I think that the way the students at the University of Oklahoma chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon have been treated is pretty indicative of how this country has officially become anti-racist. I don’t mean that racism isn’t alive and actually enjoying a major comeback over the last several years. I just mean that you simply can’t get away with letting your Klan Flag fly anymore. You’ll lose your professional basketball team or get expelled from college, or maybe your entire fraternity will be banned.
If you’re just kind of a young impressionable bystander watching this, you definitely internalize that being a racist isn’t acceptable at all. Whatever flies in your little social circle, that shit is not going to fly once you go out in the wider world. This fraternity incident shows how safe spaces for this kind of sentiment are disappearing. What’s more insular that a Greek brotherhood? Yet, look at what happened to them, their chapter, and the whole national fraternity just from this one drunken incident.
I don’t know about you but I am a little conflicted about it. I don’t feel like these kids are being treated unfairly or that people are overreacting, but I also think they are young and come from sheltered backgrounds. The University of Oklahoma is supposed to educate these youngsters. If the school is doing its job, it’s taking in teens who may arrive with racist attitudes and transforming them into tolerant, open-minded, young adults. If this particular fraternity is an impediment to that mission, then go ahead and ban the fraternity. But I don’t think I agree that universities should expel students for doing stupid racist shit like this. The bar should be a little higher, in my opinion. If it’s intimidating someone or it somehow denies someone an opportunity, then I think it has to be treated like a civil rights violation. But in a society with a lot of racism, universities are going to do a better job anticipating that fact and having a plan to educate their students than by just hitting every knucklehead with the shit-hammer of expulsion.
On the upside, their peers can see how these frat brothers have been branded with the Scarlet R, and that will hopefully do more than just deter them from openly expressing racist attitudes. It will hopefully help them internalize that racism is stupid and hateful.
On the downside, making an example of these kids isn’t an efficient or sufficient response that will really address the larger problem. I don’t see this as really being much of a free speech issue, but I do see it as being as least somewhat of a freedom to be a stupid kid issue. I just hope some of these kids learn what they were supposed to learn from the school in the first place and find a way to redeem themselves.
The lesson these kids will learn is the wrong one, I fear: that being labeled a racist is worse than actually doing racist things.
Always worth to revisit Jay Smooth on this subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc
they were doing a racist thing; whether or not they personally “are racist” whatever that means, is unimportant. it’s doing racist things that matters.
The preferred response of people with power to things that make them look bad is always to find and punish scapegoats who have less power. It’s a hell of a lot easier than confronting their own privilege and that of people like them.
In line with this, I would like Mr. Rice to explain who, exactly, taught he and his frat brothers the song. Someone in leadership at SAE, perhaps?
That person deserves some culpability here as well. If Mr. Rice refuses to name that person, he may be perpetuating the scapegoating you suggest here. And I will say that if the two that were expelled did lead the teaching and singing of the song on the bus, they deserved to be expelled. If they led the singing, they took power to make something unacceptable happen.
“You can swing them from a tree”? No, that is not acceptable to lead people to say at all, not even when considering the stupidity of youth. They’re not 6 years old.
Yes, young adults should be allowed to learn from their mistakes.
My guess is that, the only thing these guy’s might learn, is how to whine like butt-hurt victims:
AKA – typical conservative (and Christian) schmucks!!!
Martin, I applaud your open mind and honesty about this, but if you had been born and raised in this part of the country (I’m in North Texas), you’d see it differently. Open expressions of racism, which were rare when I grew up in the 70s, are common again. The ugliness is impossible to ignore, and immigration over the Mexican border adds fuel to the racist fire every day. Boren had no choice but to send a loud, clear message not just to his students, not just to other universities, not just to the media, but to the rancid element that composes the dominant conservative base in Oklahoma and throughout the red southern states. And that message needed to be explicit and clear. The push by the right toward open discrimination here needed to be answered by somebody in a position to do it. You don’t need this in Philly, but we desperately need it here.
I will seriously consider your argument.
Can you recall when it went from “rare” to “less rare?” I appreciate that such a recollection would be anecdotal, but I’m struggling to believe that it went from “rare” to flaming in the few years since 2008.
