Wow, that's insane. That would be like the football stadium at Lehigh getting vandalized after the Penn State/Sandusky scandal.

Eta: this is re sailboatgirl's post.

Very Teachable Moment thank you for sharing this.

"Subject matter expertise" is relatively broad. If there is an article on a new treatment for acne, a dermatologist or even a general MD would be viewed as having subject matter expertise. An Alpha Tau Omega brother would have all of the subject matter expertise to edit the article on SAE or vice versa. Many people are interested in improving articles on topics that they will have to research. For example, if a page for an honor society is marked as a stub and I happen to run into it, I'll do the research necessary to try to "destub it". I'm not a Phi Beta Kappa member, but I'm currently working on a chapter directory including installation dates.

Articles should be referenced, finding and putting the information from the pages puts someone above the level of "uninformed". And someone who is vocally opposed to the subject of the article is also viewed as having a conflict of interest. (So it would be equally inappropriate for the PR company for Exxon Mobil and for Greenpeace to write the article about the Exxon Valdez spill)

OU's Sigma Alpha Epsilon to sue university

http://www.oudaily.com/news/ou-s-sig....html?mode=jqm

Yeah, good luck with that! NOT!

Stephen Jones is an outstanding trial lawyer. One of the best. He was not so successful defending Timothy McVeigh, but he does good work. He would not be getting involved if the claims were frivolous.

I don't think they can just boot an organization off without trial. Especially one that old and with that much backing. The university will have to pay. I'm sure they are more than willing to do so to put this in the rear view mirror.

Also, I assume the SAE alumni org didn't own the house? That's the only thing I can assume since Boren is talking about demo or different use for that house and land.

Update, because Tri Delta was referenced by another poster earlier in the thread. If you don't wish to click on the link, the bottom line is that no Tri Deltas were identified as being on the bus.

Kappa Alpha Theta Grand Council President also released a blog post/statement regarding OU. I found it interesting in light of the recent thread here on QU. There was no comment made by the Fraternity re: that situation to the best of my knowledge. I'm not saying that there should have been. I'm simply presenting published information. I can't place this link in that thread, as it was closed.

Double posting: yes, the University can do that, banditone. There's no "trial" involved. Withdrawing recognition = gone, gone, gone. I speak from experience. You are assuming that SAE will prevail, which IMO is not a slam dunk. When the lawyers get involved, it goes to a whole other level, and it will be up to the court(s) to decide the outcome. We're in a new game now.

Pretty obvious that SAE didn't own that property, which surprises me, if they have been there on campus for decades. However, that may be an OU policy - that the University owns all the land/buildings and leases to the fraternities/sororities. I don't know. Kevin?

Without a charter, a victory against OU would seem to be moot.

Yes, I read in a previous article that the University owns the houses & leases to the organizations.

^^^thanks.

Given that MU2Driver said he learned that song/chant in the 80s, and Parker Rice stated that the song was taught to him, I don't think it's much of a reach for the average person to see the members as racists and bigots. That's the general concensus among my non-Greek friends and acquaintances. We have all been tarred with that brush; guilt by association, I believe is the term that's commonly used.

I guess it's my lack of legal understanding, but I do not understand why this case is any different than any other time a fraternity or sorority has been asked to leave another college campus. Aren't we there at most campuses at the behest and approval of the school? I know there are a few campi at which GLOs operate on an off-campus basis (the Ivies, Georgetown, etc.). I guess I just don't get it.

I think an issue may be that there was no due process (if you think about, most often what seems to happen is a group is put on probation, and then they break it, and THEN they are kicked off campus) for the removal of recognition for the chapter. I do not know how that translates into a legal case.

I'm not sure, SWTXBelle. I suppose that it has to do with the terms of the lease agreement that OU has with the fraternity? And speaking from experience, there are certain circumstances in which loss of recognition is immediate. Again, I'm speculating. This is going to be really interesting to watch. The fallout from this is also going to be huge.

