BUT BUT IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO EXPEL THEM FROM A PUBLIC SCHOOL FOR SAYING THE N-WORD BUT BUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!

yeah, no shit. oh that *is* your argument?? get real. the posts talking about how boren needed to stand up to shitlibs have all been originating from parentally owned basements.

boren's a sharp guy. he knows it's unconstitutional, but he also lives in the real world. anyone who's turned on the internet in the past two years knows that shitlibs who think you've done something "not OK" can put the bat signal up on salon at lunchtime and have your corpse picked clean by dinner.

any hesitation on boren's part would shift gawker's crosshairs off the kids in the video and onto him. he'd be the new poster boy for Old White Men who just don't "get it." he's not -racist- in the strom thurmond sense of things but he's clearly part of The Problem that allows racism/sexism/transism to persist insidiously "underground" where it's invisible (well not invisible, everyone at buzzfeed was able to see what's really going on in the morning meeting but people like YOU don't see it). and by the way this bloated indifference of the powers that be is also responsible for the 750 rapes that statistics suggest will occur at OU this semester and next semester, and the semester after that [citation needed].

point is nigger lives in the real world. he has to think about the 30,000 people OU employs and getting recruiters to campus and the ranking of the law school and medical school and so on. he absolutely cannot afford to take a position that will galvanize SJWs into making a trumped up run on the school, boycotting, trashing, etc.

and since you all are such legal experts, why don't you explain to me what kind of jeopardy he's in for overpunishing these dickwad kids. suppose they find lawyers who will take their case despite the fact that doing so will make them shitlib targets and guarantee their firm is going to get trashed in social media, boycotted, etc.

WHAT ARE THEIR FUCKING DAMAGES? the delta on their internal happiness and self esteem as OU students in spring '15 compared to their happiness and self esteem as UT Arlington students in fall '15? who cares? someone said there was a similar case at UGA and the president was found personally liable for $50,000 in the §1983 the kids filed. sounds plausible, especially if that includes attorney fees. that's probably one month of salary for boren.

some other conservahero was chiming in "blah blah i don't like trial lawyers and irrational jury verdicts for huge sums blah" but that THIS is exactly the type of case for a big punitive damages award.

NIGGER ARE YOU SHITLAW STEVE KIDDING ME? there are §1983 cases where the police beat the absolute shit out of defenseless arrestees and the jury won't pull the trigger on punitives, if they even find liability at all. but you think someone's going to the jury for their grand closing argument with "we need a big punitive award!! think of the children!!! it is -not- OK to err on the side of harsh punishment for good boys who wrote and performed a song about how they would never, under any circumstances, allow blacks into their fraternity and if you don't teach president boren a lesson now, the next time some good boys sing about lynching niggers he's just gonna go and do it again."

lol what the shit bro? and you're surprised that despite your crack-the-case strategy insights the boomer biglaw partners in your group still won't let you first chair the least important deposition in some garbage case as a fourth year?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27473793)

180 just for parentally owned basements.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27473940)

"mr. delance, you were rated a 4-star high school prospect by rivals.com and in february 2015 you had committed to play football at OU, is that correct?"

"yes"

"and at some point you became aware of the SAE video, is that right?"

"yes"

"and what was your reaction"

"i thought it was horrible. i de-committed and then ended up playing ball for UT. i just couldn't see myself playing for OU after i saw that video"

"your witness"

*jury awards punitive damages TO david boren after deliberating for 45 minutes*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474121)

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2826438&forum_id=2#27465999

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474196)

obviously they could seek to be reinstated as students, but if you were in their shoes would you go back if you had the option?

they'll be pariahs or else have a target on their backs. yeah maybe they will to some degree wherever they go to school, but it will probably be worse at OU than anywhere else they could pick.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474267)

Obviously it would be a 1983 suit for violation of 1A rights. I guess I'm not so quick to dismiss the possibility that punitives might be in play--I think that most Americans in the middle of the country, even in OBAMA'S CIRCUS 2015, still have a strong normative commitment to the principle of free speech. It's one thing to say that juries are stingy with prevailing police brutality victims (although to be clear, I have certainly seen the opposite)--but even if that's true, I think that can be partially explained by the fact that Americans tend to be generally pro-law enforcement, think that generally if the cops are fucking with you you probably deserved it on some level, etc. And to be perfectly frank a lot of the plaintiffs in those cases are also black criminals with a history of criminal convictions and/or serious drug problems, so they're not exactly sympathetic plaintiffs.

