Racist Fraternity at the University of Oklahoma caught on tape.

[MVP]

the act made a hostile environment even more hostile. there. yes the act of letting allowed the hostile env to get worse. I DID NOT MEAN THE BLACK KIDS WERE TO BLAME. Is that better?

So if this was the case or what you meant initially or are clarifying it now. How does that compare to the OU incident which from all intensive purposes wasn't hostile until this act became public and was the direct cause?

 

[darthska]

Paliplaya is a god damn idiot for saying the first black students created a hostile environment. WOW! Tell us how you really feel about black people

Lol of course this will be taken of context... so ur telling me you have a bunch of racist white kids at school, then u bring in some black kids, theres not gonna be any tension?? really? thats not hostile? that act just created a hostile environment. how do u not see that? it was a monumental step in civil rights, and your gonna tell me its wrong for me to say it created a hostile environment? wow. continue to understand that how u wish and twist my meaning to villainize me...

" that act just created a hostile environment"

Right here he places blame for a hostile environment not on the racist kids, but the act of letting the black kids in.

After this, he was dead in the water

Not so fast, and this is exactly why clarification is in order: because Multiple interpretations are possible.

so ur telling me you have a bunch of racist white kids at school, then u bring in some black kids, theres not gonna be any tension??

Now who does it sound like is being blamed?

"so ur telling me you have a bunch of racist white kids, theres not gonna be any tension??"

Sounds like a setup to present racist white kids responsible, if one were to interpret it that way.

 

[paliplaya2010]

Only the most diehard of racists would ever even imagine going into a court of law to argue their right to offend and belittle others.

Which is why this punishment will stand. To object to this punishment on the grounds of free speech would make the accused look even worse than they already do. Even they can see that.

Apparently the gentleman in here cant. The fact that you are typing paragraph after paragraph, page after page defending this says a lot about you.

i dont know what is says about me? i have condemed the action and am speaking behind an anonymous name and even said i would never publicly stand with them... i still believe their words are protected. never did i ever say that because its legal to be racist, therefore it must be ok.

i am only looking at this from the legal prospective. i think its pretty obvious racism is bad. i was trying to show that the wrong of saying something racist remarks does not justify the wrong of punishing them for speech. that was the point. that only. and then i got caught up in some stupid analogy and had to defend myself. 2 wrongs dont make a right

 

[sfc415]

i got caught up in some stupid analogy and had to defend myself

 

[darthska]

i got caught up in some stupid analogy and had to defend myself

It was stupid, and he said so.

In plain black and white. Not too much to interpret.

 

[darthska]

paliplaya2010 , on whom would you place the blame? Black people for daring go to a previously segregated school? White people for fiercely objecting? Cops for failing to protect said black people and quiet the riot? Who?

i believe i said that earlier. the blame is on the white kids for objecting to it. and the police for not protecting them. i guess it can be hard to understand my intention when u dont know me. what i presume to be understood bc im more on the liberal isnt really shown through text when every one is already criminalizing me.

Plain black and white. Nothing to interpret.

 

[paliplaya2010]

So if this was the case or what you meant initially or are clarifying it now. How does that compare to the OU incident which from all intensive purposes wasn't hostile until this act became public and was the direct cause?

this is what i said earlier

so the point was even tho they created the hostile situation, it wasnt theyre fault and should not be held accountable for that hostile situation. i wanted to parallel to the ou kids, even tho they created the hostile environment (i agree it is well deserved) it was not their intention to create that disruption bc they were exercising their racist freedom of speech behind closed doors, and they have that right. therefore i still believe that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to punish them even tho it is very morally wrong. Yes i know, it was a terrible example, apologies. but do u get the point? i am only speaking on the legality of the punishment and not the morality.

i got caught up in some stupid analogy and had to defend myself

yes my analogy was stupid... i have already accepted that. what r u getting at?

