STOP BEING SO STUPID!

[DrPhil]

I didn't notice this was about government punishment. How did this discussion become about government punishment? Even when talking about public vs private institutions and organizations, schools and GLOs always maintain the ability to impose sanctions. They don't have to use government hate crime legislation to do so.

I'm talking about schools and GLOs choosing to do something beyond a cliche' racial sensitivity training.

There's nothing wrong with Taco Tuesday as long as attendees don't show up imitating and mocking "Mexicans" (or looking and acting like Speedy Gonzalez, gang members, etc). The proposed subjectivity is why it is up to the school and GLO to figure out wether there will be a sanction and what will be the sanction. This is no different than the costume parties GCers rant about annually.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't remember parties like this in the 80s.* Not saying they didn't happen, and maybe it was lack of social media where every little aspect of life is publicized around the globe, but in my experience at least these types of parties weren't really that common back then. We were too busy having toga parties and the like.


* Not including "life on the plantation" parties. Those I definitely remember.

Our theme parties in the mid-80s were: Toga Party, 50s party, Roaring 20s, Beach Party, Halloween party, Hawaiian party... that's about it from what I can remember. We recycled those themes over and over.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Our theme parties in the mid-80s were: Toga Party, 50s party, Roaring 20s, Beach Party, Halloween party, Hawaiian party... that's about it from what I can remember. We recycled those themes over and over.

Hawaiian Party? Toga Party? That's cultural appropriation! Your group should have been placed on double secret probation.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Hawaiian Party? Toga Party? That's cultural appropriation! Your group should have been placed on double secret probation.

If they are mimicking demographics of people? I agree.

If they are acting like tourists in Hawaii and Ancient Rome? I disagree.

[Sciencewoman]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Our theme parties in the mid-80s were: Toga Party, 50s party, Roaring 20s, Beach Party, Halloween party, Hawaiian party... that's about it from what I can remember. We recycled those themes over and over.

I do recall Pimp and Prostitute -- that was mainly an excuse to dress in revealing clothing around the fraternity men, and it was easy to find cheap, leftover 70s clothes at Goodwill.

I hate to say it, but the shoes we reserved for "slutty" costume attire were tamer than the platform stilettos I see college women frequently wearing today...along with the tight, tube skirts for clubbing.

[ASTalumna06]

This whole conversation reminded me of this...

What American-themed parties look like around the world:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/this-...world?s=mobile

Enjoy!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I didn't notice this was about government punishment. How did this discussion become about government punishment?

RTA. This is about the University of California Fullerton imposing sanctions on a sorority because they offended some way-too-sensitive people.

Even when talking about public vs private institutions and organizations, schools and GLOs always maintain the ability to impose sanctions. They don't have to use government hate crime legislation to do so.

Punishing students for off-campus conduct (which is probably speech in this case) at a social event unrelated to any university programming... let's just say if someone brought me this case I'd happily be off to federal court with this thing. Might even get a grant or some help from the ACLU.

If ADPi was sanctioning their own chapter, fine, that's their private business. If a private school is sanctioning the conduct of their students, they are free to do so. Government schools, however, have to respect your constitutional rights, one of which is being able to say just about any damn thing you want without penalty.

I'm talking about schools and GLOs choosing to do something beyond a cliche' racial sensitivity training.

GLOs can do, schools? I mean.. maybe they could order sensitivity training.. that might fly, but even that, in my opinion is a stretch.

There's nothing wrong with Taco Tuesday as long as attendees don't show up imitating and mocking "Mexicans" (or looking and acting like Speedy Gonzalez, gang members, etc). The proposed subjectivity is why it is up to the school and GLO to figure out wether there will be a sanction and what will be the sanction. This is no different than the costume parties GCers rant about annually.

I'd argue that it's not up to the school. The GLO though? Heck yeah. Can the students protest? Sure. Name and shame? Ok. Picket the house during rush? You betcha. Get the Dean of Students to penalize the organization? I don't think so.

Schools need to know their limits. Years ago, I nearly had an issue with a Greek Life adviser with the group I advise. An angry lawyer letter was enough to put the kabosh on anything the school was thinking about doing.

This is an academic discussion of course, I'm guessing that this is going forward with the cooperation of the chapter's alumni/national office, etc.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Government schools, however, have to respect your constitutional rights, one of which is being able to say just about any damn thing you want without penalty.

There are no criminal penalties being applied. The sanctions are targeting an organization, not an individual. Courts have agreed many times that there are limits on free speech.

