” should have any role on college campuses at all. But they should not be expelled. They should be so thoroughly ostracized that continuing their education at the University of Oklahoma would be unthinkable to most of them, but the infringement of free speech on college campuses is becoming a very worrying trend.
I don’t think that the students should be expelled. What the kids on the bus chanted was offensive, sure, but mostly it was just stupid and the cure for stupid is education. The uni should keep them in school where they might learn what was wrong with what they did. Kicking them out will only fuel resentment and add to their racism.
I agree. The brains of these kids are still growing, and at that age a lot of their ideas are what other people have told them, not what they have worked out for themselves. If they came from a racist family, for example, they might not know any other way to be. In fact, if that is the kind of family they have, they might even deserve pity. This should be a teaching moment. I heard some amazing black kids speaking on that campus about the situation – some of them would probably feel up to some kind of mentor relationship with these kids.
What does the latest research say about when the brain is fully grown? Around age 23?
Beyond that, by what age can one no longer reasonably claim, as the old pop standard song says, “Blame It on My Youth” as the reason/excuse for ones bad judgement and irresponsibility?
I’m no expert. Here’s an article I read a while ago: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24173194
Heather, thank you for that link. Everyone matures at their own pace and the end of adolescence is a critical time, when the brain goes from fluid to solid and pretty much determines how it goes from there.
Even if they grew up in a racist family, surely they have been exposed to enough of civilized society to very well know that what they were saying was ignorant and reprehensible.
And they were certainly old enough to know better.
And don’t forget that the “house mother” of that fraternity was also on video using those same bigoted words. And she is 70 years old.
I think you just made my point, with the housemother. By the same token, what would have happened with the Jewish college student in California, if the faculty advisor were politically on the side of the bigoted questioners and felt no need to step in?
Free speech is all well and good, so long as there’s a fair ground on which to verbally battle things out, but if the bigoted speech is protected or overwhelming, the targeted few don’t stand a fair chance. And, I don’t know how to fix that, much less how to fix it without hurting free speech.
I agree with you on this issue pretty much across the board. “Disagree with what you say but defend your right to say it” is IMO the preferred response to such idiocy.
The comparison to workplace sexual harassment is interesting, because it points out why this particular racism shouldn’t count but also shows when and how other racism could count as harassment. It is easy to imagine a fraternity or unaffiliated group of students making racist comments to an individual, in or around a class they’ve all signed up to take, even after the individual repeatedly asks them to stop. That would (IMO) be harassment. But no individual on that bus was being targeted or objected to the speech. Its not a question then of sexual/racist with one being allowed speech and the other not being: both are allowed in some contexts but harassment in other contexts. In this context, not harassment.
I agree and add that the students and the fraternity chapter have an option: they can sue. Such a suit would work the muscles of the First Amendment.
I’ve been thinking the same thing, Jerry. If we’re going to support Charlie Hebdo, we don’t get to be selective. Free speech is all or none.
Mark Twain was criticized for using the N word too often in Huck Finn. His response was to deal with it. That’s how things are. If you don’t like it, work for change.
Cases like this remind us work is needed. But not by casting them out. Casting them out may encourage entrenchment. I say let shame and ridicule take its course. Better these students remain on campus, forced to look at their fellow classmates. And see what looks back.
The slope is very slippery indeed. In Scotland we have a law against sectarian hate speech, and it has resulted in one individual being under police investigation for tweeting, to the abominable Anjem Chaudary, one of the grosser Charlie Hebdo cartoons: http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/police-launch-chris-graham-mohammed-tweet-probe-1-3717778
Hmm, interesting. In the U.S. hate speech laws affect how someone is sentenced for doing a crime already on the books, but they did not and do not make previously legal speech illegal. Thus, if you hit someone ‘as a hate crime’ you can get a harsher sentence than if you did it for some other reason, but simply verbally hating on someone or some group without commiting an otherwise illegal act is not a crime.
I was wondering when you were going to post on this topic. I agree entirely that while these chants were shockingly reprehensible, they were not directly taunting African-Americans nor, it seems to me, inciting anyone to violence. Thus, they would seem to fall under freedom of speech.
It would seem more appropriate to determine who participated in this chant and to put the individuals up in front of an honor court of some sort. Let them face the withering storm of disapproval from their peers by having their photos and case appear in the newspapers and by having them go through the honor court proceedings.
It does seem unfair that the whole fraternity is punished when it is not clear that they were all involved, but I nonetheless find it hard to find much sympathy in my heart. This is one of my own unfortunate biases that I have to consciously and constantly correct for. I don’t even know precisely why I have an anti-fraternity bias!
While not all members of the fraternity were involved, it’s rather disturbing that — from what I can tell in a shaky 10 second clip — the people on the bus seemed to know the song, and know the words. If SAE isn’t suffering from any endemic racism then the existence of an apparently popular little ditty about their ‘no n****r’ policy is a bit too suspicious.
