Yep. They weren't students though. So, not bound by a Code of Conduct, and if NKU wanted to, they could've made them leave.

 

I remember after this and some other things, they made it so that if you were not a student, you had to be sponsored by a NKU student organization, which then (if I remember right) had to be approved by the Dean of Students. Caused a big fuss, complaining about Freedom of Speech.

 

Not sure what their regulations are now for it.

Yes I do. But just like any government agency or department, they have rules and regulations that it's employees (or students) are required to follow. If you violate those you can be terminated or expelled.

 

I'm not sure your logic passes legal muster.

 

This isn't a case of being late X number of times or sexually harassing a fellow employee.

 

The Freedom of Speech protects the right to speech that does not violate actual law. I think OU could be in trouble if they have to defend this in court. No person was threatened. No person was in danger.

 

How would they win a court case in your opinion?

I'm not sure your logic passes legal muster.

 

This isn't a case of being late X number of times or sexually harassing a fellow employee.

 

The Freedom of Speech protects the right to speech that does not violate actual law. I think OU could be in trouble if they have to defend this in court. No person was threatened. No person was in danger.

 

How would they win a court case in your opinion?

 

When you enroll in a university, you are agreeing to be bound by their rules/code of conduct. That's the same as a binding legal agreement as far as I can tell. You agreed to not engage in the actions that are prohibited by that agreement. If you do, you've also agreed to the disciplinary action. The only way I see the students winning a lawsuit is if the university has a specific process that they must go through before expulsion, and they circumvented that process.

I'm not sure your logic passes legal muster.

 

This isn't a case of being late X number of times or sexually harassing a fellow employee.

 

The Freedom of Speech protects the right to speech that does not violate actual law. I think OU could be in trouble if they have to defend this in court. No person was threatened. No person was in danger.

 

How would they win a court case in your opinion?

 

Back when I was at NKU, it was alcohol free. Say I was 21, living on campus, and got caught with alcohol in my room, and was subsequently expelled. I'd win a court case in your opinion, because what I did wasn't against the law?

I'm confused how their Headquarters would have known about it, had it not been made public, making it impossible for the same to have been done?

 

But to play along, I'd imagine that if the Headquarters staff heard about the incident (without it being made public) they would not have shut down the Chapter, depending on how big it was. I'd imagine that they would have required them to have a review of current members (done by the HQ staff) and removed some as well as placed them on probation and potentially other "self-induced" sanctions.

 

She was saying actually closed the whole chapter. I think that it's fair to say they might have punished them, but OU is a big school and closing the whole chapter is a pretty drastic measure. I'm not super familiar with Greek stuff, but I'd imagine that there's a smaller chance that the whole operation gets shut down if this whole thing isn't made public.

Back when I was at NKU, it was alcohol free. Say I was 21, living on campus, and got caught with alcohol in my room, and was subsequently expelled. I'd win a court case in your opinion, because what I did wasn't against the law?

 

You keep missing the main issue - speech.

You keep missing the main issue - speech.

 

I'm not missing anything. I just don't agree with you that students at a public university are allowed to do whatever they want without fear of repercussions.

You keep missing the main issue - speech.

 

What law would I be breaking if I had alcohol in my dorm? Didn't the repeal of Prohibition allow me to possess (in my residency) and consume alcohol if I'm over the age of 21?

I'm not missing anything. I just don't agree with you that students at a public university are allowed to do whatever they want without fear of repercussions.

 

Again, if the school is considered to be part of the government it has laws it has to follow regarding speech.

 

The govt has limits on how it punishes speech. So examples about alcohol are immaterial. Let's keep it focused on speech.

I'm not missing anything. I just don't agree with you that students at a public university are allowed to do whatever they want without fear of repercussions.

 

I think you are missing what Clyde is trying to say in terms of 'speech' in the legal sense.

 

Here, the kids would win if they took it to court. OU, however, likely knows that. They also know that a kid filing a case makes it public record and that the kids don't want to throw their names out there and basically admit being the ones who said it and keep this thing in the news. It's already done enough to their reputations as is, so it's unlikely they file, instead, they take the punishment and move on and OU's administration looks good in the news.

What law would I be breaking if I had alcohol in my dorm? Didn't the repeal of Prohibition allow me to possess (in my residency) and consume alcohol if I'm over the age of 21?

 

This is off-track but my guess (key) is that a dorm is not legally considered "YOUR residency." However, that's for a separate debate. Issue here is punishing speech.

Again, if the school is considered to be part of the government it has laws it has to follow regarding speech.

 

The govt has limits on how it punishes speech. So examples about alcohol are immaterial. Let's keep it focused on speech.

 

Gotcha. So the Director of the FBI could call the POTUS a terrorist and you'd agree that no disciplinary action should be taken? Freedom of Speech after all.

I think you are missing what Clyde is trying to say in terms of 'speech' in the legal sense.

 

Here, the kids would win if they took it to court. OU, however, likely knows that. They also know that a kid filing a case makes it public record and that the kids don't want to throw their names out there and basically admit being the ones who said it and keep this thing in the news. It's already done enough to their reputations as is, so it's unlikely they file, instead, they take the punishment and move on and OU's administration looks good in the news.

 

I was just getting ready to say, that regardless of whether the kids would have a case or not (and I firmly believe they would not), I'm not sure OU cares. They acted swiftly and harshly, and in the public eye they're coming out of this looking golden, regardless of whether or not they have to pay out down the road.

Gotcha. So the Director of the FBI could call the POTUS a terrorist and you'd agree that no disciplinary action should be taken? Freedom of Speech after all.

 

 

Not sure if that applies here. The Director serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. There is no protection other than being fired for being one of the protected classes.

Not sure if that applies here. The Director serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. There is no protection other than being fired for being one of the protected classes.

 

It meets the criteria of your previous post. The government has limits on how it can punish speech.