There Will Never Be A N****r At SAE!

Post Reply New Topic

The problem here, that few seem to see, is this.

The drunken frat boys of today are the Judges and Police Chiefs of Ferguson MO tomorrow.

That's the whole thing with conservative libertarians. They take the letter of the law, rather than the spirit behind the letter, and so see things entirely in black and white absolutes. And if that exercise of a right might be abused to the point of hurting someone else' rights, then they aggrieved party ought to buck up or go away, they seem to figure. And the truth is, the spirit behind any law and rights is morally based. Do away with a moral standard, and the law is not just empty, but pernicious.

I have some good news for you. The fraternity is showing leadership here, not allowing itself to be bullied by the likes of Stephen Jones or the OK Kappa Alumni. SAE is taking steps to ensure the safety of students everywhere by directly addressing issues concerning race and ethnicity of its membership. They have already eliminated pledges who might endure hazing. Read more about it by clicking the link below.

http://www.sae.net/oklahoma

*sigh*

This one is for Ana, since apparently she needs a demonstration of the difference between protected offensive speech and unprotected 'fighting words'; thankfully, I happen to have the perfect examples...

This is protected offensive speech:


While this is unprotected fighting words:

33 seconds in is where it really switches to fighting words in the legal sense.

I'll be back later to explain the difference between being amoral and thinking morals make for sh***y arguments, though I imagine that will be about as productive as talking to a particularly dense brick wall.

Maybe you could give it a try, Walrus, you seem to be the only one here able to follow along, which is funny since I know I've argued this very topic with you before, plus you don't carry my taint that these partisans can't seem to see past.

When you talk about the Greek System, you're talking about more than social fraternities and sororities. You also have the professional fraternities and sororities (membership limited to a specific profession, like Phi Mu Alpha and Delta Omicron, the professional music fraternity and sorority) and the honorary fraternities and sororities (Phi Delta Kappa, the academic honorary fraternity comes to mind). I frankly think social frats and sororities are a waste of time, since the majority of the time these groups are only good for partying, getting drunk and getting laid. It has been almost 40 years since I joined Phi Mu Alpha, so I really don't know if their standards for membership has changed.

And ironically, Dox, neither is an example of what happened at OU

But thanks for sharing.

I don't think anyone has argued that we should just accept speech that oppresses. Rather, censorship might not always be the best way to combat oppression.

For example, I've only been convinced of the benefits of SRS by seeing users on here debunk transphobic comments. If Viper had simply banned anyone who said anything transphobic, I might well thing it was a solely elective surgery.

I agree with you that all students have a right to study, and if a student's speech persistently affects the studying of other students then perhaps they should be removed. I'm not convinced that's the case here, but if they started chanting in the library or a lecture theatre or deliberately harassing individuals, then it would be.

Recently, at my university, the secularist society had their funding withdrawn because they named an inanimate object "Muhammad". Since then, they've encountered resistance to becoming a full society again (though they have done it).

Now, is that injustice more or less important than stopping black students hearing the word "n*****" used against them? I'm not sure. But if you can stop secularists campaigning for the release of blasphemers in Egypt, then you can stop the LGBT+ society campaigning for the release of homosexuals in Uganda, or students protesting police brutality (again, that actually happens). You could see black students censored for saying "n***a".

Honestly, I think fighting speech with speech is probably the best way of dealing with it. Otherwise it comes down to hoping that the person with the biggest stick has everyone's best interests at heart.

It's not a question of favouring lack of oppression ahead of freedom of speech, it's faith in the masses ahead of the powerful.

Let me address those two bits in bold.

Concerning the first bit-- These are two reasons to crush that sort of speech and taking it OFF CAMPUS. The frist is what I've already stated: Those 'kids' are all likely to be in positions of influence and power in the near future. People like them create the sort of oppression we see realized in Ferguson right now.

