Acacia at Ohio U Sings Offensive Song, Gets Suspended
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b00aa54a4e94a3

The article then goes on to explain to its dear readers that Acacia has been accused by the student government of having a propensity to drug and rape female students.

Several issues here:

1) The First Amendment-- Someone lay out for me how the Administration has placed Acacia on suspension, meaning they are no longer allowed to meet, pending an investigation without violating Acacia's free speech rights? If the Courts have held that you can stand outside of a dead soldier's funeral and let them know that "God hates fags," how in the hell does a school administrator reasonably believe she can punish an organization for singing a song?

2) Doesn't investigating and suspending Acacia for this conduct have the effect of disempowering ADPi from acting collectively or as individuals in such a way that they are in control of their response? They have been collectively labeled as victims here when I doubt many of them would tell you they were victimized. The reporter was a not member of ADPi, but some cub reporter clandestinely taking video of a fraternity as it made its serenade rounds.

3) Does anyone have a problem with the school's student government apparently being allowed to use school money to publish a pamphlet labeling a fraternity as known rapists? How is that not the worst thing happening to anyone int his article? How is no one being sued for libel?

It's the PC Police gone wild. I'm sure the ADPi sisters rolled their eyes and chuckled a little at the silly boys and life went on as usual for them. I doubt any of them actually sent nude photos. lol

Depending on who the guys were singing this song, my reaction as a college student would have varied anywhere from "ew, gross" to a giggle.

Frankly, I was more ticked off by the article referring to the sisters of ADP, instead of ADPi. That tells me that they didn't bother to check their facts.

As an attorney with a deep interest in the first amendment it makes me crazy when public universities do this. Student need to fight back and say that they can't be suspended or they will sue.

Oh Kevin, you silly goose, these poor dears are so brainwashed by the patriarchy that they don't even realize they're being harassed. Thank God the PC police is here to tell them how awful their lives are and what to be offended by! They certainly couldn't figure it out on their own!!

I love you. <3 My college-aged self would have rolled my eyes and giggled about those poor idiots with my sisters. It would make for a funny haha moment later on at alumnae meetings. :D "Remember when those fools sang that song to us?"

And these students / student groups will need to be sure to have a copy of the university's code of student conduct and code of student ethics in their hands when they speak to an attorney and want to sue.

Student groups operate as a guest on college campuses. Just like you would want someone out of your personal home if you felt they disobeyed your house rules, same thought applies to college campuses.


The difference between "remember when" (back in the old days) and now, is that with cell phone videos and the internet, an incident will always be fresh. Memories fade and can become sweeter over time. Videos posted on the internet do not.

Over the past decade or so, colleges and universities have really turned into for-profit businesses. It can be really bad PR for a university to have students not represent the school in a positive light. As research funding from the government has become increasingly harder to attain, some schools have had to turn to the private / business sector for support. Universities need to show they have a squeaky clean image.

We had a fraternity come serenade our girls one night with a vulgar song which ended with them mooning the chapter. There were alumnae members in attendance who witnessed the whole she-bang.

The girls in this chapter are not prissy by any means; but, the fraternity's song and behavior was vulgar enough that the collegiate members were not amused. (Note: Maybe not so much "offended" as, "Uhm...ew. No.") Instead of filing a complaint with the university, they discussed the matter with the fraternity chapter directly, asking them to maybe think over their song choices next time and to please not expose themselves.

That fraternity really lost their respect. For a number of weeks after, whenever that fraternity's name was brought up, the girls would cringe or roll their eyes.

And there's no rule that you have to record every blessed thing you do, let alone post it. I feel sorry for these kids who are seeing everything through a screen, instead of being truly present in their lives.

I ran this past my college age daughter and she said "That's sexual harassment- that should fall under Title IX"

No no and no. It's a little depressing how few people understand the first amendment. A PUBLIC University cannot decide Who is allowed to be a "guest in their home" based on the content of the speech. This is basic fundamental first amendment law. It's really sad that so few people understand their rights

It sounded to me like the girls were singing back to them (call and response) so I really don't think title IX would work here.