 

[gamerg]

Sad and disgusting behavior but by this time next week the narrative will shift to how kids will be kids and how Black people use the word too. Two weeks later, the media will find a minority frat doing something less disgusting and disturbing but will nonetheless treat both issues as the same. Three weeks from now the dialogue will be about "black on black crime". One month from now, the racists on that video will get $20,000 from a gofundme after their supporters on stormfront raise money.

You know it.. Darren Wilson.. 1 million

Zimmerman 300k

Exploding Kittens Damn Near 10 Million..lol

 

[MVP]

Honestly not getting at nothing, just going to block you like all these other fake POC activists on here. Your drivel continues to clutter the thread.

 

[paliplaya2010]

Plain black and white. Nothing to interpret.

so although I truly appreciate u having my back, what is ur take? is their punishment constitutional or unconstitutional?

 

[RustyShackleford]

so ur telling me you have a bunch of racist white kids at school, then u bring in some black kids, theres not gonna be any tension??

Now who does it sound like is being blamed?

"so ur telling me you have a bunch of racist white kids, theres not gonna be any tension??"

Sounds like a setup to present racist white kids responsible, if one were to interpret it that way.

Brah I got respect for you, and obviously Meth does as well

BUT

To defend dude, you want us to look at his words, edit them to change the exact context, then not consider the very next line.

Ummmmmm, Nahhhhhhh.

I can't vibe with you on this. He plainly said something stupid and then doubled down on it.

He placed the blame on the act of integrating in black kids. He states so plainly

He is only backtracking now cause the entire thread came at him.

If that's what he meant, he had TWO chances to say so before it blew up to his.

 

[darthska]

the act made a hostile environment even more hostile. there. yes the act of letting allowed the hostile env to get worse. I DID NOT MEAN THE BLACK KIDS WERE TO BLAME. Is that better?

Stop fumbling around man. You wrote that it CREATED a hostile environment, meaning there wasn't one before. Maybe you're not a racist (I doubt this though) but you definitely have 0 intelligence and are trying to compensate for it by pretending to be a fake @#$ keyboard lawyer

2 things were needed for that to be a hostile environment: racist white kids, and courageous black kids.

He never said which should have been removed for it to be non-violent.

No matter how you slice it, all of your presumptions of what you wanted him to say are inaccurate.

And ignoring what he has since said in black and white, very clearly, while holding him accountable for something that was only said in your interpretation and NOT clearly stated by him in black and white... it's unfair.

 

[darthska]

Plain black and white. Nothing to interpret.

so although I truly appreciate u having my back, what is ur take? is their punishment constitutional or unconstitutional?

They're pathetic. They anger me.

I absolutely can't stand then or their type, and I hate that they'll be just fine in life (and I have full confidence that they will, indeed, be just fine).

Constitutionally? Our current legal system is terribly skewed to protect their type, so I have no interest in even pretending that they are and should be without legal consequence.

 

[paliplaya2010]

They're pathetic. They anger me.

I absolutely can't stand then or their type, and I hate that they'll be just fine in life (and I have full confidence that they will, indeed, be just fine).

Constitutionally? Our current legal system is terribly skewed to protect their type, so I have no interest in even pretending that they are and should be without legal consequence.

thats literally exactly what my sister said, she said she wasnt gonna waste breath protecting them. i feel that i am more so protecting freedom of speech, at least that was my intention.

 

[Methodical Management]

It's just that in your paraphrasing of his sentiment, the responsibility is placed on the LR9.

But in his actual words, I don't see responsibility placed on LR9 (or white people, for that matter). I just see his words as saying "The incident caused hostility."

His actual statement placed responsibility on the LR9.  

" that act just created a hostile environment"

That's not a manipulation I performed to impart a particular interpretation.  

Again, I know that people hate being called out for things like this - but it's only by challenging these assumptions that they'll ever be unseated within the public consciousness.  

Part of White privilege is that "Whiteness" itself becomes an unlabeled category, an American default.  

I've written about this before.

Let’s try to envision an environment in which we can, through isolation, remove, say, race from the equation.  

Imagine a cafeteria full of White high school students.  Is race entirely absent from this situation?  What if you walk into this environment, as a person of color?  Are you bringing race into the room with you, making race an issue by your very presence?  