I'm perfectly okay with using your method of counter speech and social sanctions to deal with this in general. There are plenty of orgs. (NAACP, SPLC, etc.) and people to do this in the general population.

HOWEVER, college campuses area bit different, as I've said before, most students don't have time to counter this BS, and frankly, they shouldn't have to.

But here's the most important reason to deal with stuff like this harshly and drive it off campus--and it's directly linked to the sort of thing we're seeing in Ferguson MO:

Many black/minority students come from places like Ferguson. Places where their people have been so beaten down, devalued, and oppressed; so distrustful of 'the system' that they won't even vote. For kids like these, college is apt to be their first taste of a bigger world where they aren't n****rs, where the have value and potential, where the system CAN be trusted.

If the university just shrugs and says, "Well yeah, it's free speech. So, we cannot do anything..." What we're saying to those kids is, "You know what? You're really just n****rs here too. Suck it up, tar-babies."

If we want to fix the racial problems in America, we can't do that. And race is a big problem here. If we have to step on the 1st amendment a little bit to fix things, I think it's a small enough price to pay.

This has become a thread about freedom of speech, not just about SAE.

Well, I'm returning to the subject.

Unlikely, once there's a new article linking them to racist chanting then they'll struggle to ever get a job.

I'm fairly certain most students have the time to counter this BS most of the time, particularly in America where you stretch courses out over an extra year.


Yes, that might work. However, again, what happens when someone criticises the Prophet and makes Muslims feel just as uncomfortable and oppress? What happens when someone criticises the practice of Affirmative Action (which has negative outcomes for every racial group except whites)? What happens when LGBT students and Christian students hold demonstrations against each other?

Really, do you know the names of any member of that frat other than the two who were suspended? I don't. Also, what about all the frat boys who have never been caught? I want this to have a 'chilling effect' on their speech too.


Really? I don't know where you get your info on University work loads from, but if you are an undergrad taking a full load, that's 5 classes. If you work, in addition to going to school, which is something most undergrads are forced to do, you don't have a lot of time left over. And what time you do have, shouldn't be wasted on this nonsense.



You know, it really depends on the situation and tone... If people are singing about killing muslims, or christians, or gays, I'd say it's not hard to see how to deal with it.

The less inflammatory and more reasoned it is, the more leeway and tolerance it should be afforded.

This doesn't really need to be that hard... and if things really cannot be agreed upon, we do always have the courts.

now, if you'll excuse me, it's spring break (more slack time for us under-worked students), I'm gonna go ride my trike.

It is very much about SAE because they are being pressured when they are in fact a PRIVATE organization one has to be accepted to and join. They have their own guidelines and creed, which is a positive one and they have the right to preserve the integrity of their organization and protect against what would cause the overall culture they endeavor to create to erode and that would be the culture of the True Gentleman Experience. It's on their website. They have just as much right to the sanctity of their expression as any hate group has. In other words, you cannot enter a hate group and demand they stop expressing their hate so long as they don't cross the line to violence so why should haters demand an organization that is against hate tolerate it within their organization?

I'm an undergraduate student myself. For over half the term time, I have plenty of time to spend writing nonsense on the internet (it gets crazy in the final three or four weeks of term, and at exam time, and it will probably be worse next year with my dissertation).

Two weeks ago, I managed to spare five seconds to demolish a socialist campaigning for an end to progressive tuition fee repayments ("you realise you're proposing we shift the burden of taxation onto the poor?"). I could spare the same length of time again to tell a racist that his views are not supported by the current scientific literature (for example).

I'm stressed out and rushed off my feet, but I'm not that busy - and it's not like other people haven't done it before.


Well yes, because that's incitement and isn't protected by any reasonable free speech law.

If you mean in a non-incitement, non-"fighting" context, meh. Obviously it's not cool

Levi Pettit, the most visible face behind the video featuring the chant, just held a press conference and meeting with local black community members. He is definitely trying his best to make a bad situation better. Give him credit for that! He is trying to own up.