’60s predominately white jr-senior high schools for me and racist slurs (and never the “N” word) were extremely rare. The cross-town rivalry with the more racially mixed and heavily Black school was limited to sports. A few of us participated in an annual student exchange day and had there been any significant difference in the facilities at that school compared to mine, I would have noticed and remembered it. There wasn’t. (Although their ASB President was more personable, smarter and a better speaker than ours.)
At an intellectual/informational level, we did have an awareness that it was different in the south. Still, at 19 when I visited New Orleans, I was shocked at and repulsed by the overt racism that was displayed in the late 1960s.
How did white people in this country not get that integration and affirmative action was for the benefit of all of us? And not some patronizing effort to help “them?”
It’s been a long slow steady decline since the 1980 election, honestly. Obama’s candidacy and election turned what had been purely racist talk into political comment, which lent such attitudes the air of legitimacy. (How many times have we been accused of calling every Obama detractor a racist?) Now we are seeing the predictable fruits in a generation of well-to-do white kids who attended racially segregated private and suburban schools. It’s still getting worse and not better in these parts.
Thanks. 1980 sounds about right. About when the fruits of earliest, successful anti-integration and anti-affirmative action efforts would begin to appear in individuals.
The re-segregation of public schools has facilitated this. The worst negative consequences of this are likely more widespread in the country than the most virulent concentrated forms in the south before desegregation requirements. It’s like South Boston metastasized.
I’m with Lacerda on this. Rural Okie bred and raised, I’ve heard that kind of shit off and on all my life. Things are a lot better than they were fifty years ago, but there’s still way too much of that hatred out there, even if it’s not quite so public as it used to be.
When I saw those clips on the news, the first thing I thought was how disgusting. The second was I wonder how many of my neighbors are secretly tapping their feet along with the chant.
Boren took a stand that needed to be taken and said some things that needed to be said. And he’s one of the few people in Oklahoma who has the stature and the respect to (maybe) make it count.
Agreed. I see people getting a lot bolder here in MN, too. Furthermore, these kids aren’t going to jail. They can enroll in another university. They already have plenty of advantages.
People are accepted into school–it’s not a right–and they can thus be kicked out of same school if their behavior merits such a response. What’s with all the handwringing about an overly harsh expulsion from college for these young people? This ringleader behavior is bullshit and everyone should know it. A more mild response from the administration would not have made the point that this shit is completely inexcusable in a place of learning. What an irony that this story is in the news with the Bloody Sunday remembrances. Maybe these douchebags didn’t learn about US civil rights history from their earlier schooling but something tells me they’re getting schooled now.
Had they engaged in similar behavior in high school when they were even younger, would they have been accepted for admission to the college? Not likely. But less likely that it would have been known.
Perhaps all this ugly crap has been going on all along and not seen outside the racist cliques. And now social media is exposing this American underbelly passed down from parent to child and child to peers.
I probably don’t walk in these circles so I may be truly ignorant on this matter, but can you show me one example of this ever happening?
I didn’t grow up in a racist family and my community was the least racist place I’ve ever lived, including places like Los Angeles and Philly. But I still was familiar with the kind of lazy racism that exists just because it perpetuates itself from parents to children, or finds strength when stereotypes are stronger teachers than personal interaction and experience.
In my experience, whether we’re talking racism or religion, leaving home, meeting people of other races, and getting a broad college-level education are all things that make people grow beyond their sheltered childhood experiences and assumptions.
So, yes, I’ve seen it work over and over and over again.
Me? Virtually all of my friends?
Not saying that we transformed into paragons, but almost every last one of us ended up less racist and homophobic after college than before, by a wide margin.
I presume that most commenters here were high school students of almost-perfect enlightenment, but it’s a skewed sample.
I presume that most commenters here were high school students of almost-perfect enlightenment, but it’s a skewed sample.
Mine wasn’t. Far too white for enlightenment to develop. However, what we lacked in enlightenment was somewhat compensated for by intolerance for rudeness and use of racial epithets. Thus, when integration and affirmative action programs began to be implemented, it wasn’t a culture shock and easy to accept as the right thing to do.