Otherwise, I think I agree with Jerry. Racism is far too prevalent in our society, but it’s not in the ‘burning house’ mode of the 1920’s. That is, we have improved to the point where we seriously need to talk, and talk a lot.
It is elucidating to look at the history of SAE: ‘only frat founded in the Antebellum South’ (1856 Alabama); original founder was named DeVotie, and in 1861, of its <400 members, 369 joined the Confederacy while only 7 joined the Union. DeVotie proved to be a rather incompetent sort: he slipped while boarding a boat in early 1861, hit his head, fell in the water and drowned. Since that time SAE, and the state of Alabama, have touted him as being the first casualty of the Civil War.
Yes I agree that you can’t expel someone at a publicly funded university because they are racist.
The long term goal should be to make these students realize the error in holding such views. It may not be achievable in a 4-year period when they are getting their undergraduate education but that should still be the goal.
“you can hang them [blacks] from a tree” sounds an awful lot like incitement to violence to me. No, it’s not directed against specific individuals, but neither were the radio broadcasts in Rwanda in 1994.
Yes, I think the expulsions were well justified.
If you think that way, then certain books should be banned from campus and they should set up a committee to review songs (many should certainly be banned due to their lyrics). They should also have a blacklist of speakers that aren’t allowed on campus.
This sounds like searching for a pretext. It fails the laugh test to think these jackasses were actually advocating, right now, lynching anyone. Your admission that it is not about “specific individuals” is dispositive here that you concede this is protected speech, but are looking for a loophole.
I agree.
It’s quite analogous to religious students being “protected” from learning about evolution, etc.
If they were doing this in a dormitory or outside a black frat house, that would be entirely different.
I agree that the students shouldn’t be expelled. But I am cynical enough to think that perhaps there was a back door agreement (not to fight, say, a temporary expulsion) so that OU could make a public stand and thereby not drive away potential football and basketball recruits.
They already drove one away. A highly touted recruit for football withdrew his letter of intent because the football coach didn’t call him, advise him of what happened, and explain the university’s position. He was chuffed that he had to find it out in the paper/TV or whatever.
You must be ‘Murican. In Britain ‘chuffed’ means very pleased, delighted.
“You must be ‘Murican. In Britain ‘chuffed’ means very pleased, delighted.”
How about “chafed” or “chapped”?
“He’s a good chap, but while wearing his chaps while riding his horse in cold weather he got chapped lips and had to use his chapstick.”
No, they don’t mean the same at all. No connection.
I don’t think that that the university has to tolerate students using racially abusive language, which can help to create a climate of intimidation for minority students. It will surely be part of the university’s code of conduct that it will not tolerate discriminatory behaviour.
The principle of free-speech should be to protect the free exchange of ideas, not the right to use offensive language in any situation.
Expelling the students was probably a face-saving measure, they should probably have been given a warning for a first offence.
A warning? Nonsense. If the expulsion is a rights violation, and it is, then so would be a warning. “I won’t violate your first amendment rights this time, but next time I will?”
The University has every right (and probably a legal requirement) to ensure its employees do not act in a legally discrimatory manner when on the job. But students are not employees, and singing a racist song is not like preventing someone from signing up for a class or grading them differently because of the color of their skin.
The fraternity members were certainly expressing an idea, and I very much doubt that the Uni’s decision hinged solely on the use of the n-word. Are you saying that if they’d sung the same song and used the word “blacks” instead, the Uni would not have responded?
I’d be very surprised if the university didn’t have a code of conduct for its students. They’re surely not allowed to behave however they like without consequences.
Singing a stupid song about lynching could clearly be intimidating and is certainly grossly offensive to black students. That’s not speech that is worth defending. It has no place in a civilized society.
“speech worth defending”
I’m sorry, but I will not submit people’s rights to your value judgment. People said exactly what you are saying about advocacy for racial equality in the past. Look at some ante-bellum southern laws.
It’s not *my* value judgement, it’s society’s value judgement.
You’re putting freedom of speech above everything else. What about people’s right to live, work and study in an environment that is not threatening to them. What about the stress and intimidation caused to people by the regular expression of racist attitudes? What about the way such behaviour may reinforce ingrained prejudices?
That’s what criticism and condemnation are for. You aren’t going to say these guys have not been criticized are you?
“It’s not *my* value judgement, it’s society’s value judgement.”
This is hopeless as an argument. If society deems atheism a bad thing then atheists should be silenced? What about gays in Iran?
It’s also a contradiction to your threat argument. On the one hand a stupid racist song makes the world dangerous, so many members of society will rush out in lynch mobs, and on the other hand “society’s” condemnation is so clear, so strong that it warrants expulsion.
