University fo Okahoma-Sigma Alpha Epsilon-Racial Chant

[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.