I hear you, but I’d bet that even before college there would have been no way that you would have found yourself with that group chanting that song. My point is that I believe people can be nudged in a direction that they’re already inclined to go, but the, “Oh shit! My entire worldview is wrong!” kind of conversions rarely happen. The “I always thought my parents were wrong!” conversions probably happen all the time.
no, I think it happens quite a bit (numbers, I have no idea) or used to in the olden days, but usually has to do with other students they encounter, a roomate, whatever, faculty that spark their interest, not just class material per se. One can always say retroactively that they were on that path anyway, but we don’t really know.
ok, maybe I’ll rant now, but one problem with the preoccupation with electronic devices is they can avoid interacting with the others around them.
When the environment requires interaction and mutual dependency, people accommodate and change.
As a nation, we’d probably be much better off today if the military had been integrated in 1942 instead of 1948. As it was, the so-called “greatest generation” returned home with more or less the same racial biases they had when they went into the military. Few even aware of the extraordinary efforts of Black units. The Navajo code-talkers.
Booman writes:
Oh, I totally agree.
Oh.
Wait a minute.
Breaking update.
Apparently Obama doesn’t like Israel anymore.
Oh
Nevermind.
Like dat.
Yore friend…
Emily Litella
Just to be…I suppose the word “fair” might apply, although anyone who thinks that life itself is fair is thinking extraordinarily broadly and deeply given the hiistory of the human race on this planet…but ok. Just to be fair about it, that knee-jerk image above actually goes to any group of people who have bought into any pre-defined doctrine. It especially applies to those who have accepted the modern media’s hypno-edumacational spiels. MSNBC or Fox News. Same same. Same lame, different leg. Bet on it. Centrist news? In a wheelchair. Bet on that as well.
AG
Dude, I seriously have no idea what you are talking about.
He’s desperate for his daily dose of Obama-bashing and picture-posting and this seemed like as good a place as any, no matter how tenuous the relation to the subject at hand.
Snark, Bubba.
Just snark.
You don’t get it?
OK.
Keep trying, though. It’s not really that arcane.
Later…
AG
It seems the students’ punishment is for ‘breaking the code‘ which allows, indeed promotes, racism. Years of careful, insidious denial and misdirection on the subject are instantly blown by one toxic piece of video.
They are being punished for violating the cultural omertà which enables and facilitates the resurgence of racism throughout the former Confederacy and elsewhere. It seems a predictable tactic and not a positive sign of anything.
Chris Hayes had a good conversation with TaNehisi Coates last night about the structural side of the racist students.
…or it somehow denies someone an opportunity….”
Well, of course it’s intimidating to anyone within earshot to be forced to listen to a blatantly racist chant that prescribes lynching as an alternative. I’ve been concerned for many years about restrictions of hate speech on college campuses. I’d become so numb to the frequent, habitual expressions of homophobia by everyone my whole life, that by the time I got to college myself that it was just background noise. But the fact that I was numb to it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t intimidating on a deeper level, and I’ve lived my life in fear of it nonetheless.
The same is true in this situation, absent proof to the alternative, that anyone that hears this kind of blatant, casual expression of racism that finds it hateful and frightening, is intimidated by it. And the students that sang the chant were plainly guilty of a kind of violence that deserves expulsion. SAE should be banned from campuses nationwide to make the it clear that this kind of violence will not be tolerated. Small price to pay for the perpetrators. They may seek an education elsewhere; find another frat, if any will have them. The pain and scars they inflict on others does damage to their victims that never ends; why should the frat boys be forgiven?
Maybe it is a free speech issue. My views on free speech are not as absolutist because I’m not naive to think “free speech” matters over power dynamics. Doesn’t necessarily mean I’m in favor of hate speech laws, but I don’t view freedom of speech as panacea, especially when in the end it’s those with power who have the freedom to speak, free speech protections or not.
Let’s just say it is a free speech issue and a violation. Maybe it is. But I’m not going to be wasting my time, energy and resources dedicated to defending rancid people like this. Let someone else do it.
not sure what you mean by free speech in this context.
