SAE Video Discussion Thread

IF you are these students, would you sue to be reinstated? If you were their parents would you? I would think the parents would want their kid to stay as far away from OU as possible.
 
DenverSooner said:
You couldn't be more wrong. The Courts will not even consider reversing the personal ridicule and public backlash but they will seriously consider the punishment from a state actor and OU is a state actor. When you go to Law School and Am Jur Con Law II (the class on the First Admendment, call me and we may have intellectual discussion on this topic until then I suggest you trust someone with far greater knowledge than you.

If you have any doubt read the case about Skokie Il. and the West Boro Baptist Church. Read the 4th Circuit case about George Mason with very similar facts.
Click to expand...

I wasn't taking a shot at you. I guess we just disagree on probabilities. I think it is unlikely that OU faces litigation over reinstatement of the students and unlikely they would lose if they do.
 
Max Power said:
IF you are these students, would you sue to be reinstated? If you were their parents would you? I would think the parents would want their kid to stay as far away from OU as possible.
Click to expand...

My guess is they do, there are egos involved, University and the plaintiffs will settle. OU will wipe the expulsion from their record, and the plaintiffs will agree to not associate themselves with the university going forward.
 
This may seem like a silly question but why does Greek life even exist? Are there benefits to joining that students wouldn't be privy to otherwise? Keep in mind this is coming from someone who never joined a frat but they always just seemed like giant party clubs to me while I was in school. I was dating a girl who rushed and one of the requirements to get in was that they had to give topless lap dances to members of one of the fraternities while the sorority sisters watched. I'd like to say she refused, but she did not and that relationship ended on a sour note lol

The kicker.... I went to a Christian college.
 
garyeb2 said:
I wasn't taking a shot at you. I guess we just disagree on probabilities. I think it is unlikely that OU faces litigation over reinstatement of the students and unlikely they would lose if they do.
Click to expand...


Just about every constitutional scholar that has weighed in on the issue has said that the university would lose.


You are right that litigation is unlikely though. From the statements that I've seen, the parents of these kids are mortified and aren't going to want to bring this situation back in the limelight. They wouldn't get monetary damages from the university, their remedy would be having the expulsions overturned. But these kids aren't going to want to show their faces around here again.



As for the overall issue, OUSKINS absolutely nailed it.
 
BoulderSooner said:
2 good reads from a UCLA law school professor .. 1 totally backing what Denver has already said

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ity-may-not-expel-students-for-racist-speech/

.. and the second on why it should be that way
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...at-speech-is-going-to-justify-expulsion-next/
Click to expand...

The UCLA professor trying to make a name for himself can try to spin it anyway he wants. He is wrong. No reasonable person would dispute that this incident created a hostile environment. Seen the Striker video? No reasonable person would conclude these guys attending class would not create a distraction to others.

His thesis that other speech "could" create this environment is irrelevant. This behavior DID create a hostile environment. If some other speech rises to this level it will be addressed then, not hypothetically.
 
bocabull said:
The UCLA professor trying to make a name for himself can try to spin it anyway he wants. He is wrong. No reasonable person would dispute that this incident created a hostile environment. Seen the Striker video? No reasonable person would conclude these guys attending class would not create a distraction to others.

His thesis that other speech "could" create this environment is irrelevant. This behavior DID create a hostile environment. If some other speech rises to this level it will be addressed then, not hypothetically.
Click to expand...



Where did you get your law degree, counselor?


Ervin Chemerinsky, agrees that the expulsions were not constitutional. And he wrote the damn con law textbook that I used in law school.
 
Last edited:
bocabull said:
The UCLA professor trying to make a name for himself can try to spin it anyway he wants. He is wrong. No reasonable person would dispute that this incident created a hostile environment. Seen the Striker video? No reasonable person would conclude these guys attending class would not create a distraction to others.

His thesis that other speech "could" create this environment is irrelevant. This behavior DID create a hostile environment. If some other speech rises to this level it will be addressed then, not hypothetically.
Click to expand...

there are about 100 other legal minds (both practicing attorneys and law school professors and in 1 case a former federal judge) that have written and spoken about this I won't link them all but they say the same thing ...

the students would win and expulsion would be overturned ..

I'm sure that Boren knows this also .. but 1. as has been said them going to court is not likely and 2. even if they do his action were the best from a PR standpoint for OU
 
And while we are at it, the perpetrators admitted to underage drinking on university property. I would guess that is additional grounds for expulsion for both the students and SAE affiliation. See you in court. You will lose.

Sperry I've paid corporate legal fees to some of the most prestigious national law firms that amount to several multiples of tuition at Harvard Law School. What have I learned? Even most of the best attorneys are not that bright and anything they know ++ can be learned with simple google searches.
 
sperry said:
Just about every constitutional scholar that has weighed in on the issue has said that the university would lose.


You are right that litigation is unlikely though. From the statements that I've seen, the parents of these kids are mortified and aren't going to want to bring this situation back in the limelight. They wouldn't get monetary damages from the university, their remedy would be having the expulsions overturned. But these kids aren't going to want to show their faces around here again.



As for the overall issue, OUSKINS absolutely nailed it.[/QUOTE

Legal theory is one thing. In reality, the law is whatever the sitting judge says it is. Which one of these local judges would hear the case? In this community the sympathy of the court is always with the University and it's position.
Click to expand...
 
bocabull said:
And while we are at it, the perpetrators admitted to underage drinking on university property. I would guess that is additional grounds for expulsion for both the students and SAE affiliation. See you in court. You will lose.

Sperry I've paid corporate legal fees to some of the most prestigious national law firms that amount to several multiples of tuition at Harvard Law School. What have I learned? Even most of the best attorneys are not that bright and anything they know ++ can be learned with simple google searches.
Click to expand...



