I Don't Know Where To Put This

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:41 pm

But I have a question.

Should you be kicked out of college for saying (or singing) the word 'nigger'? Or for getting caught saying it on the youtube?

I am uneasy about this, because I don't think so.

I am also confused, because when I was in school, there was a nigger in ∑AE (Mike Bellotti's frat, iirc.)

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:42 pm

Kicking someone out of college is going to make him hate them even more

For reals though no, I don't.

Rex · Post by **Rex** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:46 pm

Just saying it, no. But putting it on YouTube indicates that maybe you aren't smart enough for college.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:50 pm

Our society will always massively over-respond to offensive words and under-respond to actions in which the attitude in question causes actual harm.

It's easier that way for the people who matter. Smart people figure out how to play the game, dumb ones (including those who over-value silly things like integrity) get caught in the net. No fundamental change that shakes up the status quo, especially in the corporate sector.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:58 pm

DC47 wrote:Our society will always massively over-respond to offensive words and under-respond to actions in which the attitude in question causes actual harm.

It did not used to be like this, in my experience. The over-response seems to me to be new (~last 20 years or so.)

DC47 wrote:It's easier that way for the people who matter.

This is a big part of my unease. The college president being hailed as a hero for his rapid, strong (knee-jerk) response. Symbolic strength sure beats the real thing. OK, I'm biased since he was a scumbag politician, but that is redundant.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:12 pm

howard wrote:
DC47 wrote:Our society will always massively over-respond to offensive words and under-respond to actions in which the attitude in question causes actual harm.
It did not used to be like this, in my experience. The over-response seems to me to be new (~last 20 years or so.)

By 'always' I didn't mean always in our history. Rather, that this will be wide-spread in our society. I'd trace the sensitivity to offensive words to the early '80s. At least the racial ones.

DC47 wrote:It's easier that way for the people who matter.

This is a big part of my unease. The college president being hailed as a hero for his rapid, strong (knee-jerk) response. Symbolic strength sure beats the real thing. OK, I'm biased since he was a scumbag politician, but that is redundant.

I haven't seen the story that triggered your original post, so I can't say anything about this in particular. But I've got a pretty strong view that starting in the '80s a neat little game was constructed that allowed the power players to get a free pass on things that actually were devastating to the majority of black people (e.g., federal support for moving manufacturing jobs overseas, the decline of urban school systems) while erecting a symbolic shell that gives the same power players credit for their progressive actions on race (e.g., affirmative action that largely benefits middle-class and upper-class blacks).

This is no great surprise. People with power, in any kind of political-economic system, will seek to exploit their advantage at the lowest cost. Symbolic action is relatively cheap, and covers over the use of power to extract benefits that are funneled largely to the power holders. If you can corrupt the political system and exert a heavy influence on the media, you can make this work even better. Whistle-blowers and other 'reformers' will reform their ways to career failure. Most will pick a different line of work. The Power Class rolls on, nice and smooth, unless very unusual circumstances occur or this class engages in excessive civil warfare over how to divide the benefits of their control over the pathetic masses.

This is so obviously true, in the USA and elsewhere, that it doesn't begin to count as cynicism.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:20 pm

Sorry I misunderstood you, I took the word 'always' too literally.

Your post is spot on, not surprisingly. Black people should've by now caught on to this game. But then, there'd be no Democratic party.

Brontoburglar · Post by **Brontoburglar** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:21 pm

Oklahoma RB Joe Mixon was caught on tape punching a girl in the face. He was suspended but remains in school and a member of the football team.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:23 pm

Good thing he didn't call her a nigger.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:42 pm

howard wrote:Sorry I misunderstood you, I took the word 'always' too literally.

My use was unclear.

Your post is spot on, not surprisingly. Black people should've by now caught on to this game. But then, there'd be no Democratic party.

Individual people with power can be stupid. But as a class, the powerful didn't get there by being stupid. If you start with a huge resource advantage, it's just not that hard to exert control. Witness Putin's Russia, as well as the USA. Very different underlying situations, but both are pretty easy to control.

Only when you try to control a very high percentage of the action rather than just what is critical, and/or you go to explicit use of force you are taking a real chance of failure. There are better, more subtle methods. Ones that leave most of the controlled feeling like they get something and that they've got a chance to get more. Just don't look up. We live in a prime exemplar of this world today.