It’s also codswallop. It is not my judgment that racist speech warrants censorship; it is not Coyne’s judgment; it is not the judgment of the USSC in its precedents; it is not the judgment of many commentators on this thread. We’re part of society too. It is your judgment wrapped in bumf about “society” to give it greater authority.
All societies have mores, sometimes these are formally enshrined by laws, sometimes not. Regardless of where the law stands, overt racist behaviour has become taboo in western society. That’s what I have in mind when I say it’s not just my value judgement, it’s the value judgement of society at large.
You should, of course, be free to challenge society’s mores and laws. Indeed, free speech needs to be protected, so we can rationally assess our customs and laws. But one can argue for the right to be able to engage in racist behaviour, without engaging in that behaviour itself, by using offensive racist language. So that sort of speech does not need to be protected by law, and arguably should be against the law in public spaces, because of the harm it does.
I would imagine that you would find acceptable some restrictions on expression in the public sphere. We don’t have billboards featuring hard core pornography, for example, because of the offence that that would cause a lot of people. Nor are people allowed to express their love of the human form, by walking around in the nude. If you would accept these restriction on free expression, then why not restrictions on verbal expressions that cause harm?
Sorry, I see now that I’ve misunderstood what you were referring to as my value judgement — you meant my judgement about which types of speech are worth defending. I thought you meant my negative judgement of racism.
“But students are not employees.”
In the last several years graduate students have been standing their ground with university administrators, feeling that their labor has been exploited by universities. Universities have relied on the notion that students aren’t employees, so labor law/rights don’t apply to students.
So, if students aren’t worthy of being treated as decently as employees, then what are students? Serfs? Indentured servants? Peasants? Peons?
You don’t have a right to not be offended.
I would think you are correct on this issue. If the students getting kicked out wanted to fight it, I believe they would win. First Amendment has to mean something. Now, if there had been even one black person on that bus it might not go that way because some of those other factors come into play.
On the sexual harassment business, that is a bit different. I understand lots of folks like to put that one in the same boat with other discriminatory events but it is a little different. EXAMPLE: If two people of the same grade/job at work — one starts to sexually harass the other, that is not really sexual harassment as defined in the work place. Now, let one of those persons be a supervisor of the other and do any harassing — then you have a case. With sexual harassment, position is an important part of the deal.
Pervasiveness is another determining factor. If the fraternity engaged in regular taunting of minorities, posted youtube videos or regularly made their feelings known on campus, that would be pervasive and would create a hostile environment. For a single act to do that it would have to be more severe than a privately sung song on a bus, however ugly.
One other aspect I haven’t seen discussed is the fact that these guys didn’t intend for their “speech” to be made public. They were surreptitiously filmed and I’ll bet the video was posted without their permission. Why should speech that’s not intended for public consumption be subjected to any punishment? It’s one of the perils of the Internet age I guess.
Will “Minority Report” become a reality and then one can actually be charged with and convicted of “thought crime”?
My thoughts too. Quite aside from free-speech issues, surely one should be able to say what one likes in private, appalling bad taste or not.
“Now I know that this sounds horrible, as if I’m condoning racism”
Not at all. It sounds like you are condoning impartial application of the law, and a principled defence of the first amendment.
You’re correct, Jerry. Free speech is much more important that the expulsion of two OU students. This is a situation roughly akin to the nazis marching in Skokie, IL., or the KKK burning crosses. I despise what those stupid bastards stand for, but they have the right to say it in this country. Remember what Douglas said to Lincoln…
The Skokie case was the first thing I thought of while reading Jerry’s post!
The Student Code of Ethics means nothing if they are allowed to stay in school. Others wishing an education should see it as a sign of a school they should not wish to attend if their ethics are so low.
The latter part of your statement gets at why the university used the nuclear option to expel the students. It is pure public relations.
Jerry, I agree with your analysis. The stupid young men should not be expelled. Further, while I loathe the overt condoing of racial violence in their childish performance, I do not think they need more than a public verbal lashing and/or some appropriate community service to learn the errors of their ways. Does anyone know if the cruel song was perhaps fueled by alcohol? I shudder to think of the entire lexicon of sexist Rugby songs I and my team used to sing years ago after several pints at the pub and what would have happened if UTube was available way back then…I am certain we would have been ‘expelled’ for ‘fostering an environment negative towards females.’ Very wrong in retrospect, but a recoverable mistake by the immature.
What did surprise me was the swiftness of the announcement of expulsion in this instance…..my guess is that this was in no small part driven by concerns about endowments or other $ issues. The senior OU leadership must have needed to look ‘tough’ to potential donors. What are the lives of two wayward frat boys worth compared to millions in revenue!
