Old South
 

I find this story interesting in so many different ways.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520116,00.html

Is it freedom of expression or is it insensitivity on the fraternities part? Thoughts?

Yes and yes. The fraternity is obviously free to hold the event as an expression of their free speech...buuuuut perhaps this was not the appropriate time/venue (stopping in front of the AKA event during an anniversary celebration) for that expression. I personally find it distasteful in general, but the 1st amendment provides it protection. If the campus was to ban them from parading, that is their privilege as an institution. I think that next time they should use a little more tact and forethought, and they owe the ladies of AKA and the campus a huge apology.

As PhoenixAzul says, the two options you give are not mutually exclusive.

I was interested that they were carrying the Confederate battle flag. If I recall correctly, KA bylaws prohibit display of that flag at any fraternity function.

Yes I agree that they are not mutually exclusive but does one right dwarf the other? Are they both equal? Is there a right to not be offended? If they had not displayed the battle flag would it have been acceptable?

Having the right to do or say something does not make it inherently acceptable.

I think there needs to be some care in using the word "right." What is meant? Constitutional right? Human Right? Oughtabe right? A "rights vs rights" analysis doesn't fit here anyway.

There is a right to free expression, without a doubt. There is no right not to be offended per se. But there is also not a right to speak without being criticized for what you said. Those who exercise their right to free expression must be prepared to accept the consequences of their expression.

What you have here is everyone exercising their right to free expression. The KA chapter did that with its parade, and the attire and flags were part of that. The AKA chapter and others are, in return, exercising their rights to free expression by criticising the chapter for stopping the ante-bellum themed parade in front of the AKA celebration. From the article:

"I don't believe these young folks were in any way trying to be racist," said Joyce Stallworth, an Alpha Kappa Alpha alumna who saw the April 29 parade in Tuscaloosa and is an associate education dean at Alabama. "But they were being insensitive. I don't think they understood the broader implications of what they were doing."

Note: There is no assertion that the chapter violated anyone else's rights. Instead, there are statements that the chapter did not exercise its right to free expression responsibly.

It is my understanding that KA has held these Old South events for many years. Had they held this function in a ballroom at the downtown Hilton would it have made a difference? What if they had held it at a private location and someone had objected who worked there? Is there a slippery slope?

I would also like to know if and/or why they paused at the AKA house. If that is true, it was truly in poor taste and they should apologize. I cannot imagine they would be that insensitive but I suppose it may be so.

According to The Crimson White:

According to a news release from the fraternity’s national administrative office, an investigation by the national and local KA officials found that the parade "stopped for a very short period of time" while picking up participants, who wore antebellum dresses from a nearby sorority house.

Fraternity officials will work to prevent another situation like it in the future, according to the release.

"We apologize for the interruption of the AKA event," said Will Vandervoort, president of the KA chapter. "We moved our trucks as soon as we could given the traffic and loading and unloading. We sincerely regret what happened."

As for your slippery slope question, I still think that misses the point. People have a right to express themselves freely. People have a right to criticize others' free expressions. Members of the community at large can hear both sides, consider contextual factors and form their own opinions. That collective community opinion might be to join in the criticism. Those criticized can then decide for themselves whether to pay attention to the criticism or not.

Welcome to the marketplace of ideas.

What I read in another article was that they stopped the floats to pick up girls (dressed as southern belles) at their sorority house that was located diagonally from the AKA house, and that they moved on when the girls were in the floats.

According to the article I read (I think it was in the UA newspaper - found on another website), the trucks were stopped when the AKA members came outside to take photographs and that was when they met each other, no verbal altercation occurred, and the trucks moved on after the girls were loaded in.

Sounds like an unfortunate coincidental meeting, if the trucks had been earlier to pick up the girls, they would have missed the AKA's picture taking.

I'll see if I can find the article and post it.

Mystic Cat - You beat me to it!!

The flags and uniforms weren't in and of themselves offensive, but there really was no need to even walk by the AKA house, especially during their celebration. I believe that a formal apology has been made so I don't really know what the school could/should do.

From what I read, it wasn't a case of "Hey, let's go by the AKA house!". The KAs were stopping to pick up their dates, and it just so happened they stopped near the AKA event.

Sounds to me like they really didn't do much wrong. They did the right thing by apologizing. Sounds like the KA's were a little unlucky in their timing and maybe, just maybe, the news corp is making a bigger deal of this then it should be. Wouldn't be the first time they have done so with Greeks.

I'd agree that they did the right thing by apologizing, and I assume that no offense was intended. But I don't think I'd say they did nothing wrong and were just unlucky in timing.

There's a reason that Kappa Alpha Order adopted this bylaw at its 2001 National Convention:

Display of the Confederate Battle Flag. The display of the Confederate Battle Flag shall be prohibited from any chapter house, lodge, or meeting place: a "display" shall mean a visible presence from the exterior of said property and from the common areas within. The Confederate Battle Flag shall not be displayed at any fraternity function or gathering, on or off property associated with Kappa Alpha Order. The Confederate Battle Flag shall not be associated with Kappa Alpha Order by any medium including, but not limited to, fabric pattern, printed material, painted or stenciled surfaces, or computer Web sites. The Confederate Battle Flag shall not be incorporated into the design of clothing or any other items bearing symbolism of Kappa Alpha Order.

Around the same time that this bylaw was adopted, an issue of the Kappa Alpha Journal (which used to be available on-line, but now I can't find it) had a very good cover story on the association between KA and the Conferderate Battle flag, historically and contemporeneously, along with a discussion of why KA would not want to be associated with the negative connotations the flag carries with so many people.

So at the least, it would seem that the chapter violated their own fraternity's bylaws and policies.

I say this as a Southerner with full Southern credientials: The reality is that in 2009, a group of intelligent college students really shouldn't be surprised that appearing in public wearing Confederate uniforms and carrying Confederate flags, as part of a party, will elicit a negative reaction from large segments of the community (including those who think it is disrespectful to the memory of Robt. E. Lee and all other Confederate soldiers).

It's not a matter of whether they have a right to do that. It's matter of which is more important to them: exercising that right or maintaining a positive reputation in the community. It seems to me that the fraternity as a whole has decided that reputation and public perception is more important.

What they did wrong was not thinking about the implications of their actions.

Which is pretty par for the course for many 18-22 year old men ;)