Lawyers save another chapter
 

The freedom to dress-up on halloween has been confirmed again at Auburn, thanks to some help from our lawyer friends.

The Univ. tried to bother this chapter for having a halloween party, which wasn't up to their PC standards, but our lawyers on call saved to day.

Next ime we go for $$$$$$$.

Here's the article:




Auburn fraternity reinstated under lawsuit settlement

The Associated Press
06-30-2002


AUBURN

A second white fraternity whose members dressed in racially offensive Halloween costumes has been reinstated at Auburn University as part of the settlement of its lawsuit against the school.

Delta Sigma Phi Fraternity's local chapter will be reinstated under the agreement, chapter president Matt Furin said.

Beta Theta Pi, which also had lost its university recognition in November, settled its $100 million lawsuit in May and also was reinstated.

Neither chapter received any financial payment from the university for settling the lawsuits.

Furin said the two Delta Sigma Phi members who wore KKK attire and blackface with a hangman's noose at last year's Halloween party won't be allowed back into the fraternity. Five others who were suspended from the chapter will be dealt with in the fall, he said.

"It is a relief to be done with this part of it," Furin told The Opelika-Auburn News.

He said members will educate themselves so the incident won't be repeated.

"We reached an agreement that both sides are comfortable with, and everything worked out in the best interest of everyone involved," Furin said, without disclosing details of the settlement.

The university's attorney, Lee Armstrong, could not be reached for comment Friday.

Furin said the fraternity will hold several diversity-related activities, although the specifics have not yet been decided.

"Diversity and respect are essential elements of the philosophy of Delta Sigma Phi," said Tim Ardillo, Delta Sigma Phi's deputy executive director. "We, as a national organization, are dedicated to fostering our long-standing relationship with Auburn University and its communities."

I don't and will probably never know the answer to this, so I will simply ask the question:

Was this initial situation an honest mistake, and, if so, was stupidity rewarded?

If not, and this was a racist action, should these chapters be reinstated?

Bottom line, how can we know and how can the actions of these members be justified?

I'm always in favor of saving chapters that deserve to survive. Perhaps that's the case here -- perhaps not. I can't read the minds of those who participated in this idiotic act. I can only hope that their intentions were not as they appear on the face of the situation.

no matter what happened with the lawyers. i can't help but feel that a chapter in this position is still doomed to fail. even though it was supposedly (this specific word because i don't personally know) just a few of the members, who is going to want to join an organization that got in trouble for racist stuff. it's sad but i do think that numbers will slowly but surely drop.

marissa

I'm not sure I'm cheering on this one. Not every chapter that is closed is closed wrongly.

I'm not happy about this settlement at all. Whether these chapters meant it intentionally or just had a brain-fart of massive proportions, their actions were incredibly offensive and hurtful. It seems like a slap on the wrist to me.

The moronic ineptitude of the members while seemingly funny was uncalled for and should not have happened by so called adults.

I am glad to see that they did not lose their Charter but hope in the same tone hoped they learned a lesson of and about what life is really like!l:eek:

you can actually call this just "dressing up? this is blatant ignorance in the highest regard. let's see what happens when the que's see them around. i bet the butt whupping will last a while.

They were excercising their freedom of expression. Whether we agree or not with their opinion or its vehicle we need to respect that right.

No doubt it was a first amendment issue that forced the University to recant its punishment. It seems unfortunate that the brothers were expelled for this. They were made into scapegoats, if the chapter really thought this was wrong they wouldn't have been doing it anyway. I have little doubt that those brothers will remain unofficially affiliated with the chapter and partake in a lot of the social benefits.

I am surprised that Greeklawgirl, as a defender of the constitution, would recomend punishment for excercising a 1st amendment right.

Ladies and Gentlemen, America is not an easy democracy, it has to be fought for every day, or else we will find our rights slipping away. What can happen to one group espousing an unpopular opinion can easily happen to your group later.

The Virtue of America is that you can stand toe to toe with another citizen and scream at each other at the top of your lungs we all understand that intrinsically. But the responsibility (which most people lose sight of) is that you have to be prepared to FIGHT for that person to be able to give that opinion, because some day it might be someone else trying to rob you of your voice.

(James steps off his soapbox)

James, as an officer of the court, I understand that they have a right to exercise their rights under the Constitution.