If too many black people and others committed to non-racism catch on to the present game, the game would change. I'd put my money on the powerful figuring out how to shift the game in order to control the changing situation. That's how we got to this 'corporate-progressive affirmative-action super-inclusiveness' deal. It was a response to the sudden success of the civil rights movement, which was a threat to the system. When this charade runs its course, there will be a new one, which will also entail no great cost to our rulers. Underlying social systems (e.g., colleges) will be changed to support the new direction, just as has been done in recent times. That is, this will happen to the extent that blacks and people who actually care about racism as more than a feel-good topic still matter to those in power. That is not a given. Receiving crumbs from the table of the powerful may look good in some future era where you don't get even that.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:54 pm

You are on a roll; I've got nuttin to add to that excellent post.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 6:15 pm

I would double their tuition.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:11 pm

If this involved a private university, there is no doubt that they could expel students for this. Since OU is public, and subject to the First and Fourteenth Amendments, it's a tougher call. A couple of points in OU's defense, however:

1. There's a huge difference between a student using the n-word as part of a random altercation and students using the n-word as part of a ritualized song about how the university-sanctioned organization they belong to intends to perpetually discriminate on the basis of race.

2. In fact, I'm pretty sure that OU (as a public university) could get into some significant legal trouble for providing and/or leasing a fraternity house to a frat that was discriminating on the basis of race. That why it's not surprising that OU kicked everyone out of the house before they announced the two expulsions.

3. I'm certain that OU would be able to fire an employee for speech like this without violating his First Amendment rights. For government employees, the general rule is that you can be fired for speech if it is disruptive to the workplace environment, but not for speech that is on a matter of public concern. I'm not sure if there is a similar standard for students at public universities. But OU is probably guessing that either (1) a court would find that such a rule applies, or (2) the students will have no interest in filing a lawsuit, which would only prolong their period in the public eye.

Also, if you want to be cynical about this, it's worth noting that OU has already had big-time football recruits back out of their commitment as a result of this. Not surprisingly, Bob Stoops participated in the protests against the fraternity yesterday. On a related note, OU apparently goes out of their way to advertise how many National Merit Scholars they have. They are surely concerned about losing out on high-caliber students if everyone thinks their school is a racist cesspool.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 8:17 pm

Thanks, Joe K, for laying out the case.

Joe K wrote:Also, if you want to be cynical about this…

You must have me confused with someone else.

One reaction (among many) that I have is, if a big time football recruit decides not to go to a school because a frat sings a song with the dreaded word, I think that is fucking stupid decision making.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 8:20 pm

I'm really torn on this one. I think it is a no-brainer for the national fraternity to pull their charter or whatever the fuck its called. I am certainly disgusted by the song, and the schadenfreude kicked in watching the proud look on the face of the dipshit standing up singing.

Randomly throwing out the N word, no punishment, but I look the other way if a black guy wants to punch him in the face for saying it. The song, IMO, is more offensive. I'm not down with the "hang him from a tree" line either. Hateful and discriminatory, singing about discriminating.

I wish I was more schooled in 1st Amendment Law, but I chose the badass 4th Amendment Con Law professor over the crusty old Israeli prof who focused almost entirely on the 1st Amendment.

howard · Post by **howard** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 8:27 pm

I appreciate the context; that a random dropping of the word is different than a frat song. OTOH, if the song said 'black people' instead of 'nigger', the story is at least a little different. Part of this is one specific banned word; part of it is the slippery slope to a list of banned words, etc.

There was an incident at my college my freshman year, UC Davis, with some parallels to this, as well as some stark differences. That was a long-assed time ago, I find it interesting how things have changed/how things have stayed the same.

I'll tell the story, but I am trying to find some info on the incident online, so I don't have to rely on my memory alone. And I'm waiting for an email back from an old friend who was in the frat at the time, see his memories of the thing.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:04 pm

I think I'd want to see a list of other disciplinary reasons dickheads get expelled before I decide. Knee-jerk, seems the attention makes it seem akin to firing an at-will employee for the same offense.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:19 am

Words are not the same as actions, and if these kids are known around campus as being the jackasses on the video, than their next few years at OU could be very uncomfortable. Let them stay.

And from an administrative standpoint, I would imagine that the slope just got very slippery in Norman. What happens when the next drunk guy calls a woman a "bitch"? Expect the women's groups to get upset.

No need to list the many ethnic slurs that will undoubtedly be heard on any campus over a typical weekend, and there could be a lot of groups shouting for equal protection under OU's new language rules.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:51 am

Pruitt wrote:Words are not the same as actions, and if these kids are known around campus as being the jackasses on the video, than their next few years at OU could be very uncomfortable. Let them stay.