Attorney here. Your student Code of Conduct does not trump the United States Constitution and probably the State Constitution which physically owns the University.

http://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_Ohio_Constitution

And if you care, there it is in black and white, the Constitution of the State which owns this University. And therein, both protections for speech and peaceful assembly. But the U.S. Constitution already has those, so at this point, this is just spiking the 'ol football.

Videos lack context. This is what.. 7 seconds recorded by some cub reporter from the campus newspaper?

That's completely absurd.

Dear University, you were turned down for this grant because you failed to adequately punish the Acacia Fraternity members for their lewd serenade of the ADPis.

--I don't think that's how those things work.

Is there another article/video that shows that? The Huff Post one didn't say anything about that.

Kevin. Aren't you always shocked that people don't realize this. I always am !

The university also has a duty to maintain a hostile-free environment. Your free speech is my hostile environment.

Here is the code of student conduct for OSU. http://studentlife.osu.edu/csc/

My understanding from my adviser days was that GLOs formally recognized by the university are considered as "guests" on campus. Meaning, any action done by the GLO that is not in alignment with the school can be penalized, including being no longer recognized by the school. Thus, "kicked off campus".

Maybe these GLOs should fight the school and sue. Maybe they would win. But, that is just going to make it harder for the remaining GLOs to operate on campus.

If it comes down to the university being sued by every GLO, then it would be in the university's interest to no longer allow GLOs on campus.

You (the general you) really need to see the big picture. One incident of one chapter can have repercussions on all GLO chapters.

That is why I think PiKA nationals came out with their statement about themed parties.

A chapter who sues and wins the lawsuit wins the battle, but could loose the war by making it hard for other GLOs in the future.

And, maybe I am looking at this from a NPHC point of view. We generally have a very tight hand on our undergraduate chapters and members. It is nothing for us to expel individual members and pull chapter charters for conduct deemed unbecoming of the org.

You can find expelled members and chapters on our public website.http://www.sgrho1922.org/expulsions-suspensions

I'm sure that student code is nice and all, but this happened at Ohio U, not Ohio State.

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.

You don't control public opinion.

And you're being naive to think actions don't have consequences.

Sorry about that.

I agree. In this case, however, the university is going to do what it needs to to show that it can handle a potentially damaging situation.

And, the only thing situations like this will do is just re-affirm negative stereotypes people have about GLOs. We are not doing ourselves any favors by trying to blow this off as "kids will be kids".

As you are aware, no matter how much philanthropy and community service we do does not seem to trump a few rowdy members in the eyes of non-GLO members. People only want to focus on the negative.

And you're being ridiculous if you think anyone cares that much about these things when awarding grants. Seriously, that's just dumb as hell.

Oh. My. God.

Some guys sang a lewd song.

Call the FBI. Right. NOW.

Please go back and read my post. My point was the image GLOs have to the public in terms of how a university may be viewed in the public / private sector, not receiving grants from the government.

Show us one grant which was denied because a fraternity sang a lewd song. Please do that.

I didn't say a grant was denied. Did you read?

I said because grants are harder to attain due to limited funding by the government, universities are now looking towards the private sector / business sector as a means to support the school.

Private businesses can decide on a whim whether or not to collaborate with a school. If the image of the school is not favorable to the business, then the business can easily not collaborate with the school.

Please go back and read what I posted.

I said because grants are harder to attain due to limited funding by the government, universities are now looking towards the private sector / business sector as a means to support the school.

Private businesses can decide on a whim whether or not to collaborate with a school. If the image of the school is not favorable to the business, then the business can easily not collaborate with the school.

So like I said, give one single example of a university being denied a grant due to limited funding by the government because a fraternity did something offensive. You obviously think this is real and took the time to post to warn universities of this possibility. You should be able to provide a single example of this happening at some point in human history. You've shown you have a very limited working knowledge of what students' rights are, you've been shown that what the school did here (despite your support) is contrary to student rights. Despite that, you've apparently doubled down on your asinine comments. Why is it so hard to admit you're wrong?

You are still not reading / understanding what I said.

I did not say what you are trying to accuse me of saying. You are choosing to misinterpret my post.

"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.

Really, though, if the best argument you can make in defense of your actions is "free speech," you are probably doing something shitty.

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.

@ 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.

RIF

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:

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.

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.