OU SAE to sue University of Oklahoma and the University President

[marym625]

Yep. They're being slammed and punished for using their freedom of speech. Law professors are gearing up to help the students out.

NORMAN, Okla. — The local chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon is planning to pursue legal action against the University of Oklahoma, and possibly OU President David Boren.

The group has hired high-profile attorney, Stephen Jones to represent them.

Jones told NewsChannel 4 the group is outraged over President Boren shutting down the fraternity house and branding all SAE members as racists and bigots.

Jones says the two students who were expelled because of the incident have apologized sincerely for their remarks, and now the incident is being exploited.

He said they lacked judgment in a social setting, but they should not be tarred and feathered as racists.

http://kfor.com/2015/03/12/ou-sae-to-sue-ou-possibly-president-boren/

But the expulsions immediately struckconstitutional law experts such as professor Eugene Volokh, of the University of California at Los Angeles and the Volokh Conspiracy blog, as strange. Did the University of Oklahoma, a public institution, just punish speech that, while clearly abhorrent, was protected under the First Amendment? Was this a violation of the Constitution?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/11/expelled-oklahoma-students-have-an-excellent-chance-of-succeeding-if-they-sue/


Sorry but the second "hanging" or "lynching" was uttered, it became hate speech, imho.
On edit: brain fart. That speech is protected. Was thinking hate crime and confused the two.

Fucking crybaby, asswipe, entitled, racist pigs.

[Mr Dixon]

1. SMH

Wow so their upset for being called bigots? Pretty much like a wolf being upset being called a predator.

[marym625]

2. Well they said sorry.

Shouldn't that be enough? I mean look at the Ferguson PD. They don't even have to apologize or change tactics and they keep their jobs.

[City Lights]

3. If they don't want to be called racists, they shouldn't

say racist things. It's very simple.

Fuck them and their racist frat.

[marym625]

13. couldn't agree more

I hate that it's true, but had they just said that horrid word, then I would have to agree that the University overstepped and they have that right. But as soon as they brought killing into it, they were using hate speech.

Not that it all isn't hateful. I just mean as in under the law, hate speech. Hate crime/speech.

Not on top of my game this morning.

[onenote]

35. But the first amendment protects "hate speech"

Which is why Westboro Baptist won its case at the Supreme Court.

Incitement isn't protected speech, but under the applicable supreme court precendents, no incitement occurred.

But as others have pointed out, the chapter doesn't have a leg to stand on in terms of losing its recognition by the University since a precondition is that the chapter be recognized by the national organization and the national organization no longer recognizes the chapter.

As for the expelled students, its not clear from the story whether they are planning on suing too. While they actually may have a stronger claim (under the student code of conduct it wuold appear that they are entitled to notice and a hearing before being expelled), I think the University would be on pretty solid ground in arguing that the students' continued presence on campus would be disruptive.

[geek tragedy]

36. they were provided with the opportunity to request the hearing.

Presumably they decided to waive that right.

Which pretty much dooms their already slim prospects for legal relief.

Boren said they were basing their decision on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. I think that's a very compelling argument that the frat boys would have difficulty overcoming. They admitted to racial discrimination. Hard to work around that one.

Had they just used racist language, it's one thing. But when they say that they don't allow blacks and won't allow blacks, that has major legal implications.

[KingCharlemagne]

43. That's pretty astute analysis. No way an organization that openly violates

the law against racial discrimination can remain on a publicly-funded post-secondary institution of higher education or receive any official recognition from said institution.

I'm willing to bet that the charter or bylaws of OU explicitly prohibit discrimination based on race.

[hifiguy]

54. Good insight.

Waiver of your due process rights in a tribunal of first impression - such as an administrative hearing - pretty much scotches your ability to then toddle into court and say you've been victimized and are entitled to a first hearing. You have to follow the process and make a record, win or lose.

[marym625]

38. Oh you're so right

I don't know what I was thinking. Wishful thinking I guess. I don't want any kind of censorship, but I have guess I was thinking of hate crimes.

Funny that a black hip hop artist can be arrested, spend months in jail for a song he wrote years prior to a gang shooting, that he wasn't involved in, but fraternity, it's all good.

