A Multicultural Sorority?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by gee_ess

PC sensitivity training

Wording it this way undermines the seriousness and significance of it.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Wording it this way undermines the seriousness and significance of it.

THANK YOU, Chaos.

[Kevin]

In the real world, but for a narrow set of categories, any state action restricting speech gets strict scrutiny. I actually did cite some binding authority above regarding that gay student association at the University of Missouri (that's 8th Circuit).

This exact, precise event doesn't have to happen. Some things in the law are really cut and dry. This is one of those things.

[DSTCHAOS]

LOL. What's your agenda, Kevin? You went from saying you don't care if people are offended, to attempts at "lefties" insults, to banging these cases into the ground.

You seem way too settled into an agenda to grasp that no matter how much you want it to be, it isn't cut and dry/black and white.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

LOL. What's your agenda, Kevin? You went from saying you don't care if people are offended, to attempts at "lefties" insults, to banging these cases into the ground.

You seem way too settled into an agenda to grasp that no matter how much you want it to be, it isn't cut and dry/black and white.

In this case, do you think the school's policy here is being promulgated by someone right of center? Do those people even exist in education outside of Liberty College, etc.?

I have no agenda except to say that content based restrictions on free speech are subject to strict scrutiny which means that the University doesn't have the legitimate power to do this. My "agenda" is free speech.

The school can no more do this than the state of North Dakota can pass a law declaring the Lakota Separatist organizations (if there are any) to be no longer allowed to advocate independence because the very idea of them existing is offensive to white people.

You don't have a right not to be offended.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

In this case, do you think the school's policy here is being promulgated by someone right of center?

No.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I have no agenda except to say that content based restrictions on free speech are subject to strict scrutiny which means that the University doesn't have the legitimate power to do this. My "agenda" is free speech.

Oh you have an agenda beyond "free speech." Your posts convey your opinions on offending groups of people, as well as your opinions of those who would disagree with your stance (you assume they are "lefties" which is a false assumption).

Originally Posted by Kevin

The school can no more do this than the state of North Dakota can pass a law declaring the Lakota Separatist organizations (if there are any) to be no longer allowed to advocate independence because the very idea of them existing is offensive to white people.

Bad analogy.

Anyway, I think that people are championing the causes of those who have these parties and "ugly woman competitions" as if it serves some larger "Constitutional Rights" purpose. Not because people actually agree with the views expressed in these events. Some people do, of course, and Kevin might be one of them---that's his business. However, there are better things to champion freedom of speech based on. For instance, if a chapter's (not the chapter in this thread) "redskin party" is the epitome of Constitutional Rights then that reminds us of how far we have not come as a KKKountry.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

KKKountry.

watch out now. you'll be labeled as anti american.

:unsure:

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by starang21

watch out now. you'll be labeled as anti american.

:unsure:

Flashback. America rocks.

The KKKountry called AmeriKKKa doesn't.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Anyway, I think that people are championing the causes of those who have these parties and "ugly woman competitions" as if it serves some larger "Constitutional Rights" purpose. Not because people actually agree with the views expressed in these events. Some people do, of course, and Kevin might be one of them---that's his business. However, there are better things to champion freedom of speech based on. For instance, if a chapter's (not the chapter in this thread) "redskin party" is the epitome of Constitutional Rights then that reminds us of how far we have not come as a KKKountry.

If we don't champion the right to speech we find to be offensive, and the ugly woman contest, fwiw, to me, is offensive as hell, then we risk losing that right. We cannot allow the government to be in a position where it gets to draw the line as to what is good and what is bad when it comes to speech. That line drawing is left to the public at large.

Now.. if the Native group wants to protest, condemn, write letters to the editor, write to Gamma Phi Beta's National, taunt, hold rallies, etc., then good for them. Gamma Phi Beta should have to face the consequences of their speech if indeed it was offensive, but those consequences can't flow from any governmental institution.