I guess, re: my question, the individuals right to hold these opinions and express them isn’t at issue as far as I can see; it’s about the institutions – the university, the teams, the frats. The Greek system is an institution that intersects with the university independent of it but dependent on it for permission to organize on campus. Frat activities are part of both institutions.
If those guys and their den mother want to go to a parents house and sing the song and have the parties there’s no issue.
Re Martin’s points. I’d say, in addition to the laudable actions Boren took, they should have a various campus discussions, in the frat houses, with faculty, with admin, etc. panel discussions, the like.
See below for first amendment issues.
read it, but now not finding it. Anyway, in my assessment it’s not about the kids holding or even expressing racist views individually. it’s about activities within the institution of the frats.
“The University of Oklahoma is supposed to educate these youngsters.”
THAT, in my opinion, is part of the problem: that anyone should see universities as “proxy parents” in this (and the college rape issue). NO university is “supposed” to unwind an upbringing inherent of a sheltered, privileged life, an educational task which falls to the parents. And if your parents are racist, so will you in most cases.
One doesn’t suddenly show up at a fraternity rush and decide it’s ok to be a racist/rapist, and I don’t really feel racist fence sitters are a thing. If students show up for higher education with a load of ignorant racist baggage, maybe they shouldn’t be there in the first place?
I’ll admit that the ages 18-20 are a nebulous area, since these “kids” aren’t really adults yet in the eyes of the law. But as studies have shown about kids in college and binge drinking, sometimes the best intentioned efforts worsen the problems that were to be solved.
Former Senator and Blue Dog Democrat David Boren did what almost any university president would have done under the circumstances. Even 30 years ago. Especially 30 years ago before the chant of “politically correct” was used to shut down criticism of racist speech.
The issue is not the individuals but the legitimizing function of a fraternity and its paid employees in maintaining racism on the Oklahoma University campus.
This went beyond racism; it was an open expression of white supremacy.
And as Ta-Nehisi Coates points out, white supremacy is not about racism, it is about plunder. Creating a hostile environment for non-whites on the Oklahoma University campus is about plundering the supposedly equal opportunities that non-white students have at that campus. That is its intent–intimidate and frustrate the competition through various forms of racial discrimination.
But for Boren, there is a larger issue. As the North Carolina General Assembly has shown, state legislatures are not reluctant anymore to try to reinstitute subtle de jure racial discrimination. Boren might run afoul of his legislature for this and find himself out the door like the President of the University of North Carolina general system did.
The only thing different from normal is that someone released a video to the public.
Whether the students themselves should be punished depends on one’s judgement as to whether they are redeemable or irreversibly on the road to RushBo-dom.
I’m not too comfortable with the way the (68?) unexpelled students (as opposed to the two who were expelled immediately) have effectively been made homeless–the administration refuses to assist them in finding new housing–before the investigation has decided who is and isn’t guilty of what: “We don’t provide student services to bigots.” That’s a collective punishment.
And it looks to me as if Boren is doing it because he’s vulnerable to criticism that he’s been ignoring the problems of endemic racism on campus. The new black student organization Unheard that released the video had its first meeting with Boren in January and found that the administration was “shocked” that “students felt this way”). Now they can’t ignore it:
Upon reflection or under unexpected pressure? The haste with which he’s dealt with the fraternity crisis argues for the latter.
I noted instantly that a star high school football player rescinded his letter of intent. The University President knows that an athletically competitive school will have to attract and retain a racially mixed student body. I am absolutely sure he received the full blessing and support of his Athletic department and the income they represent to his school. And what has the SAE fraternity contributed to his school in comparison?
It’s a good question, although I think President Boren did the right thing. I opined at Lawyers Guns and Money what might happen should the offending students be allowed to remain at the university. This is all hypothetical, of course, and in no way is it meant as further besmirchment of the fine examples of Oklahoma manhood on display in the now-viral video.
But suppose, just suppose, the young men harbored some resentment having been caught out on the video and seen their beloved SAE disbanded and their frat house shut down. I know it’s beyond all logical reckoning, but in my mind, I wonder if the offending students might not continue to resent OU for its discipline.