This interpretation, widely held, frames race as a person of color’s problem rather than an overarching social issue.  Would we suggest that there are no gender issues in an all boys or all girls school?   We cannot afford to ignore how race operates in homogeneous settings.  When the cafeteria is full of White students, the comfort they feel in being among “like kind,” the ease with which they might exchange racist “jokes,” or stereotype, everything that might be somehow “complicated” or challenged when, suddenly, the environment is no longer homogenous must be accounted for.    So many of us tend to think, for whatever reason, that there is no racism without combustion, without friction.   Racism is, I would argue, the feeling of relative comfort enjoyed by the all-White cafeteria.  If not for this, what would be disrupted?   If we walk into this room, as an “outsider,” what is it that makes us feel unwelcome?   The normative environment is racist.  Our social “defaults” are racist.  

Suggesting that there is no "race problem" in an all-White cafeteria is like suggesting that a falling object introduces gravity into a room.  

 

[mr s j king]

Dude already tapped out so we might as well move on.
For the record, we as African Americans don't care if another group of people hate us.
What we do care about is the thought and/or act of physically attacking us, solely because that particular group has chosen to hate us.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Here is the comparison dude was trying to make:

The kids at OU are unwelcoming of racist, and the white kids back in the day were unwelcoming of black people

Parker Rice set off the OU students with his racist words, which created a hostile environment

Black kids set off the racist white kids by attending school, which created a hostile environment

The blame is being placed on Parker Rice in one situation.........So tell me, for dude's comparison to work, where does the blame have to be placed in the other?

-Even without him coming out and saying it. If you follow his logic it leads to an ignorant end.

He should have ever opened his mouth to say something so stupid (I mean the enter comparison it self is out there) in the first place.

But l guess it his is 1st amendments rights to expose himself like that

 

[paliplaya2010]

His actual statement placed responsibility on the LR9.  

that is false.

That's not a manipulation I performed to impart a particular interpretation.  



Again, I know that people hate being called out for things like this - but it's only by challenging these assumptions that they'll ever be unseated within the public consciousness.  

Part of White privilege is that "Whiteness" itself becomes an unlabeled category, an American default.  

I've written about this before.

yes i do hate being called for something i did not mean or intend to mean, and have apologized plenty of times once i saw that it was misinterpreted. can we agree that the action that made the situation more hostile was integration?
i believe so, like Ska said, both the racist white kids and the courageous black kids are needed for the hostility. i was not putting blame on the black kids at all...

Suggesting that there is no "race problem" in an all-White cafeteria is like suggesting that a falling object introduces gravity into a room.  

i mean idk what trap ur setting me up for, but if everyone in the world was the same race, how would there be racism? im sure there would be other things people choose to base the prejudice on would come up, but thats not racism. if those white sat in an all white cafteria bc they didnt want black people around, then yes thats racism.

but were still discussing something that i have already said was just dumb on my behalf... what else do u want from me?

 

[Nawzlew]

We will see how this turns out if the kids fight it. From past cases it's pretty obvious what will happen. Multiple lawyers and civil rights advocate have publicly agreed that this will not hold up. If I had a private company or institution with out a doubt, I would expel these kids. But a public institution does not have that same right. There's nothing more here.

Please point them out

“The impulse to expel is understandable, but the decision is on constitutionally questionable ground,” said Ken Paulson, the President of the First Amendment Center and Dean of the College of Mass Communication at Middle Tennessee State University. “A public university is subject to the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment and may not punish students because they hold offensive views.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit organization that focuses on civil liberties in academia set out the difference in a statement: “As a private organization, the SAE national fraternity is free to punish the chapter, as it has done. Other citizens and groups are free to refuse to associate with the fraternity members based on their expression, and students, faculty, and administrators may of course condemn it. If the expression itself is evidence of other unlawful activity, such activity may be investigated. But the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled time and time again that government institutions like the University of Oklahoma may not punish people for expression protected by the First Amendment.”

“The courts are very clear that hateful, racist speech is protected by the First Amendment,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar and dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine.

