Racist Fraternity at the University of Oklahoma caught on tape.

[paliplaya2010]

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.
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.

doctors dont need perfect grammar buddy. insulting someone is not the correct way to teach either. theres def a better way to make ur point.
the analogy was a terrible example agreed and it was a mistake on my part to use. but in order to save face i had at least try to get my point across. i obviously do not feel comfortable being mistaken as a racist. here it is again

so the point was even tho they were part in creating the hostile situation, it wasnt their fault and should not be held accountable for that hostile situation. i wanted to parallel that 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.

that was the point not sure if u will understand bc i am not too eloquent, but that was it... i really mean it this time im done with it
its just really hard to sit back and not protect my views but i am bowing out

 

[victor page]

 
Meth is so eloquent w/ getting his thoughts off 

I'm working on that approach.

It's hard to when you know how the person on the other side of the argument REALLY feels tho.

 

[Methodical Management]

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?

That's like saying that a child predator would have nobody to rape without children, therefore the presence of a child made a potentially dangerous situation literally dangerous. 

This argument is starting to reek a bit like "It's okay if you're gay in your own home, but don't be flamboyant about it."

To accept that a child attending a public school constitutes an act of provocation, you have to accept the tortured, oppressive logic that created and enforced racial segregation.  

It may seem a "minor point" to you, but it's indicative of how and why people see this situation, regarding racism in higher education, differently.  

That these students felt comfortable incorporating a flagrantly racist chant as the credo of a university-recognized organization is telling.  

Every year, without fail, there are stories about fraternities and sororities holding racist costume parties.  

Setting aside the expulsion conversation - because it can be argued that, by ignoring the institutional and discriminatory component and focusing on speech and speech alone, the school is framing their expulsion justification in such a way that they may actually be INVITING a reversal so they can have their cake and eat it, too - the university is clearly failing its student body and the state of Oklahoma in its mission to EDUCATE.  

Schools are as much about socialization as they are about formal education.  Universities should be preparing students to live and work in a diverse society.  

To have someone so ignorant actually graduate from your university is damning.  It presents a diploma less as a guarantor of some modicum of education than as a glorified sales receipt.  

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?

An all-White cafeteria or student group isn't the same as an "all White world," though we should rightly question why in so many works of fiction (countless sitcoms, movies, etc.), the world is portrayed as essentially all White - or, at least, a world in which everyone of consequence is White.  

Whether people are excluded due to overt hatred or merely for "comfort" reasons, the effect is still exclusion.  When Aisha Tyler appeared on "Friends," did she "make race an issue," or was it an issue that their version of New York City was almost entirely White for the majority of that series?  

It's a matter of perspective - and that's a perspective worth challenging.  

 

[hand2handking]

 
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.  

so much this

this is what they do, frame the conversation on race

make it seem as if its something black need to do to make white people not hate them 

 

[paliplaya2010]

That's like saying that a child predator would have nobody to rape without children, therefore the presence of a child made a potentially dangerous situation literally dangerous. 

i dont have a problem with that statement... no where in there did u blame the kid. but it is a dangerous situation. maybe thats one problem, i dont see a problem here.

This argument is starting to reek a bit like "It's okay if you're gay in your own home, but don't be flamboyant about it."

not at all. that is a huge stretch. no where did i insinuate that

To accept that a child attending a public school constitutes an act of provocation, you have to accept the tortured, oppressive logic that created and enforced racial segregation.  

It may seem a "minor point" to you, but it's indicative of how and why people see this situation, regarding racism in higher education, differently.  

also, never did i say they provoked. yes, i did say created... but provoke places the blame on the black kids and i didnt do that. when i say the act of intergration created hostility, i meant that act was a necessary component in making it a hostile situation. without the integration, the racists couldnt complain about integration.

That these students felt comfortable incorporating a flagrantly racist chant as the credo of a university-recognized organization is telling.  

Every year, without fail, there are stories about fraternities and sororities holding racist costume parties.

i agree its wrong, but my point was racism is legal 

 

[hand2handking]

 

 

[darthska]

Disregard everything I've said defending pauli.

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.[/QUOTE [thread="621762"] [/thread]
[QUOTE name="MrWavez" url="[URL]http://niketalk.com/t/621762/racist-fraternity-at-the-university-of-oklahoma-caught-on-tape/570#post_22874003[/URL]"]



 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.

[/quote]Indeed. My apologies everyone.

No sarcasm.

