Tarleton St makes the Drudge Report

[Adidas410s]

.

[kaorder1999]

i was going to post that earlier but didnt want to offend anyone!!

[Adidas410s]

I'm on my 3rd cup of coffee...so I'm just flying right past the need to offend somebody. Evidently there are newbies that don't like me anyways...so may they be the only ones offended. If it's offensive...we can take it down. I'm not posting it as an opinionated story but rather just passing along news...take it as you wish! ;)

[BuffyMars]

WTH!!!!!!!!!!!

My gosh, that is an absolute disgrace. I wish to God each an everyone of those idiots would be expelled from school. ( a stretch, I know...BUT :mad: )

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE as to why our society can not let the past be just that...the past.

There was no reason for that. It was senseless and stupid, and they will realize that when they get the butt kicking of their lives.

Its 2007 people, let racism DIE!

*edit* sorry...potty mouth....forgive me.

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
WTH!!!!!!!!!!!

My gosh, that is an absolute disgrace. I wish to God each an everyone of those idiots would be expelled from school. ( a stretch, I know...BUT :mad: )

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE as to why our society can not let the past be just that...the past.

There was no reason for that. It was senseless and stupid, and they will realize that when they get the ass kicking of their lives.

Its 2007 people, let racism DIE!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[GreenMonster]

I'd like to comment but I don't know how. Chalk one more up for ignorance.

*The TSU students. * I didn't read Buffy's comment until after I posted. Not talking about Buffy.

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
WTH!!!!!!!!!!!

My gosh, that is an absolute disgrace. I wish to God each an everyone of those idiots would be expelled from school. ( a stretch, I know...BUT :mad: )

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE as to why our society can not let the past be just that...the past.

There was no reason for that. It was senseless and stupid, and they will realize that when they get the butt kicking of their lives.

Its 2007 people, let racism DIE!

*edit* sorry...potty mouth....forgive me.

I like it when we get new members who post things that actually make sense!!

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
I like it when we get new members who post things that actually make sense!!


She will always tell her true feelings I can promise you that

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
WTH!!!!!!!!!!!

My gosh, that is an absolute disgrace. I wish to God each an everyone of those idiots would be expelled from school. ( a stretch, I know...BUT :mad: )

THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE as to why our society can not let the past be just that...the past.

There was no reason for that. It was senseless and stupid, and they will realize that when they get the butt kicking of their lives.

Its 2007 people, let racism DIE!

*edit* sorry...potty mouth....forgive me.
Expelled? The people who done it have every right to do what they want to do. They didn't attack anyone or do anything violent, just made a parody of a culture. If it pisses you or anyone else off, so what, you can turn on the TV and see people make mocharies of religion, among other things. Sure, it may not be right, but the school authorities nor the law has any right to do anything about it.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Expelled? The people who done it have every right to do what they want to do. They didn't attack anyone or do anything violent, just made a parody of a culture. If it pisses you or anyone else off, so what, you can turn on the TV and see people make mocharies of religion, among other things. Sure, it may not be right, but the school authorities nor the law has any right to do anything about it.

Sorry, I don't speak Aggie.

:p

I'm just playing.

[ASUFrisbeeStud]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Expelled? The people who done it have every right to do what they want to do. They didn't attack anyone or do anything violent, just made a parody of a culture. If it pisses you or anyone else off, so what, you can turn on the TV and see people make mocharies of religion, among other things. Sure, it may not be right, but the school authorities nor the law has any right to do anything about it.

I agree with you on this one bud.

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Expelled? The people who done it have every right to do what they want to do. They didn't attack anyone or do anything violent, just made a parody of a culture. If it pisses you or anyone else off, so what, you can turn on the TV and see people make mocharies of religion, among other things. Sure, it may not be right, but the school authorities nor the law has any right to do anything about it.

schools have suspended and expelled students for similar parties and pictures

[Txbroadcaster]

If the school has it in their policy something that amounts to you cannot do something that sheds a negative light on the school then they have the right to punish the students

[kaorder1999]

ONE EXAMPLE

The controversy stems from an invitation Park posted on the Facebook Web site to an Oct. 28 Sigma Chi fraternity party. The invitation described Baltimore as "the HIV pit" and encouraged attendees to wear "regional clothing from our locale" such as "bling bling ice ice, grills" and "hoochie hoops."