Young people often find “shock” humor hilarious. When I was in college back in the 1970s, deliberately offensive jokes were “in.” The fact that you were violating a taboo by saying them was part of the fun. Some samples: “I like Blacks–everyone should own one.” There was one phone in the hall for all the students who didn’t have their own; one guy used to answer it with “Johnson’s Abortion Clinic–you rape ’em, we scrape ’em.” This was the era of National Lampoon and underground comix; making jokes about racism, rape, the Holocaust, etc. did not mean that you thought these things were funny in real life. As drakodoc says, if the internet existed then, we all would have been in big trouble.
In the late 60’s a busload of us from a car club went on a weekend ski trip. And to pass the time, for four hours, we took turns in telling jokes – all the worst-taste sexist/racist/’dirty’ jokes anyone could think of. Included in that were jokes about blacks, Jews, Arabs, Irish, French, Germans, Hindus, Africans, Chinese, Australians, Maoris, ‘Poms’ (English), Russians, and I don’t know who else (and that was just the ethnic ones). Most of them were offensive and many of them were funny. As dracodok and Doug said, if anyone had recorded one of them and posted it on the Internet (had it existed) we would have been in dead trouble.
The point is that none of us (that I’m aware of) would seriously have supported racial discrimination. It would be highly misleading to judge our attitudes by our taste in jokes on a four-hour bus trip.
“The point is that none of us (that I’m aware of) would seriously have supported racial discrimination. It would be highly misleading to judge our attitudes by our taste in jokes on a four-hour bus trip.”
Do you recall if there was at least one present who did not tell any jokes, or did not respond with mirth to them? (Or perhaps one or more who responded with faux mirth because they did not want to draw attention to themselves. “Hey pal, why aren’t you laughing, huh?”) If so, might one reasonably infer that that person declined to voice any displeasure so as to avoid a tsunami of opprobrium while stuck with others for several hours in a vehicle? I myself have endured such circumstances, with an obnoxious and racist relative on a long-distance several-day trip.
Did any WASP male tell such a joke with a WASP male as its object of derision? That would be a good test of the “efficacy” of a joke. I gather that Jeff Foxworthy apparently can get by with telling redneck jokes because he freely and cheerfully admits that he himself is a redneck.
I acquired a huge stock of jokes on that trip, including a number of ‘Pommie’ (English) jokes.
A Pommie walks into a bar in Queensland (Australia) with a cane toad sitting on his head.
The barman says “Where d’you get that?” and the cane toad answers “It started as a wart on my arse”.
I’m a Pom, in New Zealand. Where men are men and sheep are nervous.
😉
“Does anyone know if the cruel song was perhaps fueled by alcohol?”
Suppose it was so fueled – what is to be done about that?
Also, there was that other vile video with the “n” word with the house mother chanting along to a hip hop/rap “song” (ha) by some genius named Trinidad James. Hip Hop/Rap being held in such high esteem in the popular culture, suppose the OU campus entertainment board (or whatever they call that committee)saw fit to try to bring this noble rapper to campus for a concert. Is the univ. administration positioned to prevent that from happening and, if so, on what basis? Is this incident going to give his “career” a boost? What if Trinidad James applied to OU, assuming he were academically qualified? Would he be accepted? What if he simply showed up on campus one day and went to the center of the “quad” (assuming OU has one) or inside the student center and starting spouting his mellifluous vocalizations? Free speech, eh?
There’s a lot of crap rap out there, refulgent with vile, racist, misogynistic and sexist language. How many students walk around campus with that issuing from their ear buds? Not a few I dare say. Why do they listen to it?
(Occasionally I look at a map of Africa, and note the countries Nigeria and Niger. And it occurs to me that one might be well advised to avoid uttering them, especially the latter as it is one letter short of the “n” word. Also, consider the Spanish word for “black.” What if anything ought one reasonably expect from and require of Spanish speakers regarding that word, should someone be offended by its use?)
Per http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/01/when_did_the_word_negro_become_taboo.html:
“The United Negro College Fund is now trying to emphasize its initials rather than its full name.”
Apparently the UNCF is “tiptoeing around” that language, eh?
I gather that they do not change their name because it is already so well known, and to change it to something else would handicap their efforts. Perhaps they should change it to “HBCF – Historically Black College Fund”?
And regarding the word for stingy and ungenerous that you reference, I know I’ve read somewhere of at least one instance of someone or a group being “offended” by it utterance.
“Occasionally I look at a map of Africa, and note the countries Nigeria and Niger. And it occurs to me that one might be well advised to avoid uttering them”
You are being facetious, I hope. What would you call them then? Those are their names, presumably named after their inhabitants in the days when ‘n….’ was not a tabu word, but they haven’t seen fit to change their names so presumably they’re okay with it.
As for the Spanish word ‘negro’ (meaning black – colour) – so what. I’d bet in any language there is at least one word which is ‘rude’ in some other language. It’s a consequence of the number of languages and the finite number of phonemes that humans can make. So long as the speaker is using the word in their language in an inoffensive context, no speaker of some other language is entitled to take offence IMO.