And from an administrative standpoint, I would imagine that the slope just got very slippery in Norman. What happens when the next drunk guy calls a woman a "bitch"? Expect the women's groups to get upset.

No need to list the many ethnic slurs that will undoubtedly be heard on any campus over a typical weekend, and there could be a lot of groups shouting for equal protection under OU's new language rules.

This was what I was going to say. Not sure I'd expel them, but I think it would be rather unlikely they would be back on campus next term.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 7:12 am

I'm okay with them drawing the line somewhere around "hang him from a tree".

Usual response to 1st amendment concern applies, for me. They get to say it. There may be consequences.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 8:03 am

howard wrote:You are on a roll; I've got nuttin to add to that excellent post.

Well of course I stand on the shoulders of giants here, so you may get tired after awhile.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:41 am

Pruitt wrote:Words are not the same as actions, and if these kids are known around campus as being the jackasses on the video, than their next few years at OU could be very uncomfortable. Let them stay.

And from an administrative standpoint, I would imagine that the slope just got very slippery in Norman. What happens when the next drunk guy calls a woman a "bitch"? Expect the women's groups to get upset.

No need to list the many ethnic slurs that will undoubtedly be heard on any campus over a typical weekend, and there could be a lot of groups shouting for equal protection under OU's new language rules.

This would be my concern as well. I don't want to go down the route of criminalizing words. It is happening in Europe and starting in Canada. I don't think there is much of a danger here between the 1st Amendment and the passion of yahoos fighting against political correctness. If the fraternity is consciously keeping out black or any other group, there is substance to the words, and should be consequences. Anyone see the interview with Waka Flocka Flame? I think it was CNN. as I was looking up the topic, I saw a link to his interview and had to see what it was about. This fraternity got Waka to play a concert at OU. No idea how a fraternity can pool that kind of money, especially at a public school. Waka was very shocked and disappointed, as the he said he felt like he was one of the frat boys. They accepted him and were cool with him, so he is now hurt. He looked like an excited little boy when talking about feeling like a member of the fraternity.

I'd like to think this was a bunch of drunk college kids acting stupid. We've all done really stupid shit when we were 18-21, but fortunately camera phones didn't exist. I'd be horrified to see video of me wasted at that age. In that setting, groupthink takes over, and you say and do shit to be one of the guys. And like Howard said, if they didn't use the N word, there is no story. How bad of a beatdown does the kid who took the video get? I wonder if he (or she) intentionally forwarded it to get someone in trouble, or sent it to someone who spread it. Someone needs to invent a phone that shuts off when your BAC hits a certain level. Maybe sell a breathalizer attachment. Eliminate pictures, videos and drunk dials. Have a friend blow into it for booty calls, which will work as a good gatekeeper.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:50 am

Pruitt wrote:Words are not the same as actions, and if these kids are known around campus as being the jackasses on the video, than their next few years at OU could be very uncomfortable. Let them stay.

And from an administrative standpoint, I would imagine that the slope just got very slippery in Norman. What happens when the next drunk guy calls a woman a "bitch"? Expect the women's groups to get upset.

No need to list the many ethnic slurs that will undoubtedly be heard on any campus over a typical weekend, and there could be a lot of groups shouting for equal protection under OU's new language rules.

I agree with the first amendment aspect, but I disagree that life will necessarily be that uncomfortable for these jerks. This is Oklahoma. Unfortunately, they will likely find enough kindred spirits to again feel comfortable, soon.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:51 am

The Sybian wrote:And like Howard said, if they didn't use the N word, there is no story.

Do you really think it's a non-story if a frat is recorded saying:

"There will never be a black guy in SAE. You can hang him from a tree, but he'll never sign with me!"

The flippant reference to lynching is at least as big a deal as the use of the n-word. Especially given how ugly some of history of racial violence in Oklahoma is. Not to mention that I'd bet SAE at OU had produced a number of wealthy and powerful alums.

Joe K · Post by **Joe K** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:56 am

Or alternatively, if a recognized fraternity issued a calm, measured press release expressing their intent to use their First Amendment freedom of association right to exclude all black students, it's still a really big deal. This is not a case of "magic words" causing people to flip out.

Post by **Shirley** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:59 am

My wife and I had this same debate about this last night. As a law professor, she is always going to lean towards the protection of free speech. I correctly predicted last night that Howard would also have the pro free-speech side.

To me, as others have pointed out, the song wasn't just a a random bad word. In a few short seconds it very happily described discrimination and violence along with the obviously bad epithet.