But as a human being, I don't have to like what those frat boys--and lets not kid ourselves, thats what they are--did. It was stupid and cruel and offensive. They should be ashamed of themselves and there should be some kind of consequence to their actions.

The settlement may very well have been appropriate under the law. But that doesn't mean that it sits well with me morally.

Remember James, I'm a person, too. :)

Thank you for the clarification. I too find some actions offensive and am likely to start foaming at the mouth at them. But I will draw the line when my friends want to say . . burn the people's house down.

Or in this case, I may deplore their actions, but I would not suport some type of official or institutional response.

And certainly not some feel good scape goatism that the chapter is doing in an attempt to cut their losses.

Oh, I have several thoughts.

First, if it isn't illegal I don't agree with any university punishment--period. I greatly believe in the bill of rights even for those with whom I disagree. Instead, I favor public shaming and ridicule. If an organization, GLO or otherwise, engages in beliefs or practices with which you disagree, then publicly call them upon it. IN this case, all the other GLO's could make signs and picket their house, refuse to associate with them in mixers, intramurals. etc.

Second, if it is illegal, then I think you have to take a careful look at the situation. If the group is sponsoring illegal activity, then there are statutes which deal with such groups and they should be procecuted. However, if it is a couple of idiots, then I think the university should deal with them on an individual basis. Group punishment is morally wrong. If one man does XXX, we shall punish all XXXs. If one Hispanic does XXX, then we shall punish all Hispanics. If one Sigma Chi does XXX, then we shall punish all Sigma Chi's. As an Aside, Group or collective punishment is one of the principal terror tactics used by muderous regimes throughout history. The Nazis used it frequently.

Jack

Let them both die out slow.....
 

Both, those chapters should be gone, off that campus! First of free speach is not meant to harm others, and if you (James) feel it dose mean that your as sick as they are. The pictures they took were enough to say, "Damn Racist Pigs."
-Heath

Prophet finds new "right" in US Constitution
 

If the fraternities had made poster-size prints of the nasty photos, and hung them outside the Campus Center and outside the door of every Afro-Amer chapter house/room, some case could be made that someone was harmed.

But no one was "harmed" in this case. Only the "perpetually annoyed" and "professional protestors" got upset, and they tried to illegally use their control of the campus to attack the enemy fraternities.

The pictures were not circulated by the chapter. Some outside firm erroneously put the pictures on an open internet site.

It is not illegal to dress up on halloween, even if the costume doesn't meet your test of "political correctness."

It is not illegal to be a "damn racist pig." We don't like them, and we wish they hadn't done this.

In my opinion, the greatest benefit of undergraduate fratenity life is the "opportunity to fail."

And, hopefully, to learn from it.

Both nat'l/int'l HQ and the campus have the right not to recognize groups that it deems racist or offensive. People have the right to be racist or offensive, but that doesn't mean the university has to give the chapter its protection as a registered student organization.

Free speech is exactly that FREE, you have to take the good and the bad.

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!

first of all, i'm not even being prejudice here. i'm stating a fact, they're making white people look bad. i didn't even say you had anything to do with it. how about this example.....why was there such a backlash against chinese from whites during the entire spy plane incident? i'm not even chinese, yet i still was messed with. none of those chinese-americans had anything to do with the incident, yet they still got messed with. and no, not from other minorities, but from white people. is it only white people who are allowed to lump other races into one category?

well, you got my point. i'm not lumping anyone on GC into this category. did i ever say white people are backwards morons? no, i said this incident makes them look like it. i'm not limiting anything. did you see any asian people at that party? any hispanic people? any arab people? no, it was an all white party. only at a party like that would anyone have the gall to try some stuff like that. like i said before, why did the white community lump all of the chinese into one category during the spy plane incident? i'm pretty sure they were thinking about propogating ignorance there, right? and i'm not even messing with white people here, i'm just saying these kids aren't a good representation of your people.

Prejudice
 

According to dictionary.com...

prej·u·dice Pronunciation Key (prj-ds)
n.

1.
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.

2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

I don't think you get it. Saying that one isolated incedent means that ALL white people look bad is akin to me saying that when I try to get gas in a certain neighborhood and a black lady tries to sell me drugs that makes all black people look like drug dealers.

In truth there are low-life morons no matter what the color of their skin.

