GreekChat.com Forums - Acacia at Ohio U Sings Offensive Song, Gets Suspended

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)

- Risk Management - Hazing & etc. (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=30)

- - Acacia at Ohio U Sings Offensive Song, Gets Suspended (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=198700)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gdimom1 (Post 2381506)

"I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it. " Its that which forms the basis for much of our liberty.

I don't think that many of these things that are being said are ok. Or just " kids being kids." I think much of it is awful and demeaning. But they are words.

And our fundamental governing document requires that the government ( which it has long been recognized includes public universities) can't take steps to punish those words. Social suspension etc...is punishment ( a long line of case law makes this clear). . Case law has long established that you can't make " hate speech" punishable even though people still try

Words need to be met with words. Students who disagree should be countering with their own words. Protests, rallies. Etc. but they have to recognize that they can't set as their goal getting their public university to quah the speech of those they disagree with. Instead they have to override the hatred with their own speech.

@ the bold - I agree with you, absolutely, 110%.

The problem arises when, as GLOs, we like to present ourselves as having higher moral and ethical standards that we express in our Creeds, Oaths, Symphonies and open mottoes.

It becomes really hard to take GLOs seriously when our members display rude, lewd and obnoxious behavior.

What sets GLOs apart from just some random student organization is our commitment to improve the quality of the lives of our members and the community where we live in the oaths and pledges that we accept during initiation. Some people really do try to live up to the ideals of their sorority / fraternity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2381509)

I am not misinterpreting, I am saying it is flat stupid, not to mention dangerous to our organizations to be suggesting that universities could be missing out on research grants because universities failed to adequately punish speech by fraternities which universities deem offensive.

That's what you said, I'm not misinterpreting.

This board is reviewed by Greek Life professionals from around the country and I simply will not tolerate such uninformed posts. That said, I have been careful to QFP because I want people to realize just how truly unfounded such claims are. I asked you to provide a single example of this happening, you can't do it.

RIF

Quote:

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 2381084)

And it's up to the supposedly offended party - the sorority - to voice their displeasure. We always hear "if a person feels they've been harassed/assaulted/victimized they have. This doesn't seem to go the other way - if people DON'T feel victimized, some nebshit feels the need to go over their heads and complain about it anyway, and pays no attention to what the "offended party" actually wants or what would make them happy.

I'm curious about this and maybe Kevin can help clarify here. The legal concepts of sexual harassment and free speech intersect in this situation. How does one affect the other?

My understanding of federal sexual harassment guidelines is that just because the recipient of the comments was not offended or did not report it, that does not mean that sexual harassment did not take place. Specifically, if two people are making sexual comments to one another and a nearby third party hears and is offended, that could still be sexual harassment. Therefore, there might be a problem with what 33girl just said (quoted above). So, hypothetically, if the House Mom heard these lewd songs, or a professor in her office across the street heard them, could those people still complain?

As I was attempting to educate myself, I came across this document from the American Bar Association:

http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore...0intro_abs.pdf

In it, on pages 18-21, the document discusses Bystander or Nontargeted Harassment, Free Speech and Title IX Claims Relating to Sexual Harassment.

Bystander or Nontargeted Harassment seems to say that the offended party needs to be in the same protected class or category as the target of the harassment.

Free Speech indicates that the First Amendment could be a viable defense against a sexual harassment claim.

However, I was then interested to note that section 6 "Title IX Claims Relating to Sexual Harassment" mentions "...the Supreme Court has held that students have an implied private right of action to sue schools under Title IX in case of teacher-on-student and student-on-student sexual harassment..." (pg. 20-21).

So, these ideas really seem to intertwine in this particular case of a fraternity serenading with a lewd song. I'm not a lawyer; so, I cannot comment on the merits of anyone's legal recourse in this matter. I'm just trying to understand for myself the line that gets drawn between free speech and sexual harassment and when one crosses from one side to the other.

Great question.