[GreatGazoo]

4. Admitting to racial discrimination and threatening to lynch other students goes beyond the 1st Amend

The University has a legal obligation of its own to provide a safe, non-discriminatory and healthy environment for all of their customers.

[marym625]

18. +1000

Exactly! I'm really surprised that law professors from other universities are jumping in on this

[bullwinkle428]

5. What is their legal claim? Definition of character?

OH YES!!!!!!

[marym625]

19. definition of character!

[FSogol]

6. Doesn't OU have a student code of conduct? Didn't they agree to abide by the code when

accepting admission to OU? The University rests its case, your Honor....

[MissDeeds]

10. Excellent point (n/t)

[onenote]

12. Except the code may actually give the students a leg to stand on

This is assuming that the expelled students also sue, which I don't think is the case.


Here's a link to the OU Student Rights and Responsibilities code.

http://www.ou.edu/content/dam/studentlife/documents/AllCampusStudentCode.pdf

Among other things it states that students of the University of Oklahoma are guaranteed certain rights by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Oklahoma and the University of Oklahoma Student Association. Those documents are controlling and any questions of student rights must be decided on the language contained in those documents.

It also says students have the right to certain procedural due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

On the other hand, while there are a few listed "responsibilities" that could form the basis of a decision to expel, they aren't nearly as clear cut as one might expect. The general "Abusive conduct" standard is probably the strongest leg that the University has to stand on; but even there a good lawyer could bring a substantial challenge based on a claim that the standard is unconstitutionally vague as applied to speech.

I'm happy that these idiots got tossed and that Boren was unequivocal in his damning of their actions and of the fraternity. But if the students sued (and I would be surprised if they did), the most likely outcome would be an out of court settlement (albeit not one that results in the students or fraternity being readmitted to the university).

[FSogol]

25. Regardless of what is says, any University can err on the side of protecting their student's safety.

When you have a mob of students chanting to hang a certain segment of the student body from a tree, expulsion is the proper course. Despite their Daddies' high powered lawyers, they won't win this case.

[geek tragedy]

26. the frat chapter itself has zero legal remedies, though, as it's already been dissolved

by the national frat.

moreover, they discriminated on the basis of race, which is a slam-dunk for getting the chapter banned

[onenote]

30. Agree that there is prima facie evidence that the fraternity discriminated

Also agree, now that I've seen OU's "Minimum Expectations Covenant" that all frats must sign, that once the national organization terminated the local chapter's charter, they were no longer subject to recognition by the University. I'm still unclear as to who "owns" the actual frat house property (although I'm guessing that if it is located on the actual campus it is owned by the University and leased to, or otherwise made available to SAE on condition that it meets the Minimum Expectations Covenant". If I'm wrong and the fraternity (national or local chapter) and/or its residents have a property interest in the house, then there could be an issue with evicting them without due process. Since I haven't seen the lawsuit, I can't speak to what grounds they claim to have for fighting the University's actions.

A further question is whether the SAE members could form their own "frat" (calling it whatever they want) and find housing for it off campus, and not bother with seeking university recognition. Would the university have any recourse?

[geek tragedy]

32. students can form their own private groups and associations

off-campus if they want. But they won't be affiliated with the university anyways, so it would just be some douchebros drinking beer on a couch

[Gore1FL]

58. There is clear violation of the "Abusive conduct" rule

1. Abusive conduct: Unwelcome conduct that is sufficiently severe and pervasive that it alters the conditions of education or employment and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating, harassing or humiliating. These circumstances could include the frequency of the conduct, its severity, and whether it is threatening or humiliating. This includes physically abusing a person or holding a person against his or her will. Simple teasing, offhanded comments and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to abusive conduct.

[marym625]

20. +2000!

I didn't even think about that. Great point

[steve2470]

33. yes they do

http://www.ou.edu/content/dam/studentlife/documents/AllCampusStudentCode.pdf

[alarimer]

7. Free speech is not consequence-free speech.

There is no right to be an entitled asshole (which is all fraternities are).

