University fo Okahoma-Sigma Alpha Epsilon-Racial Chant

[MU2Driver]

I just listened to OU President David Boren's press conference. I can't and won't defend the indefensible behavior of the singers on the bus; however, I will point out that the thrust of Boren's comments was that OU generally does not represent those values and the behavior of a subset of OU students (the SAE chapter) should not discount the otherwise good qualities of OU. But, he is unwilling to give that same consideration to the SAE chapter, i.e. that the behavior of the 20 or so SAEs on the bus (assuming that they were all singing) does not reflect the attitudes of all 200 men in the chapter or SAE generally.
Candidly, are we really to believe that the attitudes of the bus singers, or those of the SAE chapter at OU, are all that different from many in the OU student body? As far as I am aware, the chapter has enjoyed a good reputation on campus. If OU was as enlightened as President Boren would have us believe, they would have been pariahs.
Sanctions? Sure. Counseling? You bet. Apologies? Absolutely. But, if there really is a "U" in "OU", then surely it can come up with a solution more tailored and truly constructive than a one way bus ticket out of Norman.

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by MU2Driver

I just listened to OU President David Boren's press conference. I can't and won't defend the indefensible behavior of the singers on the bus; however, I will point out that the thrust of Boren's comments was that OU generally does not represent those values and the behavior of a subset of OU students (the SAE chapter) should not discount the otherwise good qualities of OU. But, he is unwilling to give that same consideration to the SAE chapter, i.e. that the behavior of the 20 or so SAEs on the bus (assuming that they were all singing) does not reflect the attitudes of all 200 men in the chapter or SAE generally.
Candidly, are we really to believe that the attitudes of the bus singers, or those of the SAE chapter at OU, are all that different from many in the OU student body? As far as I am aware, the chapter has enjoyed a good reputation on campus. If OU was as enlightened as President Boren would have us believe, they would have been pariahs.
Sanctions? Sure. Counseling? You bet. Apologies? Absolutely. But, if there really is a "U" in "OU", then surely it can come up with a solution more tailored and truly constructive than a one way bus ticket out of Norman.

Please read the comments in this thread that address your statement. Think about it. Do you believe that only 20 bus riders knew the words to that chant? Who taught it to them? Think it all the way through.

ETA: when you have cancer, the surgeon will also remove healthy tissue surrounding the tumor.

And, a second video has surfaced. I am willing to bet there will be more videos.

[MU2Driver]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

Please read the comments in this thread that address your statement. Think about it. Do you believe that only 20 bus riders knew the words to that chant? Who taught it to them? Think it all the way through.

ETA: when you have cancer, the surgeon will also remove healthy tissue surrounding the tumor.

And, a second video has surfaced. I am willing to bet there will be more videos.

No, I don't believe that only the 20 bus riders knew the chant. I first heard the chant as an undergraduate in the early 80s. It was prevalent then; it's not prevalent now. Attitudes take time to change.

Would they have sung the song in public? I don't think so; I think they knew it was wrong. And, if given the opportunity to apologize and repent, I think they would. I think a teaching moment was lost because in today's environment anything less than the "death penalty" in cases like this is criticized.

There is no reason to believe that the SAEs at OU are particularly different from many other students at OU. The university administration may feel better about itself today for crushing a 100+ year old chapter, but I fear it will only drive the problem further underground and delay real progress.

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by MU2Driver

No, I don't believe that only the 20 bus riders knew the chant. I first heard the chant as an undergraduate in the early 80s. It was prevalent then; it's not prevalent now. Attitudes take time to change.

Would they have sung the song in public? I don't think so; I think they knew it was wrong. And, if given the opportunity to apologize and repent, I think they would. I think a teaching moment was lost because in today's environment anything less than the "death penalty" in cases like this is criticized.

There is no reason to believe that the SAEs at OU are particularly different from many other students at OU. The university administration may feel better about itself today for crushing a 100+ year old chapter, but I fear it will only drive the problem further underground and delay real progress.

Now I think you are cherry-picking. And I'm not buying your "no different than many other OU students" which you've brought up twice now. Does that make it right, or somehow lessen the nature of the act? I'm pretty sure it does not. And we're not talking about the OU student body, so unless you have data to support your claim, let's not go there.

Wrong is wrong: where is the teaching moment in what happened on that bus? The teaching moment happened when those "men" were children. And apparently it failed.

When you shatter the glass, saying "sorry" doesn't put the glass back together again. You sweep up the glass shards and you throw them in the trash.

[MU2Driver]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

Now I think you are cherry-picking. And I'm not buying your "no different than many other OU students" which you've brought up twice now. Does that make it right, or somehow lessen the nature of the act? I'm pretty sure it does not. And we're not talking about the OU student body, so unless you have data to support your claim, let's not go there.

Wrong is wrong: where is the teaching moment in what happened on that bus? The teaching moment happened when those "men" were children. And apparently it failed.

When you shatter the glass, saying "sorry" doesn't put the glass back together again. You sweep up the glass shards and you throw them in the trash.

I've brought it up twice because it's a good point and one that you choose to ignore. Today you're fine with it because it doesn't affect your organization. One day it will be different and you will want a more thoughtful and nuanced approach.
The combination of condemning entire groups for the conduct a few and condemning because of speech (vile speech, but still only speech) is dangerous. The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech.