“You are being facetious, I hope. What would you call them then?”
Yes, I pretty much am being facetious.
(Guess I need to say, “I’m being facetious” in parens.) I hold your position on the matter. It’s not me who is presuming to be offended by “Niger” or “niggardly” or “Negro.”
(Hmm, I know a native of Nigeria is called a
Nigerian.” What is a native of Niger called?)
“Nigerien”, as it turns out.
One assumes then that Niger was French in colonial days.
Still, “Nigerian” vs “Nigerien” is a very small distinction.
Yep – esp as they sound nearly identical. I learned something new today with .hat one
Indeed. One answer given for “what are people from Niger called” was Nigeroise.
Apparently it didn’t catch on.
@Filippo:
I just wasn’t sure. It’s notoriously difficult to detect tone of voice on the Internet. Sorry for being tedious.
Soon coming to a campus near you:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/uw-investigates-claims-of-racial-slurs-by-frat-members/
Yes, that is a whole different thing there. Actual people being hit verbally with the racism.
In my college protest days, we wanted to get a response from people, that was part of the point. If people ignored you or smiled….you were doing it wrong.
A fine line. Universities still have the ability to expel students for misconduct, and the students behaviour may be characterized as such dependent on whatever policies may be in place.
By analogy, were the culprits employees of a Company instead, the Company would be able to dismiss them with cause, with a free speech remedy being somewhat problematic.
I like this statement from your posting the most:
“What is appropriate in this case is for black students to fight back with their own speech, calling out the racism for what it is and even calling for shunning the offending students.”
I think that’s sometimes lost in the discussion about what the government can do. These young men do not represent the prevailing view in our society. We shouldn’t feel threatened by their ignorance and bigotry. One small group don’t get to set the tone on a campus. By punishing it, the university seems to imply that they are combating a broader, systemic problem.
What would MLK, Jr. have done? Called for the University to have the young men expelled; or organized a rally, a counter-protest or other media event? The shaming and marginalization these people will face on campus by being painted as thugs and bullies antagonizing the righteous and peaceful is far more compelling that being expelled from OU. It’s also far healthier for the community to see the hate and bigotry for what it is, rather than having to debate if the violation justifies the punishment.
“The statements were made in the innocuous setting of a bus, and any disruption came from the showing of the video, not from the students’ speech”…
Can a moving bus, or indeed a fraternity (an institution based mainly on bullying and ritual humiliation, as far as I’m aware) be described as an ‘innocuous setting’? The freedom of less-loudmouthed students to separate themselves from the biggest arseholes is limited by being trapped in there with them. Sure, they could have resisted, like the folks on one of the 9/11 planes, but the collective punishment is pretty harsh.
Surely organisations have a right to get rid of people on the basis that they find their behaviour sub-par? Isn’t this one of the consequences of using your freedom of speech – that you don’t find yourself legally censored but you do find that organisations want nothing to do with you? What is the difference between someone declining to hire a known racist, and this case? Is it that the university is a government body? I’m genuinely interested.
Isn’t this one of the other ways that we deal with repugnant speech besides debating it – ie. saying polite society wants nothing to do with you? It seems a bit like the difference between censoring someone on the one hand and not inviting them to speak on the other. We’re not okay with the former, we are okay with the latter.
If the argument turns on the nature of universities, as governmental bodies and areas of free discourse, etc. I can understand it, but otherwise I’m not so sure.
I’m pretty sure you have to define “organizations” in this situation. A private firm is one type but a public school is another. Your recourse is different with the public institution and the first amendment has to come into play. Companies have all kinds of standard of conduct that can apply at work and even when not at work. The public school system is a whole different institution.
Agree.
Is (Are) there any (nuanced?) distinction(s) to be made between “free speech” and “political speech”? It strikes me that the latter is something of a subset of the former.
It would seem to me then that any well-organized and attended protest, etc. on a university campus could be considered a “material disruption”. Students would have been expelled en masse during the 60s. I’m hoping this incident has resulted in a huge amount of very vocal discussion on the Oklahoma campus; it should cause a disruption and bring an uncomfortable an earnest discussion to top of the agenda in almost every classroom and dorm room.
This is a real tough one…but it seems to me that we should make an exception for racial slurs for the same reason they make the exception for antisemitism in Europe– there is a terrible & recent history of consequences that stem directly from allowing such ideas to gain traction in public discourse; especially in the deep south, where these toxic memes are still very much alive. Absent such history free speech is, of course, the desired method of communicating on campus. I’m just not at all confident that– absent outside pressure– southern culture has the critical mass of progressives necessary to ward off such bad thinking…not yet anyway. Furthermore, race is an immutable characteristic, not a set of ideas, which should always be fair game for discussion; and we shouldn’t allow faith heads to conflate the two.