[FourScore]

16. +1

[marym625]

21. I think it does entitle people to be assholes.

Just not murder threatening assholes.

[hifiguy]

55. It does.

But as much as I think these morans got exactly what they deserved, I don't think it's possible to read their idiot song as an imminent threat. Drunken stupidity, yes, but not a threat that was going to be acted on. These rich snots would never dirty their hands.

[marym625]

62. True

They would send someone to do their dirty work.

I agree. I misspoke about hate speech. Just a brain fart this morning

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. .........

[marym625]

22. +1000

[hifiguy]

56. The guys in my fraternity at the U of MN,

and apparently at many other colleges around the country, always said SAE stood for "Same Assholes Everywhere."

[MissDeeds]

9. Defending the indefensible

Pathetic.

[NM_Birder]

11. free speech is only for the rich, and musicians.

[marym625]

23. It is indefensible, imho. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

14. OK. Let's further investigate how the freshman members learned the song

Since they just pledged last fall (or were they still pledging???), surely some other members taught the group this song. Let's look into that. Discovery should be fun as well.

[marym625]

24. oh! good point

That should be tons of fun!

[yardwork]

31. That's whatvim waiting to see and hear.

I would guess that that is an old song - probably 100 years old or so - that is well-known to most SAE chapters around the country. I expect to see more videos in 3....2....1....

[KittyWampus]

15. the University MUST provide a welcoming & safe environment for all students.

As a minority student there, knowing such blatant bigotry was allowed to flourish on campus would be untenable.

Who wouldn't feel threatened when fellow students are singing songs about lynching?

I might have seen the other side to this issue if the song hadn't mentioned/alluded to lynching.

That crosses a line.

[marym625]

27. totally agree

Well, I wouldn't have felt comfortable there either way, but I agree that the lynching crossed the line from freedom of speech to hate speech.

[Maeve]

17. Since the national fraternity closed the OU chapter, the university seems within its rights

Each fraternity or sorority must be recognized by its respective (inter)national organization.
Where no (inter)national organization exists, a group wishing to become a fraternity or sorority must petition Fraternity and Sorority Student Life and meet the Title IX requirements of a single sex organization. (page 9)

http://www.ou.edu/content/dam/studentlife/documents/FSSL%20Minimum%20Expectations%20Covenant%20Fall%202014.pdf

[marym625]

28. Another great point!

Thank you!

[Dr. Strange]

29. Interesting lawsuit.

On the one hand, they probably do have a case (as Volokh has said, in addition to the ACLU of Oklahoma's comment that "it is difficult to imagine a situation in which a court would side with the university on this matter&quot .

On the other hand, do you really want to draw even more attention to your asswipery? Yeah, you might get a settlement out of the deal, but your name and reputation are going to take even more of a hit.

Careful what you wish for...

[onenote]

34. Agreed

[marym625]

39. Good point

But just think of the companies that will want these asswipes for standing their ground.

[Dr. Strange]

45. To the contrary...

companies might view them as litigation risks.

Do you really want to hire someone knowing that they might try to sue you if they embarrass your company?

[marym625]

49. I was thinking more along the lines

Of why they sued and what they did in the first place. Though I was only half serious. Your point would outweigh any other

[hifiguy]

57. The Repubs will be recruiting these spoiled shitheels

the minute they're old enough to run for office. They have bright futures as bootlickers for the tenth-percenters.

[maryellen99]

37. Stephen Jones

He was Mcveighs lawyer plus he ran against David Boren in 1990. I wonder if that's why he took the case.

[marym625]

40. Really? interesting!

[onenote]

46. Stephen Jones is not easily pigeon holed

His main modus operandi is to take cases that are viewed as being too unpoular for other lawyers to take.

For example, early in his career he represented a student who was arrested for protesting the Viet Nam war by carrying a Viet Cong flag, a decision that got him fired from his law firm. He also represented Abbie Hoffman. And he accepted the appointment to represent McVeigh after several other lawyers refused to take on the case.

In other words, he is of the mindset -- a mindset shared by others such as Ramsey Clark -- that everyone is entitled to a legal defense even if they're not an attractive defendant.