Official punishment for speech could be legal if the students’ chant constituted a direct threat, leading a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety, or if it seemed likely to provoke an immediate violent response, according to Mr. Chemerinsky and several other legal scholars, liberal and conservative alike.

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.

But as the Court made clear in Healy, Papish, and other decisions, a public university generally has no more authority to regulate offensive speech on a campus and a city has to regulate offensive speech on a city street.

I join President David Boren and the University of Oklahoma in denouncing the racist rant of these students. But to expel students for what they say and think -- however odious their words may be -- violates the very constitutional principles upon which the University of Oklahoma was founded.

But as UCLA School of Law professor Eugene Volokh noted shortly before Boren’s announcement, a public university student has a right to express himself without being expelled—even if that expression is a virulent, racist chant. “First, racist speech is constitutionally protected, just as is expression of other contemptible ideas,” Volokh wrote. “And universities may not discipline students based on their speech.”

Joey Senat, an associate professor who teaches media law at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater: "I believe these students -- under Supreme Court rulings on 1st Amendment for college students -- would have the right to say the very same thing on the library lawn, so to speak. ... The speech is offensive, the speech is abhorrent, but the 1st Amendment protects unpopular speech."

Robert D. Nelon, an Oklahoma City attorney with the Hall Estill law firm who handles media law: "This is a close case. Perhaps the university has gone a little further than the Constitution would permit in expelling the students. It may be the university would be better in tune with the Constitution if they took to the public forum like President Boren did yesterday and expressed publicly their outrage and meet speech with speech rather than expelling the students."

Erwin Chemerinsky, 1st Amendment law professor and dean of the UC Irvine School of Law: "What can be punished is if it could be shown the speech was threatening to another [person]. There’s no right to engage in speech that reasonably causes another to fear for his or her safety. ... [But] it can’t be said that this speech was a threat to somebody. I find this horribly offensive, but I don’t see why this isn't speech protected under the 1st Amendment."

Joe Cohn, legislative and policy director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a student legal advocacy group based in Philadelphia: "The school's a public university. At public universities, the 1st Amendment applies in full force. ... The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that speech, even racist speech, is protected under the 1st Amendment. They have never shied away from that. ... Just because a speech is racist doesn't remove its protection."

 

[darthska]

It's just that in your paraphrasing of his sentiment, the responsibility is placed on the LR9.

But in his actual words, I don't see responsibility placed on LR9 (or white people, for that matter). I just see his words as saying "The incident caused hostility."

His actual statement placed responsibility on the LR9.

" that act just created a hostile environment"

That's not a manipulation I performed to impart a particular interpretation.

What act?

The act of them going to school, or the act of white people aggressively protesting black people going to school?

That's what was never asked of him until I asked him to clarify, and new that he has, people who have already slung mud are unwilling to ease off the gas pedal and admit putting words in his mouth that he never said while simultaneously ignoring clarifying words he has said.

 

[RustyShackleford]

It's just that in your paraphrasing of his sentiment, the responsibility is placed on the LR9.

But in his actual words, I don't see responsibility placed on LR9 (or white people, for that matter). I just see his words as saying "The incident caused hostility."

His actual statement placed responsibility on the LR9.

" that act just created a hostile environment"

That's not a manipulation I performed to impart a particular interpretation.

What act?

The act of them going to school, or the act of white people aggressively protesting black people going to school?

That's what was never asked of him until I asked him to clarify, and new that he has, people who have already slung mud are unwilling to ease off the gas pedal and admit putting words in his mouth that he never said while simultaneously ignoring clarifying words he has said.

He clearly said the act of integrating the schools caused the hostile environment in the first couple post he made about the subject

He is still getting mud thrown at him because of backing off and noticing how vile dumb his logic was. Not just his words, or his argument, but also his logic.

Then he tried to place the blame on us for misunderstanding his words and he doubled down on them

-He placed the blame on the act of integrating the schools. But who is the driving force of that act being committed, the students themselves.