My take is that while free speech is fine and all, the university and state it represents have a very clear financial interests at stake here. Think of it as capitalism. The university can't afford to be seen as a racist, redneck backwater. This is especially true at Oklahoma, a school and state that very heavily identify themselves through their football team. Can they afford to piss off their own team and hurt their recruiting by seeming to allow this sort of racism on campus?

From a financial point of view, it's an easy decision.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:00 am

No one is putting them in jail - or trying to.

They get to spew whatever ignorant shit they want. Course, it means they may not get to keep doing things they like, like going to the college they have embarrassed.

Not sure what the free speech concerns are.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:23 am

There is ONE WORD in American society that elicits this response. Cunt, fag/faggot enter the discussion, but only as they serve to prove the point that nigger trumps all others on the "outrage, knee jerk reaction" scale. If these guys were singing a song with the words I just threw out there, omitting the n word, they'd be vilified on Jezebel and probably sanctioned by national and maybe the OU administration. It would not be a 4 day story, highlighted on the national news 2/3 days running. I'm not making some kind of judgement about what that says about society, I'm just pointing out that concern over some ever-growing list of banned words is misplaced.

It's a song that was clearly taught, so even if the black SAE member states that this song wasn't around when he was there 10 years ago... At some point this became a "thing" that brothers passed along to their pledges. The song explicitly states what amounts to a discriminatory policy of exclusion. You can argue that this takes a stupid rugby-esque type of chant to a level it probably doesn't really deserve. I would strongly disagree, given the setting.

Let me stress something that seems to be getting lost in the discussion (not necessarily here, but in general): These guys sang this on a bus half full of "guests" from a sorority. I don't care how drunk you are. I've been plenty wasted, including as part of fraternity functions involving mixed company*. There was certain shit said and done behind closed fraternity doors that was just so obviously, clearly not meant for public consumption. The fact that these knobs were so comfortable with that song speaks volumes to just how untethered from societal norms they are.

* I depledged 3 months in. Back story I think I may have told here, so I'll stow it. Long story short, I do agree that groupthink and herd mentality played a role with this incident, as I saw firsthand how some people I really liked/valued did some very sketchy shit as part of that frat.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:47 am

I hope you'll tell the story again, for the sake of those of us who were singing racist songs to our sorority honeys while doing naked keg-stands on Porsche's speeding down the main drag at Vegas when you told it the first time.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 10:59 am

Pruitt wrote:Words are not the same as actions, and if these kids are known around campus as being the jackasses on the video, than their next few years at OU could be very uncomfortable. Let them stay.

Here's the problem: According to Google + Forbes, the school is 5% black students. I might be cynical, but my guess is that greater than 5% of students at an Oklahoma state school are racist, so "just let this play out naturally" might not only not have the desired effect, it might have the opposite effect. So if it does polarize and there is another party and now some racists are emboldened and a black kid knocks one the fuck out, who's ending up in more trouble for not being Jackie Robinson?

(I know that can happen anywhere, but it just feels worse if it were to happen at a school that now has a history and can anticipate a potential problem.)

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:01 am

More quick google says > 16% of students are involved in greek life. Sooo ... yeah ... I'm for this decision. If they can't/won't police themselves, I'm all for the university doing so and doing so harshly.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:10 am

tennbengal wrote:No one is putting them in jail - or trying to.

They get to spew whatever ignorant shit they want. Course, it means they may not get to keep doing things they like, like going to the college they have embarrassed.

Not sure what the free speech concerns are.

The fact that it is a state school makes it a government entity. Taking away their ability to attend a state U based on words could be considered abridging the right of free speech. It is a government inflicted injury. I genuinely don't know the case law well enough. does this qualify as inciting violence or a threat? Probably not, as no N-words were on the bus.

Shirley wrote:My take is that while free speech is fine and all, the university and state it represents have a very clear financial interests at stake here. Think of it as capitalism. The university can't afford to be seen as a racist, redneck backwater. This is especially true at Oklahoma, a school and state that very heavily identify themselves through their football team. Can they afford to piss off their own team and hurt their recruiting by seeming to allow this sort of racism on campus?

For a private institution, I completely agree. For a government entity, it is a bit dicier. One of the exceptions to the right to free speech is workplace disruption. This might apply, depending on precedent case law.

Nonlinear FC wrote:Back story I think I may have told here, so I'll stow it.

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:17 am

Hypothetically, their application to Univ. of Oklahoma includes their delightful song as part of their personal essay.

Oklahoma doesn't admit them.

Free speech violation?