[FloridaTish]

MU2Driver,

I wasn't quick enough to QFP your original comment you made, but you said "They didn't say "Let's kill black people"; they said "we don't want black people in our private club". Most GLOs are still essentially segregated; that's just a fact. Most churches are still segregated. In fact, Sunday morning has often been called the most segregated hour in America."

Did you miss the "You can hang them from a tree" part? The lynching of black men in our country's history is abhorrent and yes, them singing about it doesn't directly say "Let's kill black people", but it may as well be.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by MU2Driver

I've brought it up twice because it's a good point and one that you choose to ignore. Today you're fine with it because it doesn't affect your organization. One day it will be different and you will want a more thoughtful and nuanced approach.
The combination of condemning entire groups for the conduct a few and condemning because of speech (vile speech, but still only speech) is dangerous. The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech.

First, THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT PROTECT YOU FROM THE REPERCUSSIONS OF YOUR SPEECH. It specifically addresses what the GOVERNMENT can do (or not do) to regulate your speech. You are still subject to the consequences of your speech.

Second, is today logical fallacy day at GC? Because MU2Driver, your argument is not, in fact a good one; Tu quoque and bandwagon fallacies do not help your case.

Third, we are not talking about one or two rogue members. We are talking about a self-identified group representing SAE as being horribly racist (not to mention stupid). Surely at some point during their new member period it was impressed upon them that they represent SAE in all their actions. Would I feel the same if it were my sisters? No. I would feel WORSE because I know that is NOT what my organization stands for, I would not want to be lumped in with them, and I would WELCOME any "sister" who acted that way in being shown the door, and any chapter which condoned, either actively or passively, that sort of unconscionable behavior having their charter pulled.

Yes, it reflects badly on SAE, but the fact of the matter is that any negative actions by any GLO reflects badly on ALL GLOs, and to John Q. Public the individual letters don't matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NRl66yUtG8

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by MU2Driver

I've brought it up twice because it's a good point and one that you choose to ignore. Today you're fine with it because it doesn't affect your organization. One day it will be different and you will want a more thoughtful and nuanced approach.
The combination of condemning entire groups for the conduct a few and condemning because of speech (vile speech, but still only speech) is dangerous. The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech.

I am not ignoring your point, I am sticking to the topic. You are bringing in the "everyone else does it" reasoning and that doesn't fly with me.

As for the bolded, you could not be more wrong on that. You are a relative newcomer to GC and apparently you do not know me well at all. Further, it doesn't matter whose ox is getting gored here, contrary to your claim. This time it's SAE, but last week it was Theta, or Chi O, or Kappa - whatever. I am not changing my stance depending on the letters. I have zero tolerance for this type of behavior.

And this is NOT a First Amendment issue. The Federal government is not punishing SAE. And, the First Amendment does not protect you from the consequences of your speech. Don't ignore that fundamental principle.

[Nanners52674]

Originally Posted by MU2Driver

I've brought it up twice because it's a good point and one that you choose to ignore. Today you're fine with it because it doesn't affect your organization. One day it will be different and you will want a more thoughtful and nuanced approach.
The combination of condemning entire groups for the conduct a few and condemning because of speech (vile speech, but still only speech) is dangerous. The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech.

Wrong. The first amendment is there to protect you from the Government limiting your speech. The first amendment does not protect from the fall out of speaking an unpopular opinion. I'm so sick of the free speech argument.

[exlurker]

FWIW, CNN report midafternoon Monday, with remarks by the university's president, events causing the chapter closure, eviction from the house, and so on:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/09/us/okl...ternity-chant/

Many parents or grandparents from IFC and NPC groups can likely tell of similar chants or songs. Doesn't make them right, then or now.


See also:
http://www.nola.com/recruiting/index..._ots_comm.html

The chant controversy seems to be affecting sports recruitment; “offensive tackle Jean Delance decommitted from Oklahoma this morning [Monday].”
Athlletes are voicing their views: running back Eric Striker is mentioned in the above article.

[sailboatgirl]

Here's a blog post that a friend of my shared on facebook. It's a powerful blog from a black man who was a member of the OU chapter 14 years ago...

http://betweenthenotes.me/2015/03/09...r-black-s-a-e/

[violetgeek]

Originally Posted by MU2Driver

No, I don't believe that only the 20 bus riders knew the chant. I first heard the chant as an undergraduate in the early 80s. It was prevalent then; it's not prevalent now. Attitudes take time to change.

Would they have sung the song in public? I don't think so; I think they knew it was wrong. And, if given the opportunity to apologize and repent, I think they would. I think a teaching moment was lost because in today's environment anything less than the "death penalty" in cases like this is criticized.

There is no reason to believe that the SAEs at OU are particularly different from many other students at OU. The university administration may feel better about itself today for crushing a 100+ year old chapter, but I fear it will only drive the problem further underground and delay real progress.

There your problem right there -- we knew in the 80s that this was WRONG. The people who sang it then are the parents of the kids singing it now -- they learned this behavior from adults -- they aren't smart enough to have original thought. And, their parents didn't care enough to teach them to not voice those opinions in public. I hope they -- the kids and their parents -- get what they deserve. Public ridicule -- which hopefully will result in some soul searching.

If you are a religious person, pray for their souls because if this is the type of person they are, they are going to need it.