Free speech trumps racial sensitivity in UO case

As a lifelong advocate for civil rights and free speech for all, the immediate expulsion of two University of Oklahoma students poses a dilemma. Their facially offensive song sung in private, neither involved violence, nor advocated violence. It was not sung in the presence of the minority group it targeted. If the two students sue they are near certain to win re-instatement and possible compensation for arguably the rash actions of University president David Boren. He cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in support of his expulsions, but Title VI involves "literal discrimination", not privately protected speech. While the University has a code of “rights and responsibilities” prohibiting “conduct that is sufficiently severe and pervasive that it alters the conditions of education or employment and creates an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating, harassing or humiliating,” courts would likely rule Constitutionally protected free speech prevails over the code. Put a bug in the home of any respectable person and you'd likely hear the most terrible things. Nobody would be safe from swift and unjust, justice. That is why free speech protections are so vital in a democracy.

The incident should be used as a teachable moment to promote racial inclusiveness and understanding. One action might be requiring every fraternity, indeed, every university organization, to recruit minority members. SAE's racial exclusiveness, which it celebrated in its now self-destructive song, is what led two reckless teenagers to destroy their futures. If just one minority was on their bus that fateful day, songs like "There'll never be a ------ in SAE" would enter the dustbin of history.