If you think that these good 'ol boys playing dress up KKK makes ME look bad than you need to consider that you may be effected by some degree of prejudice against me as a white male.

I don't recall any backlash against chinese americans after that plane incedent... But if something did happen that's exactly what I'm talking about. This is a perfect example of prejudice -- a bunch of yay - hoos that think that if one country doesn't like the USA, the entire race must be the same.

-- What I'm saying is that the above described behavior is something that should be avoided. Especially by anyone claiming to be educated and/or open minded.

I think people, when they do negative or bad things, are frequently regarded as "examples" of their group - especially to outsiders. In this case, they were Greeks and white.

It's especially true when their behavior conforms to our suspicions. If a black man is arraigned on murder charges, you know some people think, "Oh, another black male criminal." If a white man is arraigned on the same charges, people don't look to his race - they latch onto the fact that he lived in a trailer park, for example.

And whether we like it or not, lots of people think the NPC and IFC Greeks are a bunch of stuck-up white dumb snobs. So they see a bunch of good ole boys pulling a stupid racist stunt, and it does confirm their stereotypes.

If I do something, someone out there is going to take it as being typical of (take your pick) women, blondes, sorority chicks, AXDs, English majors, whites, liberals, etc., depending on what I do and what context they are viewing me from. Let's say I get drunk and puke at a party; Miss GDI will say, "That makes sorority chicks look stupid," whereas Miss Rival Chapter says, "That makes the AXDs look so bad."

Now I'm not suggesting everyone thinks this way. But a lot of people do, consciously or unconsciously. And I'm certainly not suggesting we OUGHT to think this way.

Hey, as a white person or a Greek, I may not like being represented in someone's mind by these chapters. But I understand that people are going to do it.

Hypocrisy
 

The thing that bothers me most about this kind of behavior (nooses at a party) is that the brothers wanted to claim both that this was all harmless fun, and that this was a political expression that shouldn't be squelched.

If they actually believe that it's funny that black people used to get lynched in their university town (this is the most charitable "message" I can get from their actions), why don't they stand up and say so? If this is about freedom of expression, why aren't they defending their point of view? Why don't they rent out the campus square and march in their KKK robes if this message is so important?

Finally, the First Amendment certainly applies to organizations at public universities, but threats and harrassment are not protected speech, and it's not hard to see the use of blackface and nooses as a bald threat to black students. I think the constitutional status of this expression, given its time, place, and manner, is open to debate.

IvySpice

Re: Prejudice
 

you don't have to recall it, you never got any of it. i do, don't believe me? ask an asian person. you're obviously quite naive. if you would ever read any of those post, i'm not making blanket statements of white people. i'm talking about the perception other races are going to have of them. shoot, this isn't even an isolated incident. read fuzzie's post. everyone else has gotten it, why haven't you? and yes, there are ignorant people who actually believe stuff like that. so don't pretend there aren't idiots out there like that. i've seen those pics.

Do any of you personally know the people you are talking about? I didn't know the idiots who did this but I do know they were a very very small part of this fraternity which has been at Auburn since 1908. The chapter itself is very diverse and you do not see that represented in the pictures that were published acroos the nation! You also never saw the anquish that is caused the the executive councel of the fraternity, I did! They spent months trying to save an organization they believed that was placed in jeopardy b/c of sophomoric idiots who didn't understand anything about what is acceptable, right or just! Think about how you would feel if someone you didn't know was saying things like this about you.

off top, i could care less what they are feeling. if you don't can't handle the punishment, don't do the crime. no one could have told them to take it off? not even the minorities in the chapter? if they were so diverse, would something like this happen?

Well, perhaps the rest of the chapter will now use better judgment in selecting their members in the future! If they truly disapproved of those members' behavior, they should have been disciplined in-house long before the rest of us heard anything about it. Maybe they did, maybe they kicked these guys out the next chapter meeting, but if that's the case I haven't heard it. If they didn't participate but didn't sanction the guys either, I don't think they were exactly upholding high standards either.

If they're going to claim these few brothers ruined it for the rest of them, I want to know, what did they do to prevent it? And how did they deal with it after the fact?

chances are, they just got a slap on the wrist and a "don't ever do that again." you're right, the punishment was most definitely not strong enough. people are going to think they can act a fool based on the first amendment now.