Which really is all anyone is doing without knowing what the actual claims against OU will be.

Just jumping in to add some fuel to the Wikipedia-subject matter expert issue discussed upthread: NYPD Caught Editing Wikipedia Entries About Police Brutality Victims

I guess I'm missing something as well.

As I understand it, Sigma Alpha Epsilon HQ revolked the charter - which I believe happened prior to the Oklahoma president "kicking them off campus". Regardless of the time line, there isn't an OU chapter of SAE to sue. So how would that work? Class action?

And since SAE HQ does not reconize an OU chapter, could that "boost" OU's case that there is "just cause" to have a chapter - that is no longer in "good standing" by their HQ - removed from the house?

I guess I wouldn't presume that the three-sentence story accurately reflects what is going on or may go on. Unfortunately, my experience has taught me to assume that a news story like this probably has gotten it wrong.

It says (without an actual quote) that the attorney said "the group is outraged over President Boren shutting down the fraternity house and branding all SAE members as racists and bigots." I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's members of the chapter who are planning to sue for something like being removed from the house in the middle of the semester (did they have somewhere to go?) without due process or for defamation.

Besides, I wonder if the chapter itself (or former chapter) is a legal entity capable of suing and being sued under Oklahoma law. Kevin?

Every one of us has suffered through negative publicity from the bad behavior of a chapter, but nothing like this SAE shitstorm. And in my fraternity's case, I just wanted it to be dealt with in a speedy fashion and hope the publicity would dissipate.

Yesterday was the first day in a long string that I noticed SAE at Oklahoma wasn't in the top 3 news teasers. Wednesday it was their housemother! But if I were part of their headquarters staff, I would be doing everything I could to get that chapter to drop their suit. If not, SAE's name will be in the news for lord knows how many weeks--a major train wreck.

I believe about half of what I hear on the news. Having said that, I read today that the members of the chapter have "cut off communication" with their headquarters.

And the representation by Stephen Jones does NOT include the "song leaders", Pettit and Rice

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/13/us/sae...rnity-fallout/

In theory, with that chapter's former current members and their various internal chapter alumni boards "cutting off communication" with their IHQ, that may signify that they will probably direct (potential) litigation against both the university and their IHQ.

Cale Gundy, 1of OU's football coordinators, tweeted out this video response from OU Football HC Bob Stoops: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=...&v=Tpu_Zd7Q1RA

Thanks for posting the link, thetalady. Contrary to the three-sentence OU Daily article and the KFOR story it relied on, I noted these parts of the CNN story:

Jones told a news conference that he had been retained by the board of trustees—the alumni advisers for the chapter—"to assist them in evaluating certain legal issues and other matters that may impact local chapter of SAE."

There are no plans right now to sue the university, which shut down the chapter's house and disbanded the SAE chapter, he said. . . . .

And

Jones said he is involved to protect the due process and First Amendment rights of members.

The Washington Post article published 3/13/15 is worth reading, IMO. Gives a more in depth and detailed view of the hiring of Stephen Jones and some interesting history related to the issues. Also gives some information about SAE HQ's reported plans re: the OU fraternity members.

Not sure how Parker Rice could sue, as he voluntarily withdrew from the University prior to being expelled. Whatever.

IMO the racist chanting was bad enough ,but these young men went way beyond that when they threatened violence "hanging from a tree". This had to have factored into Boren's decision.

Also, it appears Jones and Boren have history as well.....hmmmm this should be interesting.

Interested to see Kevin's take on Jones/SAE v Boren/OU?

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/...st-Levi-Pettit

Really loved this response to the "apology" letter the Pettit family wrote on behalf of Levi.

They're not getting their money's worth from the PR firm they are rumored to have hired to manage this crisis for them. All this does is reinforce the opinion that he's a spoiled brat without a concept of taking responsibility for his actions. Mommy and Daddy can't bail him out of everything.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...o_bucknel.html

Bucknell reportedly (above) is talking with SAE about delaying the fraternity’s return to the school. The concern that a Bucknell administrator expresses is that it might be difficult or "impossible" for SAE to get a good (re-) start while the Oklahoma chant controversy is going on.