As for the "Redskin Party," the ability to have it is important where actually having it -- that'd probably be a pretty dumb thing to do. The reaction of the public to such an event would be a better indicator than anything else as to how far we've come.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Quick research brought me to a case wherein Sigma Chi was sanctioned by George Mason University for having an "ugly woman" contest. . . . . The citation is 993 F.2d 386 (4th Cir., 1993) if anyone cares.

Kevin, you do have to take into account that this is the Fourth Circuit, which tends to be much more conservative on First Amendment issues (and just about everything else) than most if not almost all other circuits.

Iota Xi is also not quite on the all-fours you seem to want it to be. There, the court considered what the chapter did to be "live entertainment," and it specifically applied the standards for live entertainment, where almost everything short of obscenity is protected. The issue the court decided was whether what the chapter did should legally be considered a performance. That's what the Court decided, and note that Judge Murnaghan (what a character!) wrote seperately to say that while he concurred in the result, he thought the majority set too broad a rule. He would have said that the University was out of luck for punishing the chapter post hoc after giving tacit approval for the performance. He then goes on to describe why the majority went too far.

I don't think the outcome of a lawsuit in this case is as open and shut as you seem to.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Speech isn't one of those aspects unless the speech is obscene, child porn, constitutes a "clear and present danger" (see the Holmes test), etc. This sort of thing isn't on that list of exceptions. We have the right as individuals and groups to offend one another, be it through racially inflammatory speech or almost anything else. Otherwise, there are a lot of kids at Cal-Berkley who should probably be in prison.

It is that cut and dry. Really. Especially in this case.

Really, it's not.

Originally Posted by Kevin

In the real world, but for a narrow set of categories, any state action restricting speech gets strict scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Kevin

I have no agenda except to say that content based restrictions on free speech are subject to strict scrutiny which means that the University doesn't have the legitimate power to do this.

Just because it's subject to strict scrutiny doesn't mean the University doesn't have the legitimate power to do what it did. It just means that a compelling state interest must be shown and the state action must be narrowly tailored to further that compelling state interest.

I'm not saying that UND would meet that standard in this case. I don't have an opinion one way or another -- years of practice have taught me that it's useless, if not irresponsible, to try to form an opinion on something like this when I have nothing but a few newspaper articles to go on. Who knows how accurate the articles are, and who knows other information there is that the article doesn't contain.

But again, I think you're making this more cut and dry then it is in the real world.

You don't have a right not to be offended.

On this, we completely agree.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If we don't champion the right to speech we find to be offensive, and the ugly woman contest, fwiw, to me, is offensive as hell, then we risk losing that right.

No.

This is another thing that you are trying to make black and white when it isn't. There are all sorts of things that can be found offensive (comedians, advertisements, etc.) but not all potentially offensive things are conceived and received equally.

[gee_ess]

Originally Posted by gee_ess
PC sensitivity training

Wording it this way undermines the seriousness and significance of it.


I wasn't trying to undermine the significance of the situation. Maybe my wording seemed offensive to you because I have been arguing for Gamma Phi Beta's side of the issue.
However, I truly meant that if the intent of the suit and complaint was that the Native Americans were offended, then educating the members on the issue seemed more appropriate than a social sanction.

I think the question was asked prior to my post regarding what consequences should have been enforced? Do you think a social sanction is really justified in this instance? Does that solve the ignorance or insensitivity?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by gee_ess

educating the members on the issue seemed more appropriate than a social sanction.

Better wording.

Diversity, tolerance, and sensitivity trainings are not about "political correctness." That's a tongue in cheek approach to education and equality that undermines the importance of such efforts. If someone says "oh I'm being forced to bite my tongue so I won't offend 'those people,'" they aren't taking it seriously and are continuing the way of thinking (and often the behaviors) that they had before the education efforts.

[Senusret I]

Dance my puppets.....dance!

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Dance my puppets.....dance!

Yeah . . . cause you TOTALLY started this thread in order to have a discussion of Constitutional law break out. Bravo!