One day, crossing campus, the aggrieved young man walks past another student of a considerably duskier complexion, and decides that student is smirking at him. His manhood, already bruised and badly in need of salve, takes offense which manifests itself in physical violence against the fellow he thinks smirked at him.
I know, never happen in a million years, but what if? And what if the victim of the attack decides to sue not just his attacker, but the university as well? What defense would the university proffer? That despite his lusty singing about hanging people from a tree, the aggrieved young man really wasn’t a threat to others? I think a judge and jury would disagree.
This was not a simple racial slur but a group rant. And it was in an area where racism was most acceptable not so many years ago, and, if seems, may be making a reappearance. So, yeah, that got what they asked for.
Forever wrong about everything (Sarah Palin would make the bestest VP ever) Bill Kristol and (dead girl in his office ) Joe Scarborough blame hip hop for OU racist chant.
(As one of the major players in the “let’s ridicule Al Gore” camp, Kristol has some shoots-pah endorsing Tipper Gore’s misguided efforts from three decades ago.)
To be slightly OT, there’s also a little thing called the First Amendment. OU is a public university, which means that First Amendment protections apply when the school wants to discipline its students. It seems to me that expelling the students for what was purely speech, not directed as a threat to any individual, is in violation of their constitutional rights.
And they will probably sue, and they may just win. I actually hope they do win.
This was not a sensible decision by Boren. He is simply a politician, and this was a political decision.
Time after time, someone does something wrong, and the response: “Kill the fucker”.
Last year, the U of Michigan coach kept a kid in the game for a play too long after a possible concussion. Response: Fire the coach. What the fuck?
Here we have kids, some who are probably freshmen, doing stupid shit. NO ONE WAS INJURED. NO ONE WAS DAMAGED. THIS is just stupid juvenile shit.
The University of Oklahoma should not be giving them the death penalty for saying naughty things. These chants were disgusting, OK, maybe so. But these guys were probably drunk, or something, which is not an excuse I realize but can explain stupid stuff.
What should have happened? Close the frat, force these kids to get new housing, break up the fraternity so that the toxic environment would be ended, and give the kids a 2 hour lecture on racial tolerance, by some of the black athletes. In a friendly way.
It’s not helpful to always kill people for jaywalking.
Close the frat, force these kids to get new housing, break up the fraternity so that the toxic environment would be ended, and give the kids a 2 hour lecture on racial tolerance, by some of the black athletes. In a friendly way.
Too little, too late for that
Time for the remaining antebellum fraternity to be disbanded.
So, because others in years past, in other locations, and who are actually different people did naughty things, you consider it perfectly appropriate to sanction jay-walking with the death penalty? I don’t agree. No one was injured save those who said these considerably bad words.
In our society, we have a graduated response. The first offense is usually given a minor punishment. The second offense is given a heavier one.
Here, on the first offense, they get the death penalty. I don’t agree with that in the slightest.
Bloomberg (3/9/14): Deadliest U.S. Fraternity Grapples With `Historic’ Pledging Ban
Let’s try again. Let’s say a policeman shoots a black guy in Miami. When asked why he shot the black guy, the policeman states that a black guy in Orlando just stole a truck, and in response, the policeman considered it appropriate to kill this black guy for shoplifting.
That’s your position, Marie2. You are the cop. You consider it appropriate to give some kid in OK the death penalty for jaywalking because another kid in Pensacola did something wrong in 2005.
You want to walk this back while you still can? You are way out of line. If your beliefs were about black folks, they would be racism. Stereotypes and group punishments are inappropriate.
no, you’re looking at it as a collection of individuals, but they are participating in a group with a destructive ethos.
If they are a “group with a destructive ethos”, you break up the group, but you still must ask, is this situation one in which the death penalty is required? If one of these guys cheated on a test, would he be expelled? If he threatened a teacher? If he stole something from a local store? if he actually did something to hurt someone else?
This is an administration of the death penalty for chanting naughty words. What happens when someone does something actually harmful? What then?
If the behavior is in violation of the school’s rules of conduct and such conduct may be grounds for dismissal, then the punishment was appropriate.
Recently, a male student at Occidental College was expelled for a drunken sexual encounter with a similarly drunk female student who in her inebriated state left twitter messages that she was consenting. His conduct violated a rule. Her’s didn’t.