All of which is to say that this argument is so bad, I think you must be trolling.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

There are no criminal penalties being applied. The sanctions are targeting an organization, not an individual. Courts have agreed many times that there are limits on free speech.

All of which is to say that this argument is so bad, I think you must be trolling.

Of course courts have said there are limits on free speech. But if this qualifies as speech—unlike Kevin, I'm not as convinced it does—I don't think those limits would apply here. Kevin's argument isn't nearly as bad as you seem to think. Except, that is, as to the claim of offended students being "overly sensitive."

Originally Posted by redryder27

i'm sorry but people are being way to sensitive about this ENTIRE THING!! since these are college aged women just playing around, i really don't think they were thinking about serious sanctions like this when they were dressing up, maybe like they did to high school.

Then it's time for these college-aged women to grow up and learn that their stupidity and cluelessness can have consequences.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of course courts have said there are limits on free speech. But if this qualifies as speech—unlike Kevin, I'm not as convinced it does—I don't think those limits would apply here. Kevin's argument isn't nearly as bad as you seem to think. Except, that is, as to the claim of offended students being "overly sensitive."

It's a speech vs. conduct issue, where conduct is not as protected as, for example, dialogue or political speech. Of course the conduct cases point to two other types of conduct which aren't protected. There was a case during the Vietnam War where an individual was prosecuted for burning his draft card in protest. He was prosecuted and it was upheld because of the government's need to draft individuals into the military, etc. (that's not a very good statement of the holding, but I'm going from memory here).

I think there was a similar holding in a case which allowed a municipality to zone in such a way as to suppress adult theaters and book stores which claimed they had a First Amendment right to be where they were.

Another conduct case I can think of is the flag burning case in which 5-4, the act of burning a flag is protected.

There's also a line of speech/conduct cases which state that any speech which is likely to incite violence is not necessarily protected (no yelling fire in a crowded theater).

And of course we know what Westboro does is A-Okay... It's fine to denigrate homosexuals, some might say, but race should be more strictly protected?

What I find very interesting about all of those standards is that in all of the above-referenced cases, we had speech which was intentionally used to inflame one group or another. What I find kind of funny about what would be the natural result of a "It is conduct, therefore not protected" argument is that such a standard would actually mean you can be punished for unintentional speech, but if you go out and burn a cross and hang a black faced scarecrow from a noose and burn it in effigy? The school can't touch you. I'm not sure I like the intellectual consistency of that position.

Then it's time for these college-aged women to grow up and learn that their stupidity and cluelessness can have consequences.

I've never argued there should be no consequences. Just no consequences from the University, since it is a public institution. I would imagine, ADPi's headquarters and local alumnae, left to their own discretion would probably handle things internally and happily issue the necessary apologies. The Latino community might protest in front of the ADPi house, there could be reputational consequences, but when we start letting groups of people punish other groups of people for speech or conduct which was just offensive, I don't believe that's a constitutional or even equitable use of government resources.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

What I find very interesting about all of those standards is that in all of the above-referenced cases, we had speech which was intentionally used to inflame one group or another.

But the other thing they all have in common is that whether pure speech (as in words) or conduct (draft card or flag burning) or a mix (Westboro Baptist), they are true political speech, intended to convey a political or idealogical message, which is at the heart of the First Amendment. I'm not sure donning a sombrero, serape or gang clothes for a Taco Tuesday party carry any intent to speak within the meaning of the First Amendment.

I've never argued there should be no consequences.

I know. I was responding to redryder27's comment that these were just college-aged women playing around who weren't thinking about serious sanctions when they were dressing up.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

But the other thing they all have in common is that whether pure speech (as in words) or conduct (draft card or flag burning) or a mix (Westboro Baptist), they are true political speech, intended to convey a political or idealogical message, which is at the heart of the First Amendment. I'm not sure donning a sombrero, serape or gang clothes for a Taco Tuesday party carry any intent to speak within the meaning of the First Amendment.

So if on MLK Day, the Kappa Tappa Kegga at a public school stages an event where they have a lynching of a straw man off campus where they wave the Confederate Flag while burning the lynched straw man in effigy, chanting racist slogans, clamoring for a return of Jim Crow, that would be more protected by the First Amendment than some kids showing up to Taco Tuesday in a sombrero or dressed like cholos?

I don't think I would totally buy that, it doesn't seem consistent. The reading of the First Amendment, especially these days with the Roberts court, tends to be very broad.

If I had a client with this sort of issue, I'd kind of like my chances in a 1983 case.