Their act did not create a hostile learning environment. Try to explain that. The act itself, not the drama the story became.
Was this not a school-sponsored fraternity event, and thus a school-sponsored activity? If so, that is where it occurred and would warrant action even if they never intended for it to be known to the wider community. It isn't a whistle-blower's responsibility. Assuming it was a whistle-blower and not an airhead.
I don't see how you can separate the two, but given that you stated it "wasn't" prior to asking me to explain I suppose I am wasting my breath. Also, there are specific rules backed by law about groups barring membership based on race. This is a school-sponsored group who has an organized cheer/song stating they are doing just that. Expelling the leaders of that group is completely fair in that regard as well.
If you could prove not only that the fraternity did that, but that individuals did as well, maybe you'd have a point.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ity-may-not-expel-students-for-racist-speech/ http://time.com/3739268/sigma-alpha-epsilon-university-of-oklahoma-expel-free-speech/
As I think about the expulsion and potential ramifications I'm not sure that a non-expulsion route would end differently. The university and its students are not going to want these guys there, and I'd guess life around campus will be most unpleasant. I think these guys are likley to leave on their own. It's going to follow them regardless, but probably a better situation at another university.
Did anyone express sympathy for them? My only point is that OU doesn't have grounds for expulsion and if the kids fight for reinstatement they'll get it, although I don't why they'd want to come back.
it should remove 100% of the consequences from government funded institutions. this is why schools can ban prayer, right? it's about them being gov't funded.
it isn't about the poor boys or their regrettable opinions. It's about the 1st amendment protecting speech, especially from recourse via gov't institution.
Their speech hasn't been harmed. They did and still can say whatever they want. They're not in jail, they are charged with no crime.
they've been harmed in response to their speech. Short of ripping out their throats, they'll always be physically able to say whatever they want. The protection is about protection from recourse, but you knew this.
I don't see this as government recourse, and I know the authors of the amendment weren't considering an example like this one way or the other because such an analog as a state school didn't exist.
of course you'll play semantics silliness over this. Schools have banned public prayer, even to the point of disallowing the FCA onto campus. Surely you recall coaches being disallowed team prayer prior to games, right? Is that any kind? Is that ever? Aloud and in a group qualifies for both, no? Maybe these semantics cut both ways.
of course is gov't recourse. The university is gov't funded and exists because of an initial land grant. You might have an argument at a private university, but it would still be a poor one. Students are at the university, where they've been duly admitted, and are paying for a service. Refusing them their due over their opinion, whether public or private, runs counter to our constitution.
There are no grounds for OU to expell students for this. How hard is that to understand? The "proof" you provided was predicated on them creating a hostile learning environment, which they did not. I don't know how many times I must say this until you acknowledge it with a legitimate response. Hell, more or less the exact same thing happened at Auburn about 15 years ago. The students sued the fraternity and the University, a judge ruled in their favor for reinstatement to the university, citing their constitutionally protected right to free speech.