OK, I’ll play along. Was it in violation? Is there such a code? Or are you simply speculating?
Having read a few formal institutional “rules of conduct,” there is enough general language in them that most abhorrent conduct could easily be deemed a violation and grounds for termination or expulsion. Boren reviewed the information over a couple of days, and presumably in consultation with university lawyers, before expelling the two students. So, not wholly idle speculation on my part.
In a case like this, I’d rather have a notion of what is the actual case at the actual university. I think you are just coming up with a legal justification for the lynch mob. Because white kids can be lynched, just as much as black kids, and that’s what’s going on here. This is the equivalent of lynching some black kid for whistling at a white woman. Exactly the same.
A “lynch mob?” The two leaders of a disgusting racist sing-a-long were expelled from a single university. Nobody is suggesting the need for further punishment nor even suggesting that they should be banned from any other university or that they don’t have the right to appeal their expulsion from OKU.
Under the circumstances, all I’ve said is that the decision of the university seems appropriate. Didn’t comment or form an opinion on what should be done before Boren acted.
Appreciate that the public should not rush to judgment before sufficient and verifiable facts are in evidence when initial reports surface in the news. Not a policy that some loudmouths follow. Thus, didn’t see me calling for the heads of the Duke LaCrosse team and was very uncomfortable with those that did. Not because they were white but because it was an allegation and there weren’t any concrete supporting facts in the news.
You don’t have the slightest idea if there is a code, but I just googled it, and the University is in deep shit.
Here is the code, the section entitled “Student Rights”:
http://www.ou.edu/content/dam/studentlife/documents/AllCampusStudentCode.pdf
III. Student Rights
Students of the University of Oklahoma are guaranteed certain rights by the Constitutions of the United
States and the State of Oklahoma and the University of Oklahoma Student Association. Those
documents are controlling and any questions of student rights must be decided on the language
contained in those documents. Among other rights, the following apply:
1. The student has the right to form, join and participate in any student organization or group without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, genetic information, age (40 or older), religion, disability, political beliefs or status as a veteran. http://www.ou.edu/home/eoo.html and
http://www.ou.edu/home/misc.html
2. The student has the right to pursue his/her education as long as he/she meets the University’s
applicable academic standards and observes applicable laws and policies.
3. The student has the right to certain procedural due process, including notice and an opportunity to
be heard.
4. The student has the right to request appropriate action from the administration for any violation of
right guaranteed by this Code.
other official action controlling editorial policy or content in accordance with University policies.
7. The student has the right to invite and hear any person of his/her choice on any subject of his/her
choice subject to applicable regulations and/or University policy.
University policy
If you will read #3 (right to due process) and #9 (peaceable assembly), you may realize that the University is itself in violation of these students by summary expulsion. If I were them, I be talking to a lawyer right now. If I were a lawyer, I’d be calling them.
Take it up with Boren. Wasn’t my call nor do I have the expertise and knowledge of all the applicable regulations of the university.
Better yet — offer your expertise to the students in any challenges they may choose to make.
well you’re using death penalty as an image or something, but it isn’t helpful. are you talking about the frat being kicked off campus or the kids being expelled? the frat can petition to come back. the kids can also petition to come back. (they’re not dead).
I guess you’re saying what the university did was too much. frats are sometimes a problem on campus because they set up their own culture that isn’t necessarily helpful to the academic experience – not always, but can happen. looks like this one is one that continued to haze although it was banned, for example. after a while the only recourse is to kick them off campus (after enough kids die, for example) but they can always petition to come back. As for the kids who were expelled. Yes, kids get expelled for plagiarizing, cheating on exams, threatening other students, all kinds of things. it depends on the school. but it’s a way to get the kid to realize it’s a serious matter and hopefully shape up while they’re young enough to learn. there are lots of other schools. the kid isn’t “dead”.
I don’t agree that my term of “death penalty” is overwrought. These kids had a life, and they made a dumb mistake. For that dumb mistake, they are throwing them out of school, wrecking their academic standing, destroying their relationships with friends, humiliating them to their parents.
And the offense? Singing a naughty song.