Members of the Black Student Union who attended the party took pictures of a skeleton pirate hanging from a noose, which they viewed as symbolic of a lynching.

ONE STUDENT APPEALED AND PUNISHMENT WAS SLIGHTLY CHANGED

Park had been appealing a Student Conduct Board decision that suspended him from the university until January 2008, during which time he couldn't come onto campus. The punishment also required him to complete 300 hours of community service, read 12 books and write a paper on each, and attend a workshop on diversity.

The invitation and pictures of the skeleton pirate sparked a polarizing debate at Hopkins and beyond, with members of the Black Student Union and larger community protesting the invitation and saying it exemplifies a larger problem with race relations on campus.

On the other side, Sigma Chi members and friends of Park protested in the name of free speech, saying the university's actions unfairly punished Park for a satirical invitation.

Park was expelled from Sigma Chi. A separate Student Conduct Board hearing resulted in the Sigma Chi fraternity being placed on social probation until January 2008, meaning it is barred from holding parties and other social events.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
ONE EXAMPLE

The controversy stems from an invitation Park posted on the Facebook Web site to an Oct. 28 Sigma Chi fraternity party. The invitation described Baltimore as "the HIV pit" and encouraged attendees to wear "regional clothing from our locale" such as "bling bling ice ice, grills" and "hoochie hoops."

Members of the Black Student Union who attended the party took pictures of a skeleton pirate hanging from a noose, which they viewed as symbolic of a lynching.

ONE STUDENT APPEALED AND PUNISHMENT WAS SLIGHTLY CHANGED

Park had been appealing a Student Conduct Board decision that suspended him from the university until January 2008, during which time he couldn't come onto campus. The punishment also required him to complete 300 hours of community service, read 12 books and write a paper on each, and attend a workshop on diversity.

The invitation and pictures of the skeleton pirate sparked a polarizing debate at Hopkins and beyond, with members of the Black Student Union and larger community protesting the invitation and saying it exemplifies a larger problem with race relations on campus.

On the other side, Sigma Chi members and friends of Park protested in the name of free speech, saying the university's actions unfairly punished Park for a satirical invitation.

Park was expelled from Sigma Chi. A separate Student Conduct Board hearing resulted in the Sigma Chi fraternity being placed on social probation until January 2008, meaning it is barred from holding parties and other social events.

I'd take it to court and win. Following the First Amendment is never, ever, under any circumstances, wrong, and nothing, especially state and federally funded institutions, can impede on that freedom of speech.

[kaorder1999]

Since the invitations were made by and party was thrown by a social group associated with the University then the University has every right to regulate what happens and punish for whatever they believe is punishable.

If you were at home and decided to throw this party then you are protected under your 1st amendment rights. But when your party is connected to an Institution, then your rights are non-existent!!

[kaorder1999]

your 1st amendment rights only go so far. I cannot walk into work and say whatever i want to and think I'm protected by the 1st Amendment rights. I cannot walk into a restaurant and say or do whatever I want to and feel that I'm protected.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
Since the invitations were made by and party was thrown by a social group associated with the University then the University has every right to regulate what happens and punish for whatever they believe is punishable.

If you were at home and decided to throw this party then you are protected under your 1st amendment rights. But when your party is connected to an Institution, then your rights are non-existent!!

The school is state-funded. That means that it has to adhere to the inherent rights that are given to everyone by the Constitution, and never, under any circumstances, has the right to pursue action against or impede the rights of citizens.

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
The school is state-funded. That means that it has to adhere to the inherent rights that are given to everyone by the Constitution, and never, under any circumstances, has the right to pursue action against or impede the rights of citizens.

wrong. It's also up to their interpretation of the 1st Amendment. And as stated earlier, it's written in their policy that they can discipline any student for making their University "look bad"

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
your 1st amendment rights only go so far. I cannot walk into work and say whatever i want to and think I'm protected by the 1st Amendment rights. I cannot walk into a restaurant and say or do whatever I want to and feel that I'm protected.