As egregious and stupid as the racist chant was, for better or for worse I think it's a lot easier to paint a fundamentally sympathetic portrait of a dipshit 18 year old white college kid with no criminal history who was just desperate to fit in and made a stupid mistake for which he will be more than adequately punished in the court of public opinion and in the job market. And I think that as a default, Americans tend to get more riled up by perceived attempts by the goverment to punish speech than they do by a few rogue cops behaving badly. We all know some cops are shitheads, but we like to tell ourselves that if this country stands for any single principle above all else it's the freedom to speak our goddamn minds and we don't let our government knowingly and intentionally fuck with that right. So I agree that these kids wouldn't rich off of actual damages, but a jury might still want to punish the school for taking clearly unconstitutional action designed to penalize students for saying unpopular things.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474603)

while that would undercut the kind of willfulness you'd need to show, i admit that when i said punitive damages were unlikely in the OP i was just going off the "optics" of the whole thing and hadn't really thought it out.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474879)

yeah, no. these are kids of privilege.

complicity with bullshit = collateral guilt

pragmatic decisions are for politicians, not leaders at educational facilities. expelling the kids is wrong and hopefully it is an extremely expensive mistake

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27476351)

...because as long as they're rich, college freshmen are immune from the tug of peer pressure? Cool.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27476401)

you're just making shit up.

i assume one of the two is the dude standing up and the second is presumably another guy who is seen as 'leading' the cheers. they are the pressurers, not the victims of peer pressure

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27478231)

well, as long we we agree that boren is a sackless pussyfaggot with no integrity, zero personal honor, and no backbone whatsoever.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27473999)

Should a cop have to consult Chermisnky or TBF and get a conditional waiver every time he wants to stop and frisk or shoot some black? Of course not. He does his thing and then deals with the inevitable 1983 suit when it comes.

Boren knew he had to act DECISIVELY to do (save) his job and mitigate harm to the university. It worked! Now Parker and Levit can vindicate their rights in court and cop dat $$$ once the dust settles. Seems like a win-win if you ask me. The kids' reputations are already fucked, no need to take the whole school down with them. Why should Boren commit career suicide by being an advocate for these kids?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474197)

People's CONSTITUTIONAL rights gets violated all the time, big fucking deal. lucky for these kids, its such a clear violation that they could sue & win on summary judgment.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474298)

that hasn't been the question

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474114)

'omg, a person wrote something with lots of paragraphs! o what a scholar!'

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474130)

One thing to have idiot fucking proles commenting who are unable to take two steps back and look at any situation from a perspective outside of their personal feelings, but you expect more from lawyers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474651)

i think there is a more charitable and defensible construction of boren's position than just cynically saying "oh yeah he knows what he's doing was is as a matter of con law even if it's right as a matter of prudence," which admittedly is how i was spinning it in the OP.

universities have been trying to get a toe-hold on banning hate speech for decades, without much success. i'm not an expert on this area so i can't compare the facts here to leading cases, but if nothing else the composition of the court has changed significantly in the last ten years. what's wrong with putting this forward as a test case?

there's no prior restraint issue. this isn't candidates debating for elected office in public. and the speech that is being attacked is worthless; ignoring the racism, it's not advancing any ideas or contributing to any type of dialogue at all. university professors and administrators have been pushing for hate speech exceptions a long time and i don't see what's wrong with testing the waters if you think you have a fact pattern that could play well for you or is likely to get certiorari interest.

personally, i'd expect the court to toss out the suspensions if they did grant cert, but that doesn't mean the case should never be brought in the first place.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474828)

it doesn't need to be prior restraint - it is absolutely content based punishment of speech. And this isn't someone yelling at other students trying to intimidate anyone. This is akin to some people telling fucking racist jokes in their dorm room.