So, you paid exorbitant fees to prestigious white shoe law firms, when you could have accomplished the same thing with a first year graduate and a computer with internet access? And you're calling the lawyers "not that bright." Great argument!

You've been proven to be blatantly wrong about every single legal matter in this thread, which of course extends to the underage drinking, which students could be punished for, but not subject to expulsion.


You seem to not understand that tuition paying students at a public university have a constitutionally protected property right in the education they are receiving, and it can't just arbitrarily be taken away. Constitutional protections apply to these students, which is why they would win their cases.
 
garyeb2 said:
sperry said:
Just about every constitutional scholar that has weighed in on the issue has said that the university would lose.


You are right that litigation is unlikely though. From the statements that I've seen, the parents of these kids are mortified and aren't going to want to bring this situation back in the limelight. They wouldn't get monetary damages from the university, their remedy would be having the expulsions overturned. But these kids aren't going to want to show their faces around here again.



As for the overall issue, OUSKINS absolutely nailed it.[/QUOTE

Legal theory is one thing. In reality, the law is whatever the sitting judge says it is. Which one of these local judges would hear the case? In this community the sympathy of the court is always with the University and it's position.
Click to expand...


This would be heard in federal court. I can't speak of all federal judges, but Robin Cauthon here in the western district of Oklahoma (that would be the venue for a federal case arising in Norman) certainly wouldn't make a decision that would immediately be overturned on appeal.

If one of her colleagues were foolish enough to do so (they wouldn't be), their ruling would be overturned by the 10th circuit in Denver.


Federal judges don't like being overturned, adn it's not a trial in east bumble county where the judge is "the law."
Click to expand...
 
garyeb2 said:
I wasn't taking a shot at you. I guess we just disagree on probabilities. I think it is unlikely that OU faces litigation over reinstatement of the students and unlikely they would lose if they do.
Click to expand...

It may be unlikely they face litigation but I think they are extremely likely to lose if it happens. Just my opinion.
 
bocabull said:
Westboro Baptist church? lol

Nobody is trying to ban these kids from assembling on public property. They just aren't allowed to attend classes at OU because they created a safety hazard.

You are wrong now just like you were about Donald Sterling and every other time you have trotted out free speech as a defense. Free speech defense can keep you out of jail. Not from being fired, expelled, excommunicated by sponsors, etc.

Your law degree is not impressive.
Click to expand...

You clearly have not read that decision. I really don't know why you have a need to make things personal and act like you know the law better than I do. I can assure you don't. You are not an attorney and there is no reason for you to have read or study the relevant case law.

For point of clarification and so the people I enjoy on this forum are not misinformed, West Boro had nothing to do with the right to protest. The city or county gave the necessary permit and allowed the presentation. The case dealt with the award of damages for intentional infliction of emotionl distress based on the content of otherwise legal speech. I would personally characterize it as an extension of the Larry Flynt case wher he wrote or published an offensive parody of Jerry Fallwell. Taking legal advice from Boca is not in your best interest
 
Last edited:
sperry said:
You've been proven to be blatantly wrong about every single legal matter in this thread.
Click to expand...

Proven wrong? Linking to an opinion article that supports your view is proof? There are plenty of constitutional lawyers who think this action is within the law.

The same bogus arguments were made by the same people about Donald Sterling and where is his ass? Denver even cited Westboro in his Sterling defenses. How did that work out for ya?
 
OU Delta Phi President Tyrone Speller: I do not believe that OU is racist, nor do I believe that racism is prevalent within the OU Greek community:

https://www.phideltatheta.org/2015/...-theta-chapter-president-university-oklahoma/

Frank Booker says there is 'rivalry' between OU athletes, frats:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsext...cle_afefd9de-c269-5f8a-b2ad-5fd8548ff490.html

Tashawn Thomas says video could have impacted decision:

http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/03/ou-forward-video-could-have-impacted-choice.html/
 
bocabull said:
And while we are at it, the perpetrators admitted to underage drinking on university property. I would guess that is additional grounds for expulsion for both the students and SAE affiliation. See you in court. You will lose.

Sperry I've paid corporate legal fees to some of the most prestigious national law firms that amount to several multiples of tuition at Harvard Law School. What have I learned? Even most of the best attorneys are not that bright and anything they know ++ can be learned with simple google searches.
Click to expand...

The problem is Boren made it pretty explicit that the reason for expulsion was not the drinking, but the speech.

I, too, have a law degree and agree that OU is probably on the wrong side of this legal argument. I also suspect Boren probably knows that. What he has on his side are practical and PR considerations.

From a practical standpoint, these kids and their parents would be pretty foolish to press the issue in a lawsuit (the one kid may have nothing as he indicated he actually "withdrew" rather than being expelled). Better to let it die down and go on about your lives. Sue and this thing becomes a major story all over again. From a PR standpoint, Boren is also right. Better to go down in flames before some appellate court than to deal with the student and media insurrection that would result if he didn't act in this way.
 
Zimwillett said:
I, too, have a law degree and agree that OU is probably on the wrong side of this legal argument.
Click to expand...

Which legal argument? This is the problem with most attorneys, you are taking a simplistic narrow view that the first amendment is the only applicable argument. What about the material disruption to the educational mission? What about the safety of these two students and the student population at large?
 
bocabull said:
Which legal argument? This is the problem with most attorneys, you are taking a simplistic narrow view that the first amendment is the only applicable argument. What about the material disruption to the educational mission? What about the safety of these two students and the student population at large?
Click to expand...



No, there certainly are other arguments. The problem is, the Constitution wins that fight every single time. You've been pointed towards the relevant Supreme Court precedent (which is the final word on how the Constitution will be interpreted).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top