EXACTLY.

I am a lil' behind on this thread.

Ya know...its weird theres this thing, people keep coming up to me, wanting things, asking questions, needing help.

Work sucks.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
The school is state-funded. That means that it has to adhere to the inherent rights that are given to everyone by the Constitution, and never, under any circumstances, has the right to pursue action against or impede the rights of citizens.

Say what?!?!

I don't think so.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
The school is state-funded. That means that it has to adhere to the inherent rights that are given to everyone by the Constitution, and never, under any circumstances, has the right to pursue action against or impede the rights of citizens.


A person's rights end at the nose..meaning you have rights, but so does everyone else.

The Freedom of Speech is one of the most misunderstood rights. Yes you have the right to say things, but you also dont have the right to say things which can cause harm, such as walking into a building and yelling fire when there is no fire.

Also an institution has the right to set forth rules on their campus/buisness and they have the right to enforce those rules.

Here is a an idea of a school's thoughts on Freedom of Speech

Freedom of expression and academic freedom are essential to our understanding of the purpose of a university. At the State University of New York at Binghamton we view the university as an institution that recognizes unfettered freedom in the give and take of ideas and opinions as an integral part of its mission. The ideal of the university as a marketplace of ideas must not, however, interfere with the equally important ideal of a university as a place where all people are respected, and where tolerance, rational discourse, thoughtfulness, and reason prevail over uncontrolled emotion and prejudice. In theory, the twin ideals of a university as a marketplace of ideas and as a community of scholarship should not conflict; in practice, however, they sometimes do.(1)

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster

The Freedom of Speech is one of the most misunderstood rights. .

amen

[BuffyMars]

You know, logically you'd like to think by using the words State-funded it means:

"You go by our rules B*@#!$! What we say goes!"

I think I saw that on a memorial at a school once.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
wrong

No, you're wrong. They didn't abuse their rights as citizens, they just boldy did something that others would not have done. This isn't someone getting on an airplane and yelling, "Bomb," this is American civil liberties in action, and the First Amendment specifically and expressly states the right to parodies. As I said before, a South Park episode can air on TV making fun of Judaism, the Mormons, and Scientology, and nothing ever happens. The FCC allows it because it is a parody and they can do nothing about it. Do you see universities banning watching Comedy Central because of this, or any TV station that airs a show depicting a parody about something that others might be sensitive to? If you're going to persecute members at a party for their parody, then you need to extend it to all mediums that will facilitate parodies as well. Hell, let's get rid of TVs and computers in schools to prevent access from all of that stuff, because someone might be offended.

[BuffyMars]

No you're wrong. But what am I?:tongue:

Leave it to me to be the retard.

Peewee Herman rocks! Errr...before the movie theater incident days!

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
No, you're wrong. They didn't abuse their rights as citizens, they just boldy did something that others would not have done. This isn't someone getting on an airplane and yelling, "Bomb," this is American civil liberties in action, and the First Amendment specifically and expressly states the right to parodies. As I said before, a South Park episode can air on TV making fun of Judaism, the Mormons, and Scientology, and nothing ever happens. The FCC allows it because it is a parody and they can do nothing about it. Do you see universities banning watching Comedy Central because of this, or any TV station that airs a show depicting a parody about something that others might be sensitive to? If you're going to persecute members at a party for their parody, then you need to extend it to all mediums that will facilitate parodies as well. Hell, let's get rid of TVs and computers in schools to prevent access from all of that stuff, because someone might be offended.

you are missing the point. If they were representing the University in any way then the University has the right to follow their policy. In the article it states that it was being investigated as to rather or not any school policies were not adhered to.

If this was a party at a residence and it had NO connection to the University then the University has no rights to punish. BUT, if this party is connected to a fraternity who is representing the University then they will get punished and the University has the right to punish!

[kaorder1999]

as far as the TV shows go, which makes no sense to me that they are even being brought up, if their network chooses not to run the shows then they have the right to not run the shows if it breaks their policy. They have that right!

[BuffyMars]

<------------bangs head on a wall.......