It's disgusting to see shitlib PC hysteria search for a hole in the first amendment to punish these kids for basically making racist jokes to each other on a private bus. You can literally beat someone half to death because you are drunk and receive less punishment at OU. That is not a constitutional matter, that's just my opinion on how over the top this shame bullshit is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474857)

i don't think arguing a hate speech position is synonymous with cynically saying "yeah we know we are on the wrong side of the law, but we're going to do it anyway." but if you find the campus hate speech argument so absurd that you truly believe there is no functional difference between that and just intentionally being wrong on the law from the start, i can accept that.

pragmatically speaking, i stand by saying that boren basically had to do what he did. resting on principles that might be articulable on xo or in a T10 law school's conlaw class, but that have to be presented to the buzzfeed masses likely would have endangered people's jobs, the university's ranking and prestige, enrollment, maybe federal funding if the AGOTUS thought OU was acting a little too privilege-y.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474905)

Dont be a fucking intellectually dishonest hack like Elie Mystttal and say that these kids singing to themselves is a real threat and that it is intended to intimidate black people who were not present.

I think the president could have easily gotten away with saying "we are banning the frat - this type of bigotry has no place on the campus." He would not get fired for saying - we cannot punish a student for his speech.

Also the school should get its fucking ass sued off for evicting 100 students with 2 days notice - go ahead change the locks and suck on my treble damages you fucking cunts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474964)

But isn't this really also a test case for the American public? The administration is simultaneously acting under the dual assumptions that (1) the public is demanding that they unconstitutionally punish these students on the front end, and (2) the public will intimidate the students on the back end into bowing their heads and accepting their unconstitutional punishment.

Both of those are admittedly still questionable assumptions, but would you disagree that we're much closer to a "yep, that's right" on both fronts than we ever have been at any prior point in American history? The more I think about it, the more interested I am in seeing how the students react. I agree with what I believe is your position on the law (i.e., this would definitely be found to be unconstitutional if there was a lawsuit), but it's not clear to me whether the students will actually have the balls to fight back and file. If they don't, that might suggest that in the age of the internet, mob rule really is the emerging societal norm when it comes to policing freedom of expression. And if that's the case then it almost doesn't even matter what the courts do--if potential plaintiffs refuse to file suit to vindicate their own rights because the social costs are simply too high, they might as well not have those rights at all, and once government institutions pick up on that trend, they will inevitably become emboldened to punish more and more speech (both because they can and because they feel like the public expects it). It could easily become a self-generating cycle.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27474987)

As soon as they punish speech someone actually feels comfortable defending (e.g. religious or anti-abortion) we'll see the kind of litigation this case is unlikely to produce.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27475354)

you're right that they are not threatening anyone and intellectually dishonest to twist it until you can kind of say they are if you tilt your head just so. they're saying "*you* can hang him" or "*one* can hang him." there's some tuberville v savage scholarship in there somewhere.

i wasn't saying the president would be fired, i was saying that if he were *perceived* to be sympathizing with the Racists or adopting a "not OK" boys-will-be-boys attitude then the gawker types would attack OU with a vengeance and there could be real repercussions for enrollment or people's jobs if they start trashing them in media or telling donors to clawback the chaired professorships they've endowed or else have their construction business boycotted.

yes, this equals a race to the bottom, kowtowing to the radical left. but if i were in his shoes i doubt i'd have it in me to say "enough!" and fall on my sword, knowing it would seriously damage the university i've been working to build for years.

the LL/T aspects are fun. before i bought a place i loved that knowing LL/T law meant my apt managers couldn't pull their usual bullshit tactics on me. but i thought someone pulled up the OK code and said on campus and campus adjacent student housing was exempted from the usual rules. it would be awesome if the SAE guys owned them on some unjustified lockout treble damages move though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27475014)

-thusly- i use it sometimes, but always feel a little icky inside when i do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27475245)

'He was oh-so *shrewd* to placate Gawker, et al. Therefore, it's the right decision, regardless of principle.'

