Should schools be able to expel students because of their speech

[The Free North]

In reference to the OU SAE situation of course...

Of course its both sad and embarrassing that people will still revert back to such hateful speech (i blame a combination of alcohol and racist parents for the action in the video).
I also think its both sad and embarrassing that a school would expel students over certain types of speech. Obviously direct threats of violence should be investigated by law enforcement for safety reasons, and in those cases the appropriate legal action should be taken if the threats were proven to be legitimate. Part of me would not be as irritated if universities did not claim to be such bastions of free thinking and learning, but when they are presented as such, it raises a few eyebrows when this happens.

I suppose it comes down to whether or not you believe 'open minded' schools are being hypocritical in not allowing 'close minded' speech. I believe that we have the right to speak out but should suffer societal consequences if our speech is offensive and hateful, NOT institutional consequences, assuming there is no direct violence involved. Ultimately, I think it raises questions over what free speech really extends to and to what extent do universities truly protect free speech rather than selected free speech.

Note: I don't want to have a discussion over whether or not the school has the legal right to do what they did, but rather should they have taken the course of action they did.

Also as an aside, if this is the standard for expulsion I would be unhappy to say that America's college age population would probably drop substantially for all races.

[King]

The Bill of Rights is between the federal government and the people not the University of Oklahoma and the people. There are no freedom of speech rights held by students.

[AggregateDemand]

The Bill of Rights is between the federal government and the people not the University of Oklahoma and the people. There are no freedom of speech rights held by students.

True, but the federal government is obliged to intervene if anyone, including state governments, infringe upon individual liberty, particularly rights explicitly listed in constitutional amendments.

This is a debate about the limitations of the first amendment, not federalism.

[Linus Van Pelt]

The Bill of Rights is between the federal government and the people not the University of Oklahoma and the people. There are no freedom of speech rights held by students.

Do you really believe that the bill of rights doesn't apply to state governments? This is a position held mostly by Paultard weirdos and Confederate revanchists.

[King]

The Bill of Rights is between the federal government and the people not the University of Oklahoma and the people. There are no freedom of speech rights held by students.

Do you really believe that the bill of rights doesn't apply to state governments? This is a position held mostly by Paultard weirdos and Confederate revanchists.

I wasn't referring to federal government to mean the national government, but the strict sense of the word. State and local governments are part of the federal system.

[Linus Van Pelt]

The Bill of Rights is between the federal government and the people not the University of Oklahoma and the people. There are no freedom of speech rights held by students.

Do you really believe that the bill of rights doesn't apply to state governments? This is a position held mostly by Paultard weirdos and Confederate revanchists.

I wasn't referring to federal government to mean the national government, but the strict sense of the word. State and local governments are part of the federal system.

OK, but the University of Oklahoma is an institution of the state government.

[King]

The Bill of Rights is between the federal government and the people not the University of Oklahoma and the people. There are no freedom of speech rights held by students.

Do you really believe that the bill of rights doesn't apply to state governments? This is a position held mostly by Paultard weirdos and Confederate revanchists.

I wasn't referring to federal government to mean the national government, but the strict sense of the word. State and local governments are part of the federal system.

OK, but the University of Oklahoma is an institution of the state government.

Okay, but the government is still doing nothing to infringe the rights of the students speech.

These individuals can still go to the campus today and chant no n-----s in SAE all day long as non-students. Their rights to free speech are not infringed. They aren't going to jail. They aren't losing any property. They are losing their title as a student at Oklahoma and a member of SAE fraternity. There is no 1st amendment right to have membership to an organization against the will of the organization, even a public organization. If that were the case, I'd go demand the government give an Endowment for the Arts right now.

[Thunderbird is the word]

The Bill of Rights is between the federal government and the people not the University of Oklahoma and the people. There are no freedom of speech rights held by students.

But why should first amendment rights not extend to public universities?

[King]

The Bill of Rights is between the federal government and the people not the University of Oklahoma and the people. There are no freedom of speech rights held by students.

But why should first amendment rights not extend to public universities?

Their rights as citizens extend to public universities. Their rights as students do not.

If we take the logic of student rights further, one could equally argue someone who is rejected by OU graduate school for a terrible application containing a poorly written essay could claim they are being excluded from this public forum for "freedom of speech."

[Linus Van Pelt]

The Bill of Rights is between the federal government and the people not the University of Oklahoma and the people. There are no freedom of speech rights held by students.

