Devil's advocate:
Quote:
|
These people at this event have the right to freedom of speech. It may offend others, hurt their feelings and make them feel degraded, but nevertheless they can say what they want, when they want, by our constitution.
|
Well, the rejoinder to that is that this just isn't a first amendment issue. The government isn't involved here, and nobody's suggesting that the epithet-yellers should go to jail. This is a private school, and the question is how they build the kind of community they want to have. It appears that they would like to have a community where, either, nobody WANTS to taunt gay people, or if that isn't possible, then at least to have a community where there is enormous social pressure not to do so, and anybody who did would be condemned by his brothers.
So, how do they get there? Knowing U of C fairly well, I'm pretty confident that if those guys had yelled a racist epithet like "kike" they would have become absolute pariahs on campus and might well have been kicked out of their houses. Not coincidentally, they didn't do that -- they attacked others in a way that's more socially acceptable.
Personally, I've kind of lost confidence in diversity training. You're not going to change people's thoughts overnight, but you can change people's behavior. And behavior is most effectively modified through reward and punishment. Using hate speech to attack fellow students should have swift consequences. These guys should be punished -- if not by the school, then socially. If sororities refused to mix with that frat till they kicked those guys out...I have a feeling this wouldn't be a problem next year.
Sheesh. You'd think that at least in Division III, schools could find football recruits who aren't Neanderthals. Oh well.
Ivy