This kind of mindset borders the thought process of “If you don’t talk about racism, it’ll go away” or “If you don’t look at your rotting arm, you won’t feel the pain.”
If I was part of SAE national and I was aware of the discriminatory traditions in my chapters, I would most certainly address the importance of creating an accepting environment that allows every brother to flourish within the fraternity. I would stress to the leaders of the regional districts and chapters to come forth with any news of the terrible acts and would encourage them to handle the situation accordingly. (This means putting a stop the the discriminating traditions and if they are having difficulty to go higher up.)
National only knows what the chapters or those outside the chapters bring to them. If the chapters had responsible leaders in the first place that would squash discriminatory actions, perhaps these traditions wouldn’t be so free flowing.
I read an article the played with the idea of this. The author said they should sing for the cook who they loved so dear. The author did recognize how this would never occur because of how it would victimize the chef and would not be beneficial for him. I am all for mediation, though. Mediation provides the opportunity to educate. Education is what these boys need.
“The national organization can always revoke a chapter’s membership, and SAE had every right to act promptly, given problems with many of its individual chapters. If OU owns the real estate, and leased it to SAE under the strict conditions that universities typically impose, it also had every right to evict the membership as soon as they lost their national affiliation”
Everyone on this thread has already agreed with these points. SAE had a right to pull the OU charter, and OU had the right to dissolve the house once they were no longer recognized by their national.
If it isn’t legal, it would still be nice for the university to offer it. Imagine if OU, in the midst of all of this, offered a forum on cultural relations?
Evicting them from housing is a “collective punishment,” but the entire chapter is treated as a unit - much as a family can be evicted even if not all are guilty of the offending behavior. This is done with public housing all the time. The students are still entitled to attend school and participate in non-Greek activities on campus, as I understand this. Not all students are invited to pledge fraternities; it is not a right. Every student residing in the SAE house had consciously decided to move out of university housing. Students are kicked out of dorms, also, if they violate certain codes of conduct. If they’re caught violating drug and alcohol rules, students can be evicted - even those who were not partaking for themselves. Fraternities ought to know that they are under closer scrutiny, from colleges and from the national organizations, on account of civil liabilities and raging controversies. They will be held collectively responsible when they appear to have enabled indefensible behavior among their brethren. A drunken freshman leading a racist chant on a chartered bus, during a Greek-sponsored event, is very much the responsibility of the entire chapter. Senior officers could have delivered strict instructions on acceptable conduct. They could have spotted his inebriation and sent him to his room. They did not, and by failing to do so they abrogated their delegated responsibilities. Corporations are liable for employees’ actions. This is not like racism; not in the slightest degree. This is a social organization whose members actively sought association, and pledged to uphold its rules. Individuals cannot choose their racial identity. Fraternity members can, and did, choose theirs.
“If I was part of SAE national and I was aware of the discriminatory traditions in my chapters, I would most certainly address the importance of creating an accepting environment that allows every brother to flourish within the fraternity. I would stress to the leaders of the regional districts and chapters to come forth with any news of the terrible acts and would encourage them to handle the situation accordingly. (This means putting a stop the the discriminating traditions and if they are having difficulty to go higher up.)”
Don’t you think the fact that they convened on a Sunday and pulled the charter within a few hours of hearing about the incident (and verifying that it was “their boys”) tells you that they take it seriously? What more do you want them to do? Many of their chapters, including the one at my son’s college, have posted things on social media saying that they are horrified and do not tolerate such behavior and do not consider the OU guys their “brothers,”. Wth more do you want them to do? Shoot them? Individual chapters don’t have anything to do with monitoring other chapters
Their actions were swift and it not only shows the severity of which they considered the news, but their desire to get a hold of the condemnable behavior of their members. Their meeting is just a start. Knowing that this is not the first situation of the type with SAE and with more claims coming through the woodworks*, SAE can take the time to highlight their values and further communicate what they want to see out of their members to the chapters.
To be honest, this whole publicity is a learning experiencing. I want education to be spread. Who does it hurt? No one. It simply reminds chapters of what the pledged to.
I do disagree with you on how chapters do not have anything to do with monitoring other chapters. If I noticed a chapter two towns over was hazing their pledges or supporting discriminatory actions, I would most certainly address it to my president. I would not turn the other cheek.
I do not yet concede that OU acted properly by evicting all of the occupants of the house, without knowing the terms of the lease agreement. It is possible that the agreement says that if the national dissolves the chapter, then the lease is void and everyone must be moved out within two days. But I would be surprised at that.
It was Alito, in a heart-felt dissent, if we’re talking about the 2011 case involving Westboro Baptist. At the time, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that recently retired Justice Stevens had told her would have joined Alito if he’d still been on the court. I’m on the Alito-Stevens side: I don’t see why the First Amendment has to protect abuse. If I don’t have a First Amendment right to punch someone to make my point, why do I have a First Amendment right to injure him with my abusive speech (and remember, the Court agreed that Westboro had injured Snyder, but said that they had the right to injure him with their protected speech).
I just read my university’s Greek Housing contract and the university is able to cancel their contract “if deemed necessary in the best interest of order, health, discipline, safety, security…Students whose contract has been canceled will be required to vacate the residence halls with 24 hours from notification unless otherwise indicated.”
I’m sure OU has something similar. It should be on their housing website.
An University President who prioritizes PR over Constitutional law should be summarily fired for lack of character.
Imagine a corproate CEO telling the court, '“Look, I knew that it is illegal to dump those chemicals into the water supply, but you have to stop thinking legalistically, and look at the situation from the game-theoritic perspective. Those poor suckers whose water supply were poisoned were not expected to sue, as they should have known that if they did I would bury them.”
PR. Game Theory. Upholding the law. The choice is simple.
“do disagree with you on how chapters do not have anything to do with monitoring other chapters. If I noticed a chapter two towns over was hazing (etc)”
But you wouldn’t. You wouldn’t have any reason to know, any more than the tennis team at college A would know what the tennis team at college B was up to.
Of the chapters nearest mine - I went to Wisconsin once, and to WashU once (as part of establishing the house there). Both visits were overnight and nothing more. Of the other chapters at nearby big state universities (UIUC, Indiana, Michigan, maybe Mizzou or Iowa)? How would I know what those girls were up to? Maybe they were the town angels, maybe they were the town sluts. How would I know? It’s a ludicrous assertion.
Indeed, there is a small college 10 mins from my house that has a chapter. I’ve never been there - because my alma mater is 45 min away and if I’m going to become involved, that’s where I’ll have my involvement.
Asserting that you will speak to your president when faced with deplorable actions by another chapter is not ludicrous. If anything, it should not even have to be asserted, it should be expected. It’s a given. Be an advocate for those who are being senselessly discriminated or taken advantage of.
Anywho, this conversation is a bit off topic. It’s more along the lines of moral codes.
I checked up on OU’s housing contract and there’s is quite vague. I did not see a sections where cancelations were addressed. Perhaps, I skimmed over it too fast. I must say it makes me appreciate how my university spells everything out for you!
Do you think Erik Striker’s “F-k you bitches” rant was "abusive speech?
I do. I think it was abusive, and since it was expressly directed at OU fraternity men, closer to the definition of “fighting words” than was the lynching reference. But I’m glad he wasn’t disciplined, because that would have probably been unlawful.