Of course, the fact that he goes up against Boren, who defeated him in the 1990 Senate race by an 83-17 percent vote probably is an additional perk of the case in his mind.

[geek tragedy]

52. this case would be less competitive than the senate race. nt

[spanone]

41. timothy mcveigh's lawyer....

[marym625]

42. Someone just pointed that out

Very interesting. Very.

[maryellen99]

47. Does the fraternity have any self awareness

It looks real bad hiring Jones knowing that next month is the 20th anniversary of the OKC bombing.

[marym625]

61. 20 years! oh my goodness

That is almost hard to believe.

I don't think they care what anyone thinks.

[onenote]

64. Maybe not, but I don't hold it against Jones that he accepted an appointment to represent McVeigh

I share the view of one my progressive heroes, Ramsey Clark, that everyone is entitled to a legal defense, no matter how unpopular defending them is with the public. Jones took the McVeigh case after others refused to defend him.

[Logical]

75. I 100% agree, everyone deserves a competent defense! nt

[Blue_Tires]

44. It's the only option they have left to scare OU back into re-admitting them

And unless those boys have a LOT of OU's dirty laundry to air in court, their case is going nowhere...

[marym625]

48. They could just accept their punishment

[Blue_Tires]

51. Why do that when mom+dad have been "fixing" things all their lives?

[marshall]

50. I think the two individuals have a better case than does the fraternity

In fact I don't know what basis they are going to make their case on. Presumably the fraternity building, which the president told them to vacate, is owned by the university.

The two leaders do at least have an argument that they were not afforded due process and that their first amendment rights were violated. I'm not saying it is a strong argument or one that they would win, but I can certainly see that better than I can see whatever the fraternity might argue.

[marym625]

63. I don't know enough about what schools are allowed to do.

It seems that the fact the national chapter is closed, the university was within their right. But I don't know for sure

[marshall]

66. I wondered about him telling them to pack their bags and get out

I assume the university owns the premises where they live. The university where I work owns some but does not own others. I assume we can't tell people to get out of property we don't own.

The thing that I think is arguable about this is that the president acted so quickly and decisively, especially in regards to the two leaders who were expelled. He expressed personal disgust with them and said he hoped they left the city of Norman. Since he was speaking for the university, and the university is a government institution, there are Constitutional issues that are different than if this was a private institution.

Still I think the president made the best move he could in the circumstances. He could either act swiftly against the fraternity and its leaders, and perhaps open himself and the university up to litigation (which universities are loathe to do even if it is likely the university will win out), or he could have acted very cautiously and in the process ignited public furor and no doubt brought a great deal of national scrutiny and protest to his campus. He was really in a no-win situation and took the course of least resistance (at least legally).

[marym625]

70. I agree

And I think their suing speaks volumes. Not that anyone bought the apology anyway.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

69. I agree

Once the national organization revoked the SAE charter, I think the university had every right to boot them from campus.

The expulsions may well be a different story, but I haven't heard anything about those students suing.

[Maedhros]

53. Fraternities must comply with the Oklahoma University Code of Conduct.

It seems pretty obvious that the chapter's behavior violated that code, hence the revocation of the SAE charter at OU seems reasonable.

When I was in school, some fraternities lost their charters for less.

[hifiguy]

59. That the SAE national immediately yanked their charter

does nothing at all to help their case.

[marym625]

67. Then, hopefully, the university will win

It would really suck if they lost

[gerogie2]

60. Every minority person that attends OU should join in a class action lawsuit

to sue SAE for discrimination against people with brown skin. The settlements will even everything out.

[onenote]

65. They're going to have to establish that they tried to join SAE

to have standing.

[marym625]

68. I doubt there's any money there.

The National chapter closed

[Generic Brad]

71. Tarred and feathered?

No racist connotations there.

[marym625]

72. I didn't say it

Yeah, what a thing to say

[Generic Brad]

73. Very aware you did not say it

My sarcasm was directed at the lawsuit, not you. Sorry I did not make that clear.

[marym625]

74. No sorry needed

I should have put a smilie dude there. I was joking.

So, my apologies