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:24 am

I don't see the free speech angle at all.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:35 am

I was a very reluctant pledge to begin with. The school I attended was small and you didn't really need to be in a frat to have a good social life, especially if you played a sport. But I was kind of a legacy, because my future brother in law was somewhat of a legend there (I attended school with my future wife, which is an important part of the story.) Also, while the soccer team had its own house, a bunch of the players were part of the frat. These were guys that I thought pretty highly of... It's hard to remember the gap between freshmen and upperclassmen so many years removed, but I distinctly remember how proud and flattered I was that a number of these guys wanted me to join their club.

So, anyways, I pull the trigger and go through the process. My big brother was cool and there was minimal "hazing"... I forget what they called the end of pledge week, Black Friday or something like that. We drank a seriously dangerous amount of alcohol, and most of us spent the night upstairs puking our guts out, with guys monitoring us... It's Hopkins, so a lot pre-med guys are playing doctor, checking vitals and shit. So, fairly irresponsible, but really not a huge deal (to me, at least, at the time... today I realize how incredibly lucky they were that none of us went into a coma, or worse.)

But the triggering event for me was the Halloween Party. As I said, lots of pre-meds and engineering guys... lots of labs, and apparently access to some seriously high octane stuff ending in "-ol." One of the geniuses decides to swipe some of this stuff and spike the punch being served at the party. I later find out this was an idea hatched at the higher levels of the frat... at a minimum it was sanctioned all the way up the top.

So, I can't stress enough that whatever they put in the punch was ridiculously strong. As brothers and pledges start to filter in, at the door, we are told in hushed tones to stay away from the punch. This information, of course, was not shared with the guests (99 percent of whom are women.) As mentioned above, I bring my "date" (future wife, we'd been dating since high school... I know, how sweet, right?) and she is joined by her crew. I don't really know what's going on with the punch, but I tell this girls to be careful, better to stick with beer.

But, even forewarned, the punch literally had almost zero "kick" to it. Whatever is in there had no real taste, so, of course, people are pounding this stuff. To the point that the brothers working the bar freak out and take the punch bowl out of rotation after about an hour. Too late...

Women are almost instantly shit-faced 1/2 hour into the party. About an hour in, there are multiple women puking... And, this is like food poisoning shit where they can't make it to the bathroom... Puking out the window, on the floor, trashcans, etc. The brothers are in full "shit, what have we done mode" and start telling guys to get the women out. I proceed to grab my significant other and try to get her back to the dorm in one piece.

She's not happy. She is fighting me, literally, the entire walk back to the dorm. She's so messed up, she doesn't even realize how bad she is and she "wants to stay at the motherfucking party, you asshole!!!" Which, yeah, that's not typical behavior for her, even when she's knocking back the wine coolers (it was the 80s.) That said, she is not a delicate flower, so dragging her by her arms the 1.5 miles back to campus is no easy task. To the point that some chivalrous dude* stops me and wants to fight me because date rape. Getting him to understand the situation took all the deep breathing and counting to ten this irish tempered person has ever had to muster.

I finally get her into bed, set her up with a trash can, and go back to my own room. She calls me the next day, has absolutely no idea what happened, and I hang up on her in anger.

I depledged a few days later.

* I later found that guy and thanked him. More guys should do what he did in that situation.

post script - So, it was Halloween in 1988, any guess what couple we dressed up as for the party?

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:44 am

Robert Chambers and Jennifer Levin?

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:01 pm

tennbengal wrote:Hypothetically, their application to Univ. of Oklahoma includes their delightful song as part of their personal essay.

Oklahoma doesn't admit them.

Free speech violation?

No, showing poor judgment in an admissions application is enough. I don't think I have a problem with the decision, but I could be persuaded by a really solid argument.

Giff, the government is punishing someone for mere words. Is it a 1st Amendment violation? Even if you believe it isn't, it certainly raises the question

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:03 pm

How is it punishing? He isn't facing jail time. He can seek to go to college elsewhere. Really don't see that aspect of this.

Nonlinear FC · Post by **Nonlinear FC** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:07 pm

tennbengal wrote:How is it punishing? He isn't facing jail time. He can seek to go to college elsewhere. Really don't see that aspect of this.

Expulsion from an institution isn't a form of punishment?

tennbengal · Post by **tennbengal** » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:10 pm

Nonlinear FC wrote:
tennbengal wrote:How is it punishing? He isn't facing jail time. He can seek to go to college elsewhere. Really don't see that aspect of this.

Expulsion from an institution isn't a form of punishment?

No.

Attending college isn't a fundamental right.