http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026343841

The Dallas media today has been impressive. Tbe response from Jesuit as well.

So now, when do the young ladies on the bus, the Tri Delts, as is being reported, when do they get held responsible as well?

Parker's fsmily have apparently left town.

Go figure.
Sure there is more to come.

So wish we (my so and I) had the financial resources to leave this place!

Pls see post made to judilynn's thread.

Parker Rice, 2014 graduate of Jesuit in Dallas.
Dallas media is all over it.

immediately yanked by their national, the shitstorm they so richly deserved has landed squarely on these punks.

Midnight TOMORROW.

Truly, that man was NOT playing.

they lead that chant, who encouraged them, who else was in on it, etc.

And they'll have to testify, and answer, every question asked.

I don't see that there would be any significant facts in dispute. Whether the state can penalize him in this manner for speech is a purely legal question.

would certainly merit fact discovery.

They admitted to racial discrimination. That is conduct not just speech.

The University, as I understand it, is admittedly expelling them for what they said, not anything they did. Was there some other ground for the expulsion, and were the freshmen determining who lives in the house?

The University doesn't have standing to bring some sort of counterclaim against them for housing discrimination, so how does that become an issue?

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. First these punks would have to appeal this decision, which would then force the university to lay out its specific reasoning with a more fulsome bill of particulars. Certainly illegal discrimination counts as a hostile learning environment.

Even if it didn't, the university could say "okay, but you did violate civil rights laws. You're still expelled."

And then they'd have to have fact discovery on that, as well as hostile learning environment.

And, cowardly little pampered shits they are, they are not going to fight this. Their parents will tell them to roll over and that will be that.

that they would be able to make a due process claim.

Was there a hearing?
Were the accused afforded any opportunity to offer a defense? (not that I can think of one but they still have that right)
Is/was a racist chant sufficiently threatening that the university could take what is, in effect, ex parte action?

I, in no way, condone what they said or their actions but as this is a government run institution and as such is governed by the federal bill of rights. Additionally, there is no 1st amendment exclusion for racist speech.

appeal and contest. That is due process.

people punished before they can mount a defense?

contest that decision, in a very timely manner.

So, the expulsion would not be final until the students had either availed themselves of or waived the appeals process.

Illegal housing discrimination and fostering a de facto racial segregation are not protected activities.

Justice has been swift and decisive in this case.

The only quibble I have is that they might have used these dim bulbs to rat out the white supremacists in their frat who taught them that song.

the reason portion of the decree (1st paragraph) states:

My reading of the President's decree is that the content of the message is the basis for the expulsion which would clearly be a violation of the 1st Amendment protections. There is no 1st Amendment exception for racism.

Was the chant racist? Certainly
Was it repugnant? Absolutely.
Should there be punishment? Yes.
Did the President of the University open the University up to legal action that they may not win? most likely.

Don't believe me? After all, who am I? Just another voice hidden behind a computer screen and keyboard.

Perhaps this law professor's arguments might sshed some additional light.

Don't like his bona fides?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oklahoma-fraternity-explainer-20150310-story.html#page=1

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."

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."

The free speech absolutist argument is both crudely reductive and misplaced in this case.

There is no right to engage in illegal discrimination, or to create a hostile environment in violation of civil rights laws. Even with the first amendment in place.

Universities have a positive obligation to prevent hostile educational environments. Ergo this kind of decision.

The students have the right to contest this decision.

One has already stated he has "withdrawn" from the university so he is not likely to.

The other one will not in all likelihood.

Too bad, so sad. The white boys are not the victims here.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/10/fallout-oklahoma-racist-video/24691017/

It was in my paper this morning.