 

[frankmatthews]

that was the point not sure if u will understand bc i am not too eloquent, but that was it... i really mean it this time im done with it
its just really hard to sit back and not protect my views but i am bowing out

When your grammar completely changes the content of your statement then, yes, you do need to improve your grammar.

And again: Racist whites created a hostile environment for the POC at OU but they should not be punished because racist whites, and the mere presence of POC 50 years ago at a desegregated schoold created a hostile environment and weren't punished? This is your arrguement?

The mere fact of trying to attend a school to get an education is equivalent to someone chanting racist remarks? I don't get it. Makes no sense. You are blaming the victim in both cases. Why?

Your views on free speech, might be accurate, for the 10th time in here, THIS IS NOT ABOUT FREE SPEECH. And your analogy and/or point about hostile environments makes absolutely no sense. Yes racists have rights, so do innocent school bound kids. You choose to spend your time defending the former. Good for you!

 

[mugen81]

Meth got deflectors like this:

 

[mr marcus]

 
Meth is so eloquent w/ getting his thoughts off 

I'm working on that approach.

It's hard to when you know how the person on the other side of the argument REALLY feels tho.

Exactly!

 

[Fong$tarr]

Schools are as much about socialization as they are about formal education.  Universities should be preparing students to live and work in a diverse society.  

The socialization part is true but unfortunately in some work environments, diversity is hardly there. Corporate America is the biggest examples of this. Even status amongst job positions can totally be sexist and racist. I know a white manager that only hires Asian girls as his staff. My HR is run by a black female and her whole staff is black as well. It's just funny how "high school" things can be even in the adult life.

i agree its wrong, but my point was racism is legal 

I don't know. You are sort of pointing out a flaw in the system that doesn't need to be defended. The constitution has it's flaws and have been amended several times. Maybe that is one more thing we need to look into.

 

[bravo]

The suspense in this thread >> 

BRAVO UPDATE:

Meth graced us with his righteousness

Pauli wildin to the max then backtracked to common sense only to bounce back to wildin

DarthSka took up for the underdog thinking Pauli was misunderstood, then he came to his senses and ditched Pauli.

TUNE IN AT 9PM CT FOR THE NIGHTLY UPDATE

 

[Methodical Management]

i dont have a problem with that statement... no where in there did u blame the kid. but it is a dangerous situation. maybe thats one problem, i dont see a problem here.

A child "being" a child should never be blamed for victimization at the hands of a child predator.  To suggest that their very existence "made" the situation dangerous - when it otherwise wasn't - is kind of disgusting.  

The analogy you seem to be attempting, that a child existing within proximity of a child predator or a Black student attempting to attend classes in a racist, segregationist community, is akin to introducing a lit match to a gas-filled room, is - and with no minor irony - inflammatory.  

A "lit match" is, itself, dangerous.  Can you say the same of a child going to school?  

What you're actually saying is more like a child stepping on a land mine is "partly responsible" for the explosion, because, if not for the child, the land mine could cause no damage.   Such reasoning ignores that the land mine was SET to cause harm.  That is its raison d'être.  

Your cause/effect chain is flawed.  

A sentence could be written, "a land mine detonates and kills a child."  Subject, object, verb.  The land mine kills the child.   You've chosen to write that as "the child steps on the land mine and is killed."  

There's a significant difference in framing there. 

also, never did i say they provoked. yes, i did say created... but provoke places the blame on the black kids and i didnt do that. when i say the act of intergration created hostility, i meant that act was a necessary component in making it a hostile situation. without the integration, the racists couldnt complain about integration.

This assumes that the only discomfort worth caring about is that of the racists. 

Integration didn't create the problem, unless you consider "integration" to be the problem.  Don't get it twisted.  Segregation created hostility.  

 

[sfc415]

Pali out here riding harder for the 2 expelled OU students than the remaining 14998 SAE members in the US

 

[paliplaya2010]

 
A child "being" a child should never be blamed for victimization at the hands of a child predator.  To suggest that their very existence "made" the situation dangerous - when it otherwise wasn't - is kind of disgusting.  
 
 
The analogy you seem to be attempting, that a child existing within proximity of a child predator or a Black student attempting to attend classes in a racist, segregationist community, is akin to introducing a lit match to a gas-filled room, is - and with no minor irony - inflammatory.  
 
A "lit match" is, itself, dangerous.  Can you say the same of a child going to school?  
 
What you're actually saying is more like a child stepping on a land mine is "partly responsible" for the explosion, because, if not for the child, the land mine could cause no damage.   Such reasoning ignores that the land mine was SET to cause harm.  That is its raison d'être.  
 
