Acacia at Ohio U Sings Offensive Song, Gets Suspended

[sigmadiva]

The university also has a duty to maintain a hostile-free environment. Your free speech is my hostile environment.

Here is the code of student conduct for OSU. http://studentlife.osu.edu/csc/

My understanding from my adviser days was that GLOs formally recognized by the university are considered as "guests" on campus. Meaning, any action done by the GLO that is not in alignment with the school can be penalized, including being no longer recognized by the school. Thus, "kicked off campus".

Maybe these GLOs should fight the school and sue. Maybe they would win. But, that is just going to make it harder for the remaining GLOs to operate on campus.

If it comes down to the university being sued by every GLO, then it would be in the university's interest to no longer allow GLOs on campus.

You (the general you) really need to see the big picture. One incident of one chapter can have repercussions on all GLO chapters.

That is why I think PiKA nationals came out with their statement about themed parties.

A chapter who sues and wins the lawsuit wins the battle, but could loose the war by making it hard for other GLOs in the future.

And, maybe I am looking at this from a NPHC point of view. We generally have a very tight hand on our undergraduate chapters and members. It is nothing for us to expel individual members and pull chapter charters for conduct deemed unbecoming of the org.

You can find expelled members and chapters on our public website.http://www.sgrho1922.org/expulsions-suspensions

[33girl]

I'm sure that student code is nice and all, but this happened at Ohio U, not Ohio State.

And it's up to the supposedly offended party - the sorority - to voice their displeasure. We always hear "if a person feels they've been harassed/assaulted/victimized they have. This doesn't seem to go the other way - if people DON'T feel victimized, some nebshit feels the need to go over their heads and complain about it anyway, and pays no attention to what the "offended party" actually wants or what would make them happy.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I'm sure that student code is nice and all, but this happened at Ohio U, not Ohio State.

Sorry about that.

And it's up to the supposedly offended party - the sorority - to voice their displeasure. We always hear "if a person feels they've been harassed/assaulted/victimized they have. This doesn't seem to go the other way - if people DON'T feel victimized, some nebshit feels the need to go over their heads and complain about it anyway, and pays no attention to what the "offended party" actually wants or what would make them happy.

I agree. In this case, however, the university is going to do what it needs to to show that it can handle a potentially damaging situation.

And, the only thing situations like this will do is just re-affirm negative stereotypes people have about GLOs. We are not doing ourselves any favors by trying to blow this off as "kids will be kids".

As you are aware, no matter how much philanthropy and community service we do does not seem to trump a few rowdy members in the eyes of non-GLO members. People only want to focus on the negative.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

And, the only thing situations like this will do is just re-affirm negative stereotypes people have about GLOs. We are not doing ourselves any favors by trying to blow this off as "kids will be kids"..

Oh. My. God.

Some guys sang a lewd song.

Call the FBI. Right. NOW.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

And these students / student groups will need to be sure to have a copy of the university's code of student conduct and code of student ethics in their hands when they speak to an attorney and want to sue.

Student groups operate as a guest on college campuses. Just like you would want someone out of your personal home if you felt they disobeyed your house rules, same thought applies to college campuses.




The difference between "remember when" (back in the old days) and now, is that with cell phone videos and the internet, an incident will always be fresh. Memories fade and can become sweeter over time. Videos posted on the internet do not.

Over the past decade or so, colleges and universities have really turned into for-profit businesses. It can be really bad PR for a university to have students not represent the school in a positive light. As research funding from the government has become increasingly harder to attain, some schools have had to turn to the private / business sector for support. Universities need to show they have a squeaky clean image.

Originally Posted by Kevin

And you're being ridiculous if you think anyone cares that much about these things when awarding grants. Seriously, that's just dumb as hell.

Please go back and read my post. My point was the image GLOs have to the public in terms of how a university may be viewed in the public / private sector, not receiving grants from the government.

[navane]

Originally Posted by 33girl

And it's up to the supposedly offended party - the sorority - to voice their displeasure. We always hear "if a person feels they've been harassed/assaulted/victimized they have. This doesn't seem to go the other way - if people DON'T feel victimized, some nebshit feels the need to go over their heads and complain about it anyway, and pays no attention to what the "offended party" actually wants or what would make them happy.

I'm curious about this and maybe Kevin can help clarify here. The legal concepts of sexual harassment and free speech intersect in this situation. How does one affect the other?

My understanding of federal sexual harassment guidelines is that just because the recipient of the comments was not offended or did not report it, that does not mean that sexual harassment did not take place. Specifically, if two people are making sexual comments to one another and a nearby third party hears and is offended, that could still be sexual harassment. Therefore, there might be a problem with what 33girl just said (quoted above). So, hypothetically, if the House Mom heard these lewd songs, or a professor in her office across the street heard them, could those people still complain?

As I was attempting to educate myself, I came across this document from the American Bar Association:

http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore...0intro_abs.pdf

In it, on pages 18-21, the document discusses Bystander or Nontargeted Harassment, Free Speech and Title IX Claims Relating to Sexual Harassment.

Bystander or Nontargeted Harassment seems to say that the offended party needs to be in the same protected class or category as the target of the harassment.

Free Speech indicates that the First Amendment could be a viable defense against a sexual harassment claim.

However, I was then interested to note that section 6 "Title IX Claims Relating to Sexual Harassment" mentions "...the Supreme Court has held that students have an implied private right of action to sue schools under Title IX in case of teacher-on-student and student-on-student sexual harassment..." (pg. 20-21).

So, these ideas really seem to intertwine in this particular case of a fraternity serenading with a lewd song. I'm not a lawyer; so, I cannot comment on the merits of anyone's legal recourse in this matter. I'm just trying to understand for myself the line that gets drawn between free speech and sexual harassment and when one crosses from one side to the other.