So, this is EXACTLY like the death penalty for jaywalking. They have destroyed these kids lives, where what was needed was a short, re-education of their inappropriate actions.
It’s wrong. I hope they sue, because they will win, and probably get some money.
And if you think that this will “teach them something”, what they have learned is that singing a naughty song can sometimes wind up with your entire life being destroyed. What the FUCK is that about?
You lynch mob make me ill, honestly. What would you do if they actually did something other than singing a naughty song? Drop them off a building? How about a little perspective, eh? This is NOT appropriate for this level of offense.
“naughty” is definitely inaccurate to describe this and the fact that you call it “naughty” may have some bearing on your response to the situation.
One of the hardest lessons to learn, for me, when I started teaching college, – and it was an experienced teacher around midterms who really pressured me that it was important to fail students when necessary and not sugar-coat it, was just this. Hopefully they fail an exam or the midterm and not the final grade, so they have time to shape up and in my experience they do. This is the age when they can learn the consequences of their actions [or non actions]. A student kicked out of school for conduct reasons can certainly overcome it – not so with plagiarism, or at least that’s difficult. Their lives are not ruined. they’ll get readmitted or go to a different school and presumably have grown as people.
BTW both Anita Hill and Cornell West are from the state of Oklahoma
Why is “naughty” wrong?
No one was actually lynched, or did you miss that?
What these young bucks were doing is precisely being naughty. I’ll stick with that, because you Princelings of High Dudgeon and Righteous Rectification seem convinced that something more than singing occurred.
Getting the boot from college is most certainly not at all comparable to the death penalty. More to the point, the rich fucks that inhabit these fraternities can get mom and dad to spring for a new place to be bigoted. It’s not the end of their existence.
You keep talking but you aren’t saying anything.
BTW, I support the frat taking a time-out to do a little reconsideration. It is certainly possible that a “toxic culture” exists. That is, however, not an acceptable situation for the punishment of an individual.
It is certainly possible that a “toxic culture” exists.
More than possible; fairly well evident.
Did you ever read The Oxbow Incident?
You mean where a lynch mob kills a guy?
You folks are the lynch mob. Not me. I am trying to get you to sober up and get off your righteous horse of righteousness where the Evil Ones Must Be DESTROYED to Save the Village from Naughty Singers who Sing Badly.
I mean, where is the humanity? They are naughty, but why kill them for singing? This is EXACTLY the same as lynching someone for whistling at a white girl, and YOU are the lynch mob.
well have you read the book? it’s about how individuals get caught up in group mentality. that’s why I mentioned it. it very well draws the distinction between how a person acts and thinks on his own and how the herd mentality pushes him along to do something he is hesitant about or wouldn’t necessarily do on his own. I think you’re missing that point because you’re only responding about the individuals. As I mentioned, the University is managing various groups, not just the frats, the departments, the Houses, whatever, also the teams – interesting the role the teams are playing here.
Asch conformity experiments. Not to be overlooked is that there were Asch “confederates” in the experimental settings that a high percentage of actual subjects ended up following.
Yes, I’ve read the book.
Yes, it’s about getting caught up in a collective mentality.
Like you and Marie, caught up in a collective mentality that these kids need to be lynched.
Yes, I understand that 1) alcohol 2) singing with your buddies 3) the need to do stuff that is naughty can lead you to do things that are wrong. Note, however, that this bad action involved singing a naughty song.
No actual black persons were harmed in singing this song. It’s a song where they merely showed their bravado.
So, when you get up on your High Righteous Horse to Smite the Ungoldly, which is sooooo liberal, you may wish to ask How Much is Reasonable?
But when has THAT ever been part of the liberal tradition of today’s liberal?
Me, I prefer to look at it in perspective. What is a punishment that fits the crime?
I don’t see expulsion, at all, as that punishment.
well, I’ll just point out that name calling is not an argument. As far as the adjective “naughty” goes, it would apply to a prank.
trying to think of a way to describe the event: I’d say, participating in/ leading activities related to terrorizing fellow students.
Note that at least one of the students voluntarily withdrew from U of OK, and in such cases, the individual choice can be respected. In fact, that choice is probably a good one.