Tuesday, April 14, 2015

In regards to the University of Oklahoma SAE issue my stance is the same I have with any issue like this. It was dumb for them to do it, it is shameful if they actually think that way but at the end of the day they have the right to say it. It might be a hard pill to swallow but if an american wants to be racist he or she has that right. In regards to the SAE insistent the nationals of the fraternity had every right to disband the charter but the university did not have the right to expel the students. It is a public institution and that means it is a part of the government. The government does not have the right to tell people what they can and can not say. People need to be protected and be able to say whatever they want. There is also a double standard in america. How can one group of people say they have ownership of a word? Just because someone is white does not  mean that he or she  can't use that word. Honestly if there was a word only white people could say people and the media would have an issue with that.  America is a the greatest country on earth because we are protected to say and think whatever we want. People need to remember that the rights allowing you to call people racist also protects them, and allows them to say whatever they want.

5 comments:

  1. No one has ownership of words, of course, and people will never be arrested for saying things like this. There is a difference, though, between the government suppressing speech, and an institution, state or otherwise, having certain standards of conduct. But the government is in no way preventing this person from making as many such videos as he wants.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In regards to the ownership of a specific word, I wouldn't say that black people necessarily have any type of ownership over this word. It may seem as if there is a double standard when it comes to this, as black people seemingly are "allowed" to say this word freely, but whites cannot; however, in pop culture, this word has been altered a bit to mean more along the lines of "dude" as seen in many rap songs. While it still can obviously signify a racial slur, it can also be taken in a completely different way

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do agree with Mr. Stump entirely, but do see the opposing view. I have a friend back home of no particular religious conviction. It does get on my nerves when he says GD or takes Christ name in vain, because it has no meaning to him. It is still in his constitutional right to do so, but that doesn't mean it is particularly smart to do so. Personally I am not a big fan of allah, and though I do not believe he is god, I try to be careful how I say and phrase this because people will take it one way or another and get offended.

    ReplyDelete
  4. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/315/568
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire
    "it is illegal for anyone to address 'any offensive, derisive or annoying word to anyone who is lawfully in any street or public place ... or to call him by an offensive or derisive name.'"
    Like it or not, there are certain classes of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. Also, you agree to abide by a school's code of conduct when you enroll. I'm absolutely sure that the chant was in violation of that code, and that was probably enough to prompt expulsion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, it's worth pointing out that Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire happened 75 years ago and there was probably more than a bit of religious prejudice underlying the whole affair. I find it extremely unlikely that Chaplinsky would face a similar ruling today. Of course the present case is quite different, but even here criminal charges aren't appropriate. That's why no one is being arrested.

    ReplyDelete