You know, I find that I agree with you, PCC. I had not thought of it before, their offensive speech should be protected even though it was offensive.
The expulsion and even the closure of the fraternity was wrong. It is another case of political correctness going off the rails b/c it was punitive. I wonder if a lawsuit would be possible.
I don’t disagree at all, in fact I am very pleased to hear a rational voice on this issue. Banning offensive speech is a very dangerous thing, for the reasons you gave that I need not repeat. As long as two or more humans interact, someone will have a bad idea, a stupid opinion, or be offended by another. When we allow a mob mentality–however well-intended–to drive the interpretation of laws and rights, we lose sight of what the law protects. Indignation is appropriate, but best expressed through the tools free speech provides.
We will most likely get to see how this plays out on TV and in court now that the fraternity has hired a big time lawyer. He just did a speech on CNN but I didn’t hear it.
Thank you for standing by your principles!
Fraternity chapters are franchises that are heavily regulated by contract with both the host college/university and the national greek-letter organizations. Most universities in my area [US west coast] seem to have greek-letter and/or all-living-group governance councils as well.
The UO SAE chapter was closed by the university but the national fraternity also revoked its charter. Given both the university’s powere to recognise living groups and the fraternity’s bylaws, I doubt that there is anyone with standing to appeal either action. (My guess is that the national fraternity might have had standing against the university, but this is now moot.
One of the two expelled students has apologized, as has the family of the second student. My guess is that both simply want to transfer to another institution and move on with their lives. I’d assume that they would have due process within UO if they do want to return, and legal redress if the university does not follow its R&Rs.
Over the past couple of decades at my wife’s institution, there have been a number of probations and sanctions [mostly initiated by the university against greek houses, which sometimes withhold the right to “rush” new students. There’s been at least one “death penalty” [not involving free-speech issues] — with university and national fraternity agreeing.
“If we are to allow free speech, then we must allow the most offensive of speech; otherwise the principle means nothing.”
I quite agree.
Something has got to be done to these people. Without punishment people will never learn. Would be interesting to see how this plays out.
I agree with the University that the students can be expelled. After all, cheating on a test may be completely compatible with state laws and constitutional rights and yet is grounds for expulsion at public universities. The creation of a hostile learning environment by a student’s racist behavior or taunts, I think, should be similarly considered when weighing disciplinary action.
And I should point out that with an expulsion, the students’ freedom of speech WOULD still be protected. After all, no one is arguing from a legal standpoint that they committed a crime or should be jailed or fined for their behavior.
As another example, consider someone who engages in hateful speech at a government workplace (i.e. a public institution); or a faculty member who has a relationship with one of his/her students. No laws broken, and yet these are very reasonable grounds for being fired.
I agree with you. Further, I can’t imagine how expelling students can be any kind of remedy for ignorance.
They probably aren’t the only racists on campus. They are just the only ones whose racism was exposed to the world. A better remedy would be some diversity training for freshmen & entering transfer students during orientation week. They wouldn’t have to change their minds but they might have them cracked open a bit.
I agree with Jerry. We’re either all in on free speech, or we’re not. The people who are now saying that these students’ civil rights shouldn’t matter are using the same sort of logic that says the staff at Charlie Hebdo had it coming. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education issued a great summation of the issue here: http://www.thefire.org/university-of-oklahoma-expels-students-for-constitutionally-protected-speech/.
How do we know if any punitive punishment is going to make any difference over time for these students? we don’t.
Freedom of speech in whatever form is in every dark corner and lighted street where no repercussions are imminent. It just goes on, it is up to individuals to learn or not learn, this cannot be guaranteed either way.
There must be more instructive ways of dealing with this other than giving two of them the boot.
According to freedom of speech advocates this just tells these students (and anyone else) freedom of speech is a lie and just another reason to feel uncomfortable.
I haven’t listened to the chant and don’t intend to. 🙉 🙈
I had not heard the tree-hanging bit before; for that, I think some kind of consequence is in order. 🙊
Not expulsion though. The last thing anyone needs is copycats-in-protest. And every dog gets one bite, I should think, since they might be reformed by a little mercy and education. Technically and legally adults, but still kids, IMHO.
This post made me think about my reaction to the story. OU should have expressed disagreement with the speech, and recognized the importance of the right to say it.
The national SAE organization would have punished the chapter – and if that did not include revoking their charter, the house would have been known as the racist house, and the letters would likely disappear from view on tshirts and sweatshirts as the members hid their association with it. Rush sanctions wouldn’t even be necessary, as few would want to consider joining the house.
Expulsion may be too harsh (I agree it’s probably a poor call on the university’s part, unless there are other facts we’re not privy to), but I don’t object to the university imposing some sanction or other.
The students should feel free to express any content they like – if they wish to defend the thesis that black people should be hanged, in the same way that anyone at university should defend any other thesis, they should have that right.