In 2001, the Department of Education published a guidebook which included some guidance for administrators regarding sexual harassment claims and the First Amendment. I'll quote the most relevant text, but if you click through the link, it provides case law and gives a couple of examples:

Quote:

In cases of alleged harassment, the protections of the First Amendment must be
considered if issues of speech or expression are involved.112 Free speech rights apply in
the classroom (e.g., classroom lectures and discussions)113 and in all other education
programs and activities of public schools (e.g., public meetings and speakers on campus;
campus debates, school plays and other cultural events114; and student newspapers,
journals, and other publications 115). In addition, First Amendment rights apply to the
speech of students and teachers.116

Title IX is intended to protect students from sex discrimination, not to regulate the
content of speech. OCR recognizes that the offensiveness of a particular expression as
perceived by some students, standing alone, is not a legally sufficient basis to establish a
sexually hostile environment under Title IX. 117 In order to establish a violation of Title
IX, the harassment must be sufficiently serious to deny or limit a student’s ability to
participate in or benefit from the education program.118

Moreover, in regulating the conduct of its students and its faculty to prevent or
redress discrimination prohibited by Title IX (e.g., in responding to harassment that is
sufficiently serious as to create a hostile environment), a school must formulate, interpret,and apply its rules so as to protect academic freedom and free speech rights.

For instance, while the First Amendment may prohibit a school from restricting the right of students to express opinions about one sex that may be considered derogatory, the school can take steps to denounce those opinions and ensure that competing views are heard.

The age of the students involved and the location or forum may affect how the school can
respond consistently with the First Amendment.119 As an example of the application of
free speech rights to allegations of sexual harassment, consider the following:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/lis...cs/shguide.pdf

I would also urge you to take a look at a Fourth Circuit case, Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University, http://cehdclass.gmu.edu/jkozlows/gmu1az.htm . In that case, the Sigma Chis at George Mason participated in an "ugly woman" contest during Derby Days. There were several caricatures of females, one participant wore blackface and stuffed pillows into his outfit to exaggerate a woman's breasts and buttocks. He spoke in slang to parody African Americans.

George Mason University followed by suspending them for all activities for a semester and placing them on a two-year probation on all social activities except pre-approved pledging events and pre-approved philanthropic events with an educational purpose directlyr elated to gender discrimination and cultural diversity. They also required Sigma Chi to plan and implement an educational program addressing cultural differences, diversity, and other concerns of women.

Sigma Chi sued the University as well as the Dean under the Civil Rights Act on the grounds that the sanctions violated their First Amendment rights.

The Court held: "The University certainly has a substantial interest in maintaining an educational environment free of discrimination and racism, and in providing gender-neutral education. Yet it seems equally apparent that it has available numerous alternatives to imposing punishment on students based on the viewpoints they express. 8 We agree wholeheartedly that it is the University officials' responsibility, even their obligation, to achieve the goals they have set. On the other hand, a public university has many constitutionally permissible means to protect female and minority students. We must emphasize, as have other courts, that "the manner of [its action] cannot consist of selective limitations upon speech." The First Amendment forbids the government from "restrict[ing] expression because of its message [or] its ideas." The University should have accomplished its goals in some fashion other than silencing speech on the basis of its viewpoint." (citations omitted)

Clearly, if this precedent is followed, the school has already violated these students' rights and is now digging a deeper hole. That said, this interim suspension isn't likely going to hurt the group if it's lifted at the end of the semester, but if principles matter, and I think they do, I still hope they sue.

It looks like an air-tight case and 1983 cases require the defendants to pay attorney fees. This is a case of poorly trained administrators giving in to the demands of extremist minorities who ultimately want Greek Life to become a thing of the past. It is necessary for us to not concede any ground in that contest.

We have become a nation of the offended. I suspect that our founding fathers never envisioned a society so whipped into submission that common sense became uncommon. The current brand of political correctness goes far beyond the rules of civility and common courtesy into a realm which elevates the parts of our species which would never have survived the processes of evolution and natural selection. Rights are far more important than feelings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaddyMaxwell (Post 2396757)

I agree. Of course, I'm evil enough to think that, if you're in college, you shouldn't need a "safe zone" outside one of your own making.

In other news, Acacia was apparently quietly reinstated and has had a pretty successful semester. Apparently, the investigations by the school and their national organization turned up nothing damning.

And Ohio University has been denied no funding as the result of a raunchy song being sung by a fraternity.