Editorial: Freedom of speech doesn’t imply immunity for racism

On March 8, The Oklahoma Daily reported on an appalling incident of tasteless racism on a charter bus full of members of the University of Oklahoma’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon brothers. 

The men depicted in the video raise their fists and chant, “There will never be a n*gger in SAE.” The song also references lynchings. The line “You can hang ’em from a tree,” illustrates their dark and careless exclusion of black students.

Since the incident, the Sigma Alpha Epsilon chapter at OU has closed, and the university expelled two of the brothers  — Levi Pettit and Parker Rice — shown in the video. Members of the OU chapter claim that other branches of the fraternity have used the same slur, leading to a nationwide investigation of the entire fraternity, according to The New York Times. 

Equally shocking as the racist banter itself, some legal experts are claiming that the students’ expulsion is unlawful — constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine, states that courts defend “hateful, racist speech” under the First Amendment.

If we construe the Constitution in this manner, we are authorizing and perpetuating a racist culture that trickles down to the university level, making an entire group feel unwelcome on their campus.

While the Supreme Court famously noted in 1969 that students don’t “shed their … rights at the schoolhouse gate,” misconceptions about the First Amendment lead to overreaching, drastic conclusions. It’s all too common to assume that you can say whatever you like because freedom of speech exists. In addition, the framers of the Constitution created the First Amendment to criticize government authority, not necessarily to ostracize others.

As further evidence of this misunderstanding, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits agencies from discriminating on the basis of color if the department receives federal funding. In this way, we ban “racially hostile” environments in universities. As a public research school, Oklahoma University cannot allow students to use such harmful banter without consequence.

Further, Daria Roithmayr, a law professor at the University of Southern California, has an argument against relying on the First Amendment right. By initiating a hostile environment, the brothers created a “material disruption” which would not pass the U.S. Supreme Court’s substantial disruption test — a standard set by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District in 1969 to determine whether a student’s rights have been infringed upon.

Oklahoma University is not only legally correct but socially moral in prosecuting the fraternity and expelling the students. As a large, public university, OU has a well-heard voice. Tolerating such racist language instills a poor reflection upon the school. As a part of a university, students should abide by its policies — with freedom comes responsibility, especially with our essential First Amendment right.

Raving about lynchings might seem innocuous to frat members, but this discourse doesn’t belong at a higher learning institution — or anywhere. If such behavior is excused at the university level, it could seep into modern society. We don’t have a place on our campuses for this barbarous apartheid.

Pettit and Rice must accept their dismissal and apologize for their crude comments. While Pettit’s parents released an apology noting their son’s kind heart, and Rice told the press he was sorry and felt badly for the threats his parents have received, it is evident that they aren’t acknowledging the people they have alienated. Apologies to thin air don’t amount to anything — Pettit and Rice need to face their peers in a public apology.

While a direct apology won’t excuse Pettit and Rice, it is the first step in sealing the proverbial wounds they gashed with their atrocious behavior. As for the witnesses of such verbal abuse, we hope you take the higher road and speak out against injustice.