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
as far as the TV shows go, which makes no sense to me that they are even being brought up, if their network chooses not to run the shows then they have the right to not run the shows if it breaks their policy. They have that right!

Again, I say exactly. In fact it doesn't even have to be a network, a town itself, can keep a cable network provider from showing something.

Henderson didn't get MTV until a few years back. The town had the entire channel blocked.

[kaorder1999]

and the more I think about it....even if it happens off of campus and the University is not officially represented, if the person throwing the party is a student then that school CAN choose to keep that student from attending their University. They have the right to do that!! They get to set their own rules and policies and they are protected by the Constitution as well!.

As an educator I give up some of my 1st amendment rights, as well as others because of what I do for a living. It is my right to do whatever I want to in my own time. If I throw a big party and police are called and something happens that gets this party in the newspaper I can lose my job. In my contract it states that my employment can be terminated if I bring any kind of negative light on the school, even during my personal time.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
as far as the TV shows go, which makes no sense to me that they are even being brought up, if their network chooses not to run the shows then they have the right to not run the shows if it breaks their policy. They have that right!

You're exactly right, it makes no sense to bring up TV shows or stations, because it is an outlandish and stupid idea. So is persecuting a group of students for making fun of a society.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
and the more I think about it....even if it happens off of campus and the University is not officially represented, if the person throwing the party is a student then that school CAN choose to keep that student from attending their University. They have the right to do that!! They get to set their own rules and policies and they are protected by the Constitution as well!.

As an educator I give up some of my 1st amendment rights, as well as others because of what I do for a living. It is my right to do whatever I want to in my own time. If I throw a big party and police are called and something happens that gets this party in the newspaper I can lose my job. In my contract it states that my employment can be terminated if I bring any kind of negative light on the school, even during my personal time.

I don't think that is right, either. The Bill of Rights was written and maintained in order to protect our certain unalienable rights under any and all circumstances. That is my position on this and everything, including employment, and you, nor anyone else, is going to change it.

[3afan]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
....... It was senseless and stupid, and they will realize that when they get the butt kicking of their lives.


so you think that if specific party-participants were to get physically attacked/injured/put in the hospital, then its justified?

:thinking:

[mistanice]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I don't think that is right, either. The Bill of Rights was written and maintained in order to protect our certain unalienable rights under any and all circumstances. That is my position on this and everything, including employment, and you, nor anyone else, is going to change it.

Did you think it was right for those A&M students being punished for painting their bodies with black paint, and making a parody of the slave days?

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I don't think that is right, either. The Bill of Rights was written and maintained in order to protect our certain unalienable rights under any and all circumstances. That is my position on this and everything, including employment, and you, nor anyone else, is going to change it.

you can continue to believe that all you want....doesnt bother me. I was responding to " I would take it to court and win" comment you had earlier and was showing you why in most cases you would not win.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by mistanice
Did you think it was right for those A&M students being punished for painting their bodies with black paint, and making a parody of the slave days?

I don't know the whole story about that, so I can't really comment either way on it. All I heard about it was that they committed sodomy, which is gross, but not really punishable by any means.

[BuffyMars]

Woah, no totally misinterpreted. Who said anything about justification, no. 1?

No. 2, I should have written it like this..."and they will be lucky to not have their butts kicked for what they did."

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
I don't know the whole story about that, so I can't really comment either way on it. All I heard about it was that they committed sodomy, which is gross, but not really punishable by any means.

Actually, isn't sodomy "technically" illegal in Texas?

Correct me if I am wrong, because honestly, I can't keep up with all of the rediculous laws.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
you can continue to believe that all you want....doesnt bother me. I was responding to " I would take it to court and win" comment you had earlier and was showing you why in most cases you would not win.

The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, and for prosecuting someone for participating in a parody is going against our Constitution. History will show that when the Bill of Rights is in question against an establishment, whether it be a school or employment, the Bill of Rights has won. Why do you think it has never been overturned in since it was written into law over two hundred years ago? Since you didn't like this demonstration that took place and there was an uprising, let's say for a minute that the university president is against homosexuality and kicked a group of students out for having a gay rights protest because it angered many of the homophobic straight community and himself and he, as the president, felt obligated to take action. How is this any different?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
Actually, isn't sodomy "technically" illegal in Texas?