Your cause/effect chain is flawed.  

your still putting words in my mouth. i never put blame or responsibility here. What I am saying is a child must step on a mine in order for the land mine to explode. this is a correct statement. i did not say, because the child stepped on he deserved to die. but the action of the child walking through a mine field is necessary for the land mine to explode. im still failing to see the flaw. no blame or responsibily is being put on the child. who cares i continue to get attacked.

 

[paliplaya2010]

Pali out here riding harder for the 2 expelled OU students than the remaining 14998 SAE members in the US

LOL, the way this thread is going it does look that way. all i was trying to do was defend freedom of speech. i still stand behind it, it is unconstitutional to punish racist SPEECH. i believe thats what the school did. that the way i read the punishment. im not defending racism, just the right to racism.

 

[darthska]

 
A child "being" a child should never be blamed for victimization at the hands of a child predator.  To suggest that their very existence "made" the situation dangerous - when it otherwise wasn't - is kind of disgusting.  
 
 
The analogy you seem to be attempting, that a child existing within proximity of a child predator or a Black student attempting to attend classes in a racist, segregationist community, is akin to introducing a lit match to a gas-filled room, is - and with no minor irony - inflammatory.  
 
A "lit match" is, itself, dangerous.  Can you say the same of a child going to school?  
 
What you're actually saying is more like a child stepping on a land mine is "partly responsible" for the explosion, because, if not for the child, the land mine could cause no damage.   Such reasoning ignores that the land mine was SET to cause harm.  That is its raison d'être.  
 
Your cause/effect chain is flawed.  

your still putting words in my mouth. i never put blame or responsibility here. What I am saying is a child must step on a mine in order for the land mine to explode. this is a correct statement. i did not say, because the child stepped on he deserved to die. but the action of the child walking through a mine field is necessary for the land mine to explode. im still failing to see the flaw. no blame or responsibily is being put on the child. who cares i continue to get attacked.

Yes, a child needs to walk on a land mine in order for it to go off.

You know what else needs to take place in order for a child to be killed by walking on a landmine? The land mine needs to be put into place.

In other words: in order for black people to be victims of racism, yes they need to walk into racism.

You know what else needs to happen for black people to be offended by racism? Racist people. Racist people need to happen.

Eliminate racist people, and there will be no black people feeling the effects of racism.

There will be no children walking on land mines if the people placing land mines are pressured as the problem.

 

[cedric ceballos]

i'm reading through paliplayas posts and it really seems like people have been taking what he was trying to say out of context and flip it into things he wasn't intending to say or try to say.

you can tell a troll driven intent to rustle jimmies post from someone like oneilmatt or tha me3362la dude off the bat and know what their trying to do.

paliplaya has came across very reasonable in his posts, hasn't dismissed or personally attacked anyone, and has been respective of the opinions of people who disagree with his posts despite getting some pretty harsh scrutiny for them.

 

[Methodical Management]

 

Schools are as much about socialization as they are about formal education.  Universities should be preparing students to live and work in a diverse society.  

The socialization part is true but unfortunately in some work environments, diversity is hardly there. Corporate America is the biggest examples of this. Even status amongst job positions can totally be sexist and racist. I know a white manager that only hires Asian girls as his staff. My HR is run by a black female and her whole staff is black as well. It's just funny how "high school" things can be even in the adult life.

Part of the point of college, at least ostensibly, is to prevent people from behaving like adolescent high school students.  (That's not to say that formal education is the only valid form of education - and debacles like this certainly challenge that assumption.)

That said, it is especially incumbent upon a public university to perform a public good.  Our tax dollars help support public universities whether we attend them or not, whether we send our own children there or not.  This is so because we all benefit from a well-educated populace.  

Sadly, given that our primary schools have become increasingly segregated in recent years (indeed, they are more segregated today than they were forty years ago), colleges - especially public colleges - are often the first place where all too many students experience any meaningful experiences with diversity.  

Little is gained from that experience if the college lunch room is as cliquish, insular, and segregated as the high school cafeteria.  

If you graduate from high school and you don't know how to read or write, you haven't failed school - the school has failed you.  

If the college's only response is "let's make a token show of expelling these brats so we don't lose any more football recruits or private funding," the college is failing the communities it supposedly serves.  

your still putting words in my mouth. i never put blame or responsibility here. What I am saying is a child must step on a mine in order for the land mine to explode. this is a correct statement. i did not say, because the child stepped on he deserved to die. but the action of the child walking through a mine field is necessary for the land mine to explode. im still failing to see the flaw. no blame or responsibily is being put on the child. who cares i continue to get attacked.