The government didn't just up and force blacks kids to begin integrating, it was something the black community wanted and had to fight for.

He never once explain himself on this point. Just tried to brush in under the rug with "I'm not blaming the black kids".

What people are trying to drive home is that if you're blaming the act of integrating, you're blaming the students.

So the real problem might be is that you think his deflection is an explanation

 

[Methodical Management]

 

 

It's just that in your paraphrasing of his sentiment, the responsibility is placed on the LR9.

But in his actual words, I don't see responsibility placed on LR9 (or white people, for that matter). I just see his words as saying "The incident caused hostility."

His actual statement placed responsibility on the LR9.

" that act just created a hostile environment"

That's not a manipulation I performed to impart a particular interpretation.

What act?

The act of them going to school, or the act of white people aggressively protesting black people going to school?

That's what was never asked of him until I asked him to clarify, and new that he has, people who have already slung mud are unwilling to ease off the gas pedal and admit putting words in his mouth that he never said while simultaneously ignoring clarifying words he has said.

 so should the first black students who integrated have been expelled? Like what is your point

Can't believe my eyes w/ this foolishness

so the point was even tho they created the hostile situation, it wasnt theyre fault and should not be held accountable for that hostile situation. 

Seems pretty clear to me.

He can take back his comments, and that's fine, but there's no "misinterpretation" there.  

That attitude, which frames racial issues as a person of color's problem, and the "comfort" of the racially homogeneous environment, are essential here.  Unless we're willing to collectively confront that, nothing will change.  

 

[mr s j king]

We as African Americans have run out of "ease off the gas" passes.
Come spewing that bullcrap and you gotta get called on it.

 

[paliplaya2010]

We as African Americans have run out of "ease off the gas" passes.
Come spewing that bullcrap and you gotta get called on it.

i think im done with it guys. although i still believe im right, the majority of people ive talked to do not. it maybe a flaw in my thinking or something i just dont fully understand yet. i was only judging the legality and i can see where it can get ugly. the reason i took such a hard approach is bc so many educated people also saw it the same way. so i think this is one where i just gotta know not to interfere with bc its a lose lose situation in my case. either be wrong and get labeled a bigot or be right and stand with racist. so at this time, im bowing out. i guess i gotta agree to disagree and keep my mouth shut, especially when emotions are involved. ive literally wasted hours researching this instead of studying for my physio test tomorrow. appreciate the insight fellas. hope no one caught too many feelings.

 

[frankmatthews]

What act?

The act of them going to school, or the act of white people aggressively protesting black people going to school?

That's what was never asked of him until I asked him to clarify, and new that he has, people who have already slung mud are unwilling to ease off the gas pedal and admit putting words in his mouth that he never said while simultaneously ignoring clarifying words he has said.

the first black students segregated into white schools arguably created a hostile environment too. the constitution doesnt protect feelings.

In the english language you have a subject followed by a verb. If you cannot formulate sentences using proper verb noun agreement then the issue is with your reading/writting comprehension. Not people putting words in your mouth.

I'll excuse your lack of grammar comprehension and address the point you were TRYING to make.

[

Lol of course this will be taken of context... so ur telling me you have a bunch of racist white kids at school, then u bring in some black kids, theres not gonna be any tension?? really? thats not hostile? that act just created a hostile environment. how do u not see that? it was a monumental step in civil rights, and your gonna tell me its wrong for me to say it created a hostile environment? wow. continue to understand that how u wish and twist my meaning to villainize me...

To reword it using your arrgument: "so ur telling me you have a bunch of racist white kids at school, then u bring in some black kids, theres not gonna be any tension?? really? thats not hostile? the act of white people aggressively protesting black people going to school just created a hostile environment. how do u not see that?

So the anlogy is: racist whites created a hostile environment for POC at OU but they shouldn't be expelled because 50 years ago racist whites created a hostile environment for POC at desegregated schools? What? That little "clarification" turned your analogy into a parallel.

But of course neither of you have the slightest idea what you are talking about and are just backtracking at this point. Take your foot off the gas and learn basic english grammar.