What they’re being punished for – or should be punished for – is the manner of expression. Chanting on a bus turns their expression of belief into something that could reasonably be construed as a violent threat (and that’s the difference with the Jesus and Mo T-shirt, which could not reasonably be so construed). Doctrines that deserve protection in the tutorial room or even at rallies do not necessarily deserve protection when bellowed in someone’s face.
Were there any black students on the bus? If not, then your last point is pointless.
Nix ‘pointless’, substitute ‘irrelevant’.
Oh for an ‘edit’ function…
I had the idea that there were, although I realise now I don’t know where I got that idea from.
But yes, whether or not there were blacks on the bus is certainly relevant.
Jerry, you’re right on this. The freedom of speech only matters if you have the freedom to say things nobody else approves of.
For the State (and, make no mistrake, the University of Oklahoma is a public institution and an agent of the State) to sanction speech is simply unacceptable, period, full stop.
Not merely even hate speech; especially hate speech.
That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be consequences for the students. Other students should, if they have any sense of decency, demonstrate solidarity with the minorities and call out the racist motherfuckers and shame them, for example.
But the State? The State must keep its hands off our speech.
b&
This whole episode has reminded me of the late Earl Butz, who paid with some semi-private & private gaffes with his job and ultimately his reputation. It’s all he is remembered for, now.
The bright side is that it made for a wonderful segment in an otherwise mediocre film “Loose Shoes”, made a year after the notorious event.
What if Butz had told that joke with a WASP male (or a “redneck”) as its object of derision? Would he have dared to?
Also, just intellectually and congenially curious: I’ve heard of the word “honkie” directed at Caucasian types. It’s not meant to be a compliment. What does that word specifically mean? I perceive that not a few Caucasians don’t know whether to be “offended” or not.
I wonder. Sure would’ve saved his career. “Honky” seems to be of obscure origin. I thought “cracker” caught on because typical saltines around here are white, but perhaps there’s a whip-cracker connotation in there, as Louis CK r… ferences towards the end of this clip. He addresses the non-offensiveness of racial slang against whites there. I am also reminded of when SNL was actually funny.
Out of curiosity I called up Kanye West and JayZ on Spotify. Found a “song” by them entitled – how am I myself allowed to state it? – oh I know – “Plural of the ‘N’ word in Paris.” The lyrics are of course easily found online. Such noble sentiments they express. The epitome and zenith of artistic accomplishment. Obviously, Kanye West is a “creative genius,” as he has referred to himself.
Would the University of Oklahoma allow Kanye and JayZ to perform this and other such rarefied songs in concert on campus? Or just in transit on a bus to and from the concert venue?
Ain’t no big thing, if you’re Kanye & Co. (nor should it be… it is an expression of irony, esp. among black peers). A staple of observational comedy, rap & hip-hop culture, etc. Not to be appropriated in the context by just anyone, though. I think Eminem or Vanilla Ice would justifiably get pilloried for singing the same garbage.
“Ain’t no big thing, if you’re Kanye & Co. (nor should it be… it is an expression of irony . . . Not to be appropriated in the context by just anyone . . . .”
The irony is lost on me.
For sure Kanye is not just anyone . . . not just anyone possesses such narcissism and sense of entitlement.
Exactly who must one be to be allowed to “sing” these rarefied, ennobling lyrics?
One with a darkly-complected paint job. Seriously, you don’t see the irony in two black friends approaching each other, and one saying to the other: “hey,who’s my favorite n****?” It’s taking a term which used to be the exclusive domain of bigots, many times the thing heard before things get really violent and/or deadly, and turning it into a term of endearment (or in less personal contexts, at least fellowship). It can be merely an expression of shared hardship or other negative experiences that are depressingly still too common in this day and age. I don’t care if Kanye is hemorrhaging money… he’s speaking to an audience. It resonates. Gotta go.
I read that link. We’re obviously not considering Earl Butz’s first joke, concerning the Pope and birth control, “He no playa da game, he no make-a da rules” with which I think everybody** here would heartily agree.
**To a first appriximation
This isn’t about mere offensive speech. This is about putting a “no coloreds” sign on your frat door with a picture of a black guy hanging from a tree, for that’s exactly what was being chanted.
That is illegal. Until the Civil Rights Act is repealed or thrown out as unconstitutional, that’s still illegal.
I have to confess that I hadn’t thought of this as a freedom of speech issue until this post. And I’m embarrassed by that.
But, still, I’m not entirely convinced by the argument. Must a public university always regard itself as a public forum? Do these students have a right to matriculation at a public university absent something far worse than hateful speech?