*sigh*  Not to get sidetracked by semantics, but the children killed in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church didn't go traipsing through a minefield.  They didn't do something "inciteful."  They went to church.  

You could "factually" frame a sentence describing the incident to read, "the bomb wouldn't have killed anyone if the building were unoccupied," but why would you?  That's not a neutral framing.  I think, by now, everyone can see that but you.  

 

[mr s j king]

cedric ceballos what dude was trying to do and what he did are two different things.
Again, when you decide to defend hatred and violent rhetoric aimed at a group of people who have been oppressed and effected by that same hatred and violence, expect to be "misunderstood" by that group of people.

 

[Methodical Management]

There will be no children walking on land mines if the people placing land mines are pressured as the problem.

Exactly.  By stepping back, the cause/effect chain changes.  The victim is the "cause" only if you ignore from consideration the act of setting the trap itself.  

paliplaya has came across very reasonable in his posts, hasn't dismissed or personally attacked anyone, and has been respective of the opinions of people who disagree with his posts despite getting some pretty harsh scrutiny for them.

There's an old saying, "when you lose, don't lose the lesson."  paliplaya acknowledged a mistake, but it doesn't seem as though he understands what, exactly, was offensive about his initial comparison.  Without that recognition, nothing is gained.  The statement was made.  There's no putting the pin back in the grenade.  

For the interaction to have any lasting benefit, there should be some basic recognition of why the comparison was flawed and offensive.  

And, again, that's where I take issue with focusing on the fate of one or two individual students as the "resolution" of this case.  Whether the students are expelled or not, the environment that led them to behave as they did will persist unless something is changed.  

The criticism of "political correctness" is that it trains people to conceal rather than confront their biases.  While there's something to be gained from stigmatizing the types of bigotry that render our public spaces hostile and unwelcoming, if we're to truly attack social inequality "root and branch," it's not enough to mask the symptoms.  

 

[paliplaya2010]

Exactly.  By stepping back, the cause/effect chain changes.  The victim is the "cause" only if you ignore from consideration the act of setting the trap itself.  



There's an old saying, "when you lose, don't lose the lesson."  paliplaya acknowledged a mistake, but it doesn't seem as though he understands what, exactly, was offensive about his initial comparison.  Without that recognition, nothing is gained.  The statement was made.  There's no putting the pin back in the grenade.  

For the interaction to have any lasting benefit, there should be some basic recognition of why the comparison was flawed and offensive.  


And, again, that's where I take issue with focusing on the fate of one or two individual students as the "resolution" of this case.  Whether the students are expelled or not, the environment that led them to behave as they did will persist unless something is changed.  

The criticism of "political correctness" is that it trains people to conceal rather than confront their biases.  While there's something to be gained from stigmatizing the types of bigotry that render our public spaces hostile and unwelcoming, if we're to truly attack social inequality "root and branch," it's not enough to mask the symptoms.  

im gonna assume your older and more wiser by your eloquence. i used a bad analogy example and did not dictate what i meant correctly, but i still am standing by my message or the point i was trying to get across. that was i do not believe you can blame the idiot frat boys for the disruption. yes what they said is disgusting and terrible. but they are entitled to say that under law. whether u think that this law is right or wrong, it is our current system and we must abide by it. they were closet racist, said racist things in private which is constitutionally protected. someone tattled on them and now we see this huge uproar and disruption. it is not fair to place the responsibility of the disruption on them bc they did so off campus and in a private party. that my point. they did not go to campus, or classes, or random black people at school and try and provoke them. what they said is provoking agreed, but they would only be responsible in provoking if they actively seeked the attention and disruption. so based on that and OU being a public school that must follow the constitution exactly, i do not believe those students could legally be punished for either the racist comments OR the disruption. Meth, focus on refuting that and not the other analogies i tried to use to make my point. If u can answer those question, without picking at my stupid analogy or making other analogies or assumptions I think i will learn the lesson you are trying to teach me. i am open to being taught and understanding why i am wrong with that logic i just used.

 

[hand2handking]

 

 

[RustyShackleford]

Since when is being on a bus they don't own, presumably on a public road, outside of their frat house, in the company of girls from another sorority, be considered "private"

I can't with this dude anymore.

 

[wr]

All these technicalities...

it was racist. End of story.

White folks been singing this song systematically for 159 years. It's a tradition for them to be racist. There is no changing that. These modes of thought don't fit in the future. Old obsolete thinking will be their own self inflicted demise.