Whether that concern is reasonable or not, I don’t know. When I recall the aftermath of the DZ-DePauw debacle, though, I can well imagine something similar -- a period of perhaps several years where SAE might find it tough to colonize at a lot of places. A big difference of course could be in the differences in the NPC and fraternity processes for extension.

Not talking about the withdraw of SAE. That can be done easily and without a trial / hearing / whatever - I agree. What I'm talking about is kicking the two guys out of school with no trial.

Generally at OU, the GLOs own their own homes. SAE was different in that they leased that property from the school. In fact, the previous time they were thrown off of campus, the SAE house was used for administrative offices.

The SAE alumni have retained Stephen Jones, who is a "high profile" attorney who generally represents right-wing causes. They have a decent 1st Amendment claim--one that I'd personally like to see brought to federal court to possibly make some precedent. It would be nice to know the limits of power of public schools to punish conduct or speech they deem offensive.

There's probably a really solid suit for violations of the landlord-tenant act, what with OU summarily booting SAE from their rental property.

I think they have a good free speech claim, and the men who were evicted but not on the bus have a good freedom of association claim, as well. They were summarily ordered to move out of their housing because they associate with racists. They probably also have a good due process claim -- even if the University was within its rights to boot them, they were entitled to notice and a hearing before ordered to move out of the house. The men who were expelled may also have a due process claim, if they did not have notice and hearing before being expelled.

I love the idea of landlord/tenant claims.

Oklahoma administration has handled this VERY badly. Those men were racists assholes, but they have a legal right to be racist assholes. There's not much a state university should do about it. If they had let SAE pull their charter and then went through the correct process to have the men move out of the leased premises, it would be different.

Technically only one got kicked out (Pettit) - Rice withdrew voluntarily.

Remember we are all speculating, as I stated earlier, and MysticCat reminded me. We've not seen the OU/SAE landlord-tenant agreement, for example. Again, it's going to be very interesting to watch this play out.

And courts have upheld the rights of universities to limit speech.

If it is targeting an individual, true. But most of these speech and conduct codes violate the hell out of the First Amendment. Hate speech is protected and schools are going to lose cases like these almost every time.

Is housing an OU administration issue? I thought SAE HQ pulled the charter prior to the OU administration saying that the members would be "kicked out" of the house.

Regardless, HQs close chapters for "just cause" (sometimes over "free speach" isses) and all members are required to move out of the house asap based on the GLO's policies. So unless each member has a housing lease directly with the university, and not the chapter's housing corporation, how is this any different?

(Note, I'm not a lawyer which is why I'm asking.)

I don't agree with what happened at all but, I wonder how far is "too far" when talking about this situation. These young adults who made really stupid choices have now had their phone numbers and addresses posted. Their names are all out there for the world to see and they have been told to leave their fraternity and university. Stupid decision on their part? Sure. Should they be unemployable and not be able to get an education over their stupidity? I'm not sure. I get that they can go to other universities but, what school would want to take on a PR risk like that?

Yes.

The only way the answer to this question would be anything but yes is if they were 5 or under.

I'm sorry but, I disagree that their lives should be ruined forever. I won't make excuses and call them boys when they are men but, I think it's a bit over the top to say singing a hateful chant should result in never finishing school or finding sound employment.

It's a reality in today's world though. What you put on the Internet is out there forever. Does it suck when someone learns this the hard way? Yes. But honestly we need to find a way to get young adults to care about their online image. We tell that to PNMS all the time. Watch what you post, scrub your social media etc... And as for my personal thoughts, fuck these boys they deserve what they get.

Why shouldn't it follow them? Would you want to be their coworker? Is it fair to subject a black person to that? They mentioned lynching!

THey brought it upon themselves, bottom line. So smug, so sure they're just going to coast through life and never have consequences.