Then I have to ask myself if my own considerations are compromised by the wish to see these assholes suffer.
sub
I’m not convinced that all verbal behavior is “free speech”. As an example, would you consider it free speech if the students had verbally abused a 10 year old black girl on the bus, telling her she was worthless and likely to be lynched? And would debating such ideas in the “marketplace of ideas” be an appropriate response? If you agree that sometimes verbal behavior is not just a free exchange of ideas, but intolerably abusive, then it seems to me that where you draw that line is open for discussion. Is it permissible for public elementary school teachers to restrict playground taunting by bullies, and if so, why not university students? If there is a line to be drawn, even if the line is a fuzzy one, then the view that “If we are to allow free speech, then we must allow the most offensive of speech; otherwise the principle means nothing” seems overly simplistic. There are morally relevant lines to be drawn, and it is not always clear where they *should* be drawn. That’s one reason freedom of speech is essential. Not to grant bullies legal cover for their abuses just because we have come to think that any behavior that involves the mouth is somehow sacrosanct.
Isn’t what you are describing in your first sentence “assault”, with no battery? Keep in mind that this is a public institution….
So, if there were no black kids on the bus it would have been free speech, but if there were it would be some type of assault? It’s illegal to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Is it legal to yell racial epithets in a crowded theater?
That’s my question: Where do you draw the line? All I’m suggesting is that it’s not as simple as saying “free speech: all or nothing”. I know this has been discussed at great length by the courts. That alone indicates to me that it’s not a simple question.
It is only illegal to yell “fire” in a crowded theater if there is no fire. It is not illegal if there really is a fire. It depends on the situation, as does “hate speech.” I would defend an literature class discussing the use of the word “nigger” in “Huckleberry Finn,” even if it offended some students. I would not defend a group of White students surrounding a Black student and taunting him with the word. Different situations, different rules.
“Keep in mind that this is a public institution….”
It just seems unfair to me that a PRIVATE university should somehow be exempt from the standard expected of a public university.
I saw a bumper sticker on a car the other day: “PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING.”
That is the goal of the Masters of Mankind in their quest to reduce government – as much as possible make our institutions function on the basis of the Master-Servant relationship.
We are quick to critique the influence of the State on our lives; perhaps not quite as much Business:
“Government is the shadow cast by Business.”
– John Dewey
And of course, not just the black students, but students of all ethnicities who are appalled by the chant.
And not just students, but professors, administrators, directors–anyone opposed to racism.
From financialjuneteenth.com/when-rappers-call-black-people-nggaz-should-they-get-mad-when-white-people-do-it/
“2) Most of the music on the radio isn’t created for black people or by black people. The performers may be black, but the companies controlling the messages in music are run by whites and Jews, many of whom would never allow such derogatory language toward their own community. So, the use of the n-word in music is really a matter of white accountability as much as black, since black people don’t have the power to take this music off the radio.”
Make of this what you will.
I think “Dr Boyce” has never hung out in a modern mastering house, recording studio, or has ever interacted with the buttload of hip-hop, rap, crunk, etc. producers out there. Also sounds like he’s letting the injustice-collection get the better of him.
The expulsion was right and legal: not for chanting the ‘n’ word and saying racist things, but for declaring black people aren’t allowed and that any who apply will be hung from a tree (dead, I presume).
That absolutely creates a hostile environment based on someone’s race, which is illegal under the Civil Rights Act. If this were chanted in a workplace, they’d be facing a major discrimination lawsuit. And if the company hadn’t immediately fired everyone involved, they’d lose big time. Schools are no different.
As for the First Amendment, there are many exemptions to free speech. Slander, libel, false advertising, fraud, perjury, child pornography, incitement to violence, conspiracy to commit a crime, creating a hostile environment based on someone’s race or gender…
Completely agree Jerry. Banning it and silencing people doesn’t make it go away. It just leads to conspiracy theories about authoritarian liberalism (which are constantly turning into realities).
The way to deal with it is to punish them and have everyone around them actually challenge them on it.
What I’ve noticed in recent years is that a huge number of liberals don’t really have much of a sense of why racism is actually stupid. They just know it’s wrong because they’ve been told it’s wrong. That’s why so many have extended the same concept to covering religions as well as races. They’ve never been forced to really think through the logic for themselves.
One minor nit. The political left is not identical to liberalism. The latter is a subset of the former.
The totalitarian and authoritarian infestation we’re talking about is on the left, but it has nothing to do with liberalism. Liberalism precludes those attitudes by definition.
I agree that many on the left (again, not liberals) don’t understand the problems of racism, or even what it is. The term has been diluted and broadened (much like “misogyny” has by feminists) to the point of no meaning in their minds. They’ve even go so far as to deny that race actually exists, or call it a cultural construction. Hard to work through the logic when you can’t even coherently define the issue.
I’m pretty convinced that we’re near a tipping point for a big schism on the left. The authoritarians have almost all the influence in media and education, and they use it to shame liberals who transgress their dogmas. So it’s hard to see how things will improve in the future.