Do you really believe that the bill of rights doesn't apply to state governments? This is a position held mostly by Paultard weirdos and Confederate revanchists.

I wasn't referring to federal government to mean the national government, but the strict sense of the word. State and local governments are part of the federal system.

OK, but the University of Oklahoma is an institution of the state government.

Okay, but the government is still doing nothing to infringe the rights of the students speech.

These individuals can still go to the campus today and chant no n-----s in SAE all day long as non-students. Their rights to free speech are not infringed. They aren't going to jail. They aren't losing any property. They are losing their title as a student at Oklahoma and a member of SAE fraternity. There is no 1st amendment right to have membership to an organization against the will of the organization, even a public organization. If that were the case, I'd go demand the government give an Endowment for the Arts right now.

Of course there can be other qualifications required. The question is whether, when those other qualifications are met, the government can deny a benefit just because of the recipient's speech that does not pertain to those qualifications. The government can require that you pass a driving test and a written test to get a driver's license, but it can't require that you pass a driving test and a written test and write zero articles critical of the current government to get a driver's license.

[King]

But if the University of Oklahoma's application asked me to write a paragraph on how I plan to use my education in my community and I wrote:

"I believe the goal of any white college student should be to gain further economic advantage over the n----r subspecies. I hope to become a business leader who succeeds at further promoting white power."

OR, take race out if it... if I submitted this, showing me to be illiterate:

"Im gone be RICH$$$ man jao"

Can they not consider the answer as part of their rejection of my application for admission?
Is the power granted to them to reject admission into the public university also not the same as their power to expel admission into the public university?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

It all depends on whether the students violated any actual bylaws that they agreed to follow when they signed on.

That's the difference between an organization removing someone for violating mutually agreed-upon rules, and a state institution expelling someone for offensive speech.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can see doing so, if they give their hate speech while they are in some sense representing the university.  I fail to see how doing so as part of an activity of a fraternity chapter for that university would not meet that test.  So in the OU ΣΑΕ case, I have no problem with the university's decision to expel the two who were leading the chant.

[Thunderbird is the word]

But if the University of Oklahoma's application asked me to write a paragraph on how I plan to use my education in my community and I wrote:

"I believe the goal of any white college student should be to gain further economic advantage over the n----r subspecies. I hope to become a business leader who succeeds at further promoting white power."

OR, take race out if it... if I submitted this, showing me to be illiterate:

"Im gone be RICH$$$ man jao"

Can they not consider the answer as part of their rejection of my application for admission?
Is the power granted to them to reject admission into the public university also not the same as their power to expel admission into the public university?

You make a fair point actually.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Let's please refrain from using the N-word in discussion here on this site, please.

[publicunofficial]

Universities have the right to say who attends, and a right to revoke the enrollment of those who break their policies.


Unless you want to make public universities a completely government controlled service, with free admission for all. But I doubt your libertarian ass wants that.

[The Free North]

Universities have the right to say who attends, and a right to revoke the enrollment of those who break their policies.


Unless you want to make public universities a completely government controlled service, with free admission for all. But I doubt your libertarian ass wants that.

At least read what I wrote first...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The Bill of Rights is between the federal government and the people not the University of Oklahoma and the people. There are no freedom of speech rights held by students.

Tinker vs Des Moines says differently

[publicunofficial]

Universities have the right to say who attends, and a right to revoke the enrollment of those who break their policies.


Unless you want to make public universities a completely government controlled service, with free admission for all. But I doubt your libertarian ass wants that.

At least read what I wrote first...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you want an answer to that, then yes. It's 2015, sorry it's no longer okay to be racist.

[IceSpear]

The free market worked. I thought you guys loved that? Or should the big guvment step in and save the kids from expulsion?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The Bill of Rights is between the federal government and the people not the University of Oklahoma and the people. There are no freedom of speech rights held by students.

Tinker vs Des Moines says differently

That is a bit different. You are forced to go to high school; it is compulsory. University, state or private, is a choice and not everyone could or should go. The university is in the right in this situation.

[badgate]

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

No, they should not be able to.  Revoking a fraternity's charter is a completely different thing. 

[MaxQue]

Why are you quoting a Tea Party "law" teacher which happens to be one of the biggest idiots of the law world?

[publicunofficial]

Why are you quoting a Tea Party "law" teacher which happens to be one of the biggest idiots of the law world?

He's not agreeing with him, he's pointing out how funny it is that Volokh claimed that the students cannot be expelled, right before they were in fact expelled.