Correct me if I am wrong, because honestly, I can't keep up with all of the rediculous laws.

If it is, it shouldn't be. It's infringing on the right to privacy. It falls in the same category as marriage and interracial marriage.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
If it is, it shouldn't be. It's infringing on the right to privacy. It falls in the same category as marriage and interracial marriage.

Well, I didn't say I think it should be illegal.

I believe what a person does behind closed doors is their business so long as it is consensual.

But you would be SURPRISED at the rediculous laws states still enforce.

*edit*

Now they don't go busting down doors looking for it....BUT if a person (in some states, and I think Texas too) if you are caught engaging in the act, then you can be arrested.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
Well, I didn't say I think it should be illegal.

I believe what a person does behind closed doors is their business so long as it is consensual.

But you would be SURPRISED at the rediculous laws states still enforce.

The Rule of Thumb is still legal, last time I heard....So in case Terry ever takes a notion, remember, it's legal. :eek:


Just want to clarify that I believe wholeheartedly that will never happen and I don't think he's that kind of a person. ;)

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, and for prosecuting someone for participating in a parody is going against our Constitution. History will show that when the Bill of Rights is in question against an establishment, whether it be a school or employment, the Bill of Rights has won. Why do you think it has never been overturned in since it was written into law over two hundred years ago? Since you didn't like this demonstration that took place and there was an uprising, let's say for a minute that the university president is against homosexuality and kicked a group of students out for having a gay rights protest because it angered many of the homophobic straight community and himself and he, as the president, felt obligated to take action. How is this any different?

Courts will see a HUGE difference between a Gay Rights Parade and decorations mocking lynchings at a party. Give me a break! The University has to make decisions for the safety of their students as well as thei quality of education they receive. There is an application process to attend Universities (both State and Private) and Universities have the right to deny attendance (Enrollment Policies) and continuance (University Policies). It's not your right to attend these Universities, its your privelege and priveleges can be revoked.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
The Rule of Thumb is still legal, last time I heard....So in case Terry ever takes a notion, remember, it's legal. :eek:


Just want to clarify that I believe wholeheartedly that will never happen and I don't think he's that kind of a person. ;)

Sorry which Rule Of Thumb are we referring to?

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
It's not your right to attend these Universities, its your privelege and priveleges can be revoked.

Nicely said.:clap:

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
Courts will see a HUGE difference between a Gay Rights Parade and decorations mocking lynchings at a party. Give me a break! The University has to make decisions for the safety of their students as well as thei quality of education they receive. There is an application process to attend Universities (both State and Private) and Universities have the right to deny attendance (Enrollment Policies) and continuance (University Policies). It's not your right to attend these Universities, its your privelege and priveleges can be revoked.

It is no different, and I read nowhere in the article that mock lynchings took place. I will finish my reply to this later, as for now, I have class.

[Ranger Mom]

I'm so confused....did the main story or link get taken off? This is the first time I read this thread...and the adidas' first post is nothing but a period!!

So...I think I must be missing something!

[tree8400]

yea that is all i got too. I am a grad from tarleton so i would like to know what is happening there.

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
I'm so confused....did the main story or link get taken off? This is the first time I read this thread...and the adidas' first post is nothing but a period!!

So...I think I must be missing something!

Addidas erased teh link to the story!

here it is!

Tarleton State NAACP upset over party photos

11:42 AM CST on Thursday, January 25, 2007
From Wire Reports

STEPHENVILLE - The president of the Tarleton State University chapter of the NAACP said Wednesday that he and other students are upset about a Martin Luther King Day party where students ate fried chicken, drank malt liquor and dressed in faux gang apparel.

Also Online
Party photos (TheSmokingGun.com) [Warning: Some may find offensive]
"I feel like there is no excuse for this type of ignorance," said Donald Ray Elder, a Tarleton State sophomore and president of the school's NAACP chapter.