*shit-eating grin*

can you not follow out the implications this prescription? of holding people in authority to such a standard?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27475235)

when you've got good facts (and these are great facts for shitlibs) there's nothing disingenuous about pushing a test case to see if OU's conduct policy on student speech, which was almost surely drafted with an eye towards possible escape routes in existing court precedent, can find 5 votes at SCOTUS.

now i can guess what you think about hate speech laws on campus. but i think you should at least allow for the possibility that what's animating boren, OU's lawyers, and others in academic settings who've faced similar issues is an earnest belief in constitutional arguments that many of us find wrong and disturbing, rather than an outcome-oriented cynical gambit that many of us find wrong and disturbing.

TL;DR say an evil genius showed equivalent video to every university POTUS but guaranteed the daily gawker buzzfeed beast would never ever find out about it and there would be no negative consequences at all to burying the entire thing right there. 7 out of 10 would expel the "leaders" and only give SAE one day to pack their shit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27475327)

constitutional test cases are constitutional test cases, man. the nominal litigants are often the guinea pigs of more powerful stakeholders who care more about the move they're anticipating three moves down the line than some radio operator job or OU marketing degree or nativity scene in the corner of a park that's ostensibly at the heart of the case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27475474)

Real problem is how much influence shitlibs supposedly have.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27475240)

Mance Rayder 2015 is now president of OU.

oh captain, my captain.

what's your crisis management strategy? be detailed. flesh the whole thing out well beyond "i wouldn't expel them because i think that would be facially unconstitutional"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27475255)

Don't expel anyone, but punish the kids, force them to do tons of service in ghetto soup kitchens or wherever, make an example of them, and give stirring speech about how a public university's commitment to the First Amendment and the constitution are more important than political expedience. Also make the point that an educational institution isn't doing its job if it simply kicks out kids for their deplorable views, instead of trying to educate them about how those deplorable views, while protected constitutionally, have no place in a modern society with a recent history of racism.

Ironically, if Boren had taken this approach in the mid-90s, he would have been criticized as a crazy left-wing PC type by conservatives, and mainstream libs would have been satisfied. But your point is that modern libs won't tolerate this approach anymore, so he should go ahead and violate the Constitution.

Sorry bro, at some point you have to stop giving in to the shitlib circus, and the Constitution seems like a pretty sensible place to draw the line. Go ahead and make your snarky post about how this approach would get me fired and destroy the university.

I'm a fan of XO's subversive and contrarian schtick, and maybe ten years ago I would have made a similar post to your OP. But like you, I've been posting on this board for a long time. That experience has hardened my First Amendment views.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27475312)

And if they refuse to do it, then what?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27475375)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27475445)

to recap, your main tool was conscripting the "offenders" to hard labor on behalf of the socioethnic group that was outraged at their having exercised the constitutionally guaranteed freedom to express negative views about that socioethnic group.

putting aside, for a moment, the fact that engaging in constitutionally protected activity cannot diminish or alter the conditions of your access to government benefits or institutions because if it did that would mean the activity wasn't constitutionally protected from arbitrary government interference and diminution after all...your solution to wrest public dignity back from the clamor of the race to the bottom self-serving liberal hordes is literally the show-within-a-show pilot george and jerry kept pitching on seinfeld where the judge sentences the losers in civil cases to be the plaintiff's butler for a term of years.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27475736)

The question becomes will those kids' parents litigate that punishment in order to get them restored at a school where they would be pariahs. And the obvious answer to that question is a resounding no.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27476336)

(Actual 105 IQ on display)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27476411)

Are they going to throw him in jail for violating the Constitution?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27476560)

Boren was the governor at the time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27476325)

The kids' parents obviously won't litigate that punishment in order to get them restored at a school where they would be pariahs.

Boren isn't going to be sentenced to 1st Amendment jail.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27476387)

You sound like a lawyer. Let me guess, Yale?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27476417)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Boren#Early_life_and_career

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27476463)

You are more at risk in modern society violating a traffic law than the Bill of Rights.

HTFH.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27476567)

You ruin my kids' life, I end yours.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2827988&forum_id=2#27479799)