Yes, that right may be given to you in the Constitution. But, that doesn't give ppl/groups to free reign to abuse the right.

Unfortunately, yes it does.

These guys can dress up however they want, and violate no constitutional laws of the USA. No matter what laws of morality, good taste, intelligence, or etc they violate, they are within their rights as citizens of the United States.

The fact that they abused this right makes them (and the rest of us Americans) look like backwards morons - but they have the right to do that.

Intent doesn't matter (re: starang's point) - they can be as racist as they want, and that's allowed. I know I've posted it before, but I guess I'll do it again:

Good sir, I may not agree with what you have to say - but I will defend to the death your right to speak it.
-Voltaire

Ksig, I agree with you and have always believed that above all, free speech must be preserved...having to be exposed to the opinions and views of bigots and idiots is a worthy price to pay for what so many other cultures don't really have, at least to the extent that we do. However, I think that in this specific case, the University should be able to control what happens on it's own property. Their own right to free speech and the welfare of their student body outweights the rights of these "people" (for lack of a harsher and more honest term).
Also, sometimes I wonder, ARE there limits? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Supreme Court once had a case in which they ruled that free speech does not include things that are outrageously harmful, i.e. "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater", (which is I think a quote from that instance). Also, fundamentally what all Americans are quaranteed above all else are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Do you think that maybe in order to find the balance between these three inalienable rights, the unlimited power of one cannot outweigh the other two? I'm not challenging anyone, I really am asking, I don't know myself what I think, entirely. :confused:

You are correct, it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. It will also get me in trouble if I threaten to beat up my ex-boyfriend, tell someone to kill my next door neighbor, or state falsely on TV that George Bush is the father of my love child. Basically, the Supreme Court has ruled that certain speech has consequences (such as people being trampled to death as they rush for the exits when there really isn't a fire), and those consequences are unacceptable. I have the right to speak freely, but I also have the right not to be trampled to death.

But again, this isn't about free speech! If my sorority were to march up and down Main Street in favor of white supremacy, we would be within our rights as individuals (and as a group, if we got the right permits for assembly). But the university could still refuse to recognize us. Or HQ could still pull our charter.

Think of this parallel: I have the right (or I would if I were old enough) to run for president on a fascist platform. But the GOP and Democratic parties are under no obligation to make me their candidate. Part of the deal is, to be the Democratic candidate, you have to have a belief system supported by the Democratic party. School recognition is also contingent on certain qualifications, one of which is "don't be a bunch of insensitive racist jerks," although no doubt stated much more formally.

There you go! That's the point I was trying to come to! I just couldn't put it into eloquent terms, hahaha.

"The fact that they abused this right makes them (and the rest of us Americans) look like backwards morons"


no, it just makes white people look like backwards morons. it doesn't make anyone else look bad. it shows how ignorant white people can be.

if a black person was at this party, would it be hate crime then? yes, it harassment, even if it was in "good clean fun" as everyone in here makes it out to be. but since it was all white, it was all good?

I take exception to that. You have no right to make an indictment like that against an entire race. Why is it only white people that can be termed as ignorant or backwards morons?

I really don't appreciate that kind of comment at all.

becuase there were no asian, hispanic, arabic people involved. or at least i didn't see any. this incident makes white people look like backwards morons.

How about THESE white people?

I wasn't there. I don't think it's fair you're lumping me into the whole "white people" thing.

I am just as appalled by their behavior as you are. I just feel your comments are a little too generalized.

If I told you that you were "A credit to your race" you'd be offended, right?

Well same principle.

no, it's not. i'm not saying white people are backwards morons, this incident makes them look like backwards morons. i'm not lumping you in with them, but i'm saying they're not making your people look good. if someone off the block just saw that, then they would assume all white people were like that.

Only a simple minded person that assigns stereotypes to people based on the color of their skin would believe that.

In other words someone that was prejudiced.

Saying that one person can be a credit or a discredit to someone's race is like saying that prejudism is something that is well founded!

If someone would believe that all white people like to dress up in white robes and lynch people on the weekends because a bunch of inbred hicks did it back in the 60's then they are just as simple minded as those inbred lynchmob backwoodsy sorts.

Prejudism is prejudism... and when I see someone that seems to say it is a well-founded concept I have to call their hand. If I'm wrong in this, please let me know.

And please don't say that as a white person I have ANYTHING to do with any other white person because we're both white. The same thing goes for any other race. Because that in its very essence is what prejudism is all about... and it's wrong no matter what color you are.

Maybe it should be able to - however, it looks like they're not willing to go to litigation to solidify this via court ruling . . . now, is this on the same level as yelling fire in a crowded theatre? Maybe - I honestly don't know. If so, then take the appropriate action, I was merely arguing (conceptually) that the laws exist as they do for a reason, and unfortunately some extremist, ignorant viewpoints are protected in this way. These guys were assholes, but I don't know that the school can punish the organization for being ignorant . . . if they can, more power to them to exercise this. I'm just not sure that particular right is afforded a University that accepts public endowment money.

Well, "life liberty and happiness" we can argue another time - that was stolen from John Locke, and perverted along the way . . . but the point remains, and it's a good one: to what extent freedom? Again, as above, I don't know - to what extent can the University police its organizations for its beliefs? I completely buy FuzzieAlum's analogy, but to me it seems that this particular thought process could be extended from "racist organizations lose university support" to "pro-islamic organizations lose university support" without too much of a leap. I know it sounds extreme, but the line is nearly impossible to draw in my mind, which is difficult for me to stomach.

//edited for typographical error

I don't want to talk about "prejudism" here - there's a whole thread of that happiness elsewhere, dig it up if you're so inclined.

Anyway - the line quoted above borders on hypocritical . . . if you don't see why, look at it like this:

(your thesis)This incident shows how ignorant white people can be.

(quasi-syllogistic approach)
-If someone off the block just saw that, they would assume all white people were like that.
-It is ignorant to apply a single case to the whole of a population (fallacy of hasty generalization, unrepresentative sample)

Therefore,
-It would be ignorant for someone off the block to assume all white people are like that. (-or- THIS thinking would show how ignorant people off the block can be . . . I realize it's not a true syllogism, but do you see the induction here?) Anyway . . . enough quibbling.

------

Actually, I agree with you that this is definitely an incident of white people being ignorant, and that said ignorance can lead to white people looking bad, in general, in the eyes of some if allowed to reflect upon an entire race - the key is not making this extension, in my opinion, but I could be wrong. I was making the point extensible to our society in general (ie "all Americans", which was most likely poor hyperbole on my part), and you're going to limit it just to the race propagating the ignorance. Fine, that's your right I suppose - but don't expect ktsnake to implicitly buy your logic, especially when you partially infer that he looks bad b/c of this group of stupid-ass kids running around in costumes.

------

By the way - no one claimed it to be "all good" - some claimed it to be protected speech. Huge difference.

prejudism
 

Oops... prejudice!

I stand corrected.

Read that word at the top of a thread for so long and you start thinking it's a real word.

Thanks for pointing that out!