Pictures posted on Facebook.com showed partygoers wearing afro wigs and fake gold and silver teeth. One photo showed students "mocking how African-Americans do step shows," Elder said. In another picture, a student is dressed as Aunt Jemima and carries a gun.

"That upsets me," Elder said. "That's someone who knows nothing about Dr. King because Dr. King was totally about nonviolence."

The school plans to investigate and "if there is a policy violation, then our process will be followed," said Wanda Mercer, the school's vice president of student life. A university-sponsored forum to address the issue was scheduled for Wednesday night.

The president of the school's Lambda Chi Alpha chapter said the Jan. 15 party was at the residence of one of its members but denied the fraternity had anything to do with it. Students from at least seven other campus groups also attended the party, said Devan Hanson, the fraternity president.

"I think it was wrong for them to do and inappropriate," Hanson said. "And I think the individuals should be responsible for their own actions."

Tarleton State President Dennis P. McCabe said the photographs were reprehensible.

"I am personally insulted by these photographs and am disappointed that Tarleton students have demonstrated such insensitivity," he said.

The Stephenville Empire-Tribune reported that Elder sent an e-mail to the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity member who posted the pictures. The fraternity member apologized and removed the pictures from his Web site, but not before Elder downloaded them onto a disk.

[kaorder1999]

And like said earlier...the school is just now investigating the entire issue. It is more than likely nothing but if the University feels like University policies were broken then they will do something about it and my opinion is they have the right to. From looking at all the pictures it really doesn't look like much. There is just a lot of implied racist "humor"

SEE PICTURES HERE (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0125071mlk1.html)

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
The Rule of Thumb is still legal, last time I heard....So in case Terry ever takes a notion, remember, it's legal. :eek:


Just want to clarify that I believe wholeheartedly that will never happen and I don't think he's that kind of a person. ;)
There is no real Rule of Thumb Rule

In America, there have been laws against wife beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; but even before then, wife-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery. The historian and feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled "Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America":

It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal... Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating; and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
It is no different, and I read nowhere in the article that mock lynchings took place. I will finish my reply to this later, as for now, I have class.

the mock lynching was in the article that I posted aout the Sigma Chils Hood Party. I took that part out because it got pretty graphic!

[BuffyMars]

Yowsers...look at those Greek symbols on those alkie filled cups...hmmm......

But yeah they did just make complete fools of themselves.

[kaorder1999]

yeah...i bet there are a lot of proud mommas and daddy's
!!

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
There is no real Rule of Thumb Rule

In America, there have been laws against wife beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; but even before then, wife-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery. The historian and feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled "Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America":

It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal... Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating; and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."

"Well, it should be rule of wrist. You can't do much damage with something that small." -Boondock Saints

[BuffyMars]

Ok...now you know posting something like that would be very angering for women. Whether its your quote or not.

[kaorder1999]

look at the Mantle on Page 4 of the pictures. Full of Liquor Bottles and a Lambda Chi sign! That is funny! Oh the college life!

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
Courts will see a HUGE difference between a Gay Rights Parade and decorations mocking lynchings at a party. Give me a break! The University has to make decisions for the safety of their students as well as thei quality of education they receive. There is an application process to attend Universities (both State and Private) and Universities have the right to deny attendance (Enrollment Policies) and continuance (University Policies). It's not your right to attend these Universities, its your privelege and priveleges can be revoked.

No, they're protected by the same Bill of Rights. It is the exact same argument, just different scenarios. You are right, it is a privelege, but it's also not a private institution or a private funded school, it is public. I completely understand your argument and I can agree with it, but I have always been very serious about upholding the Constitution and individual rights and freedoms in all instances, and this is no different.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
look at the Mantle on Page 4 of the pictures. Full of Liquor Bottles and a Lambda Chi sign! That is funny! Oh the college life!

It was a private party that was not sanctioned by Lamba Chi. Read the article. ;)

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
Ok...now you know posting something like that would be very angering for women. Whether its your quote or not.

It's not my fault if anyone gets upset because they can't take a joke.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
, but I have always been very serious about upholding the Constitution and individual rights and freedoms in all instances, and this is no different.


This is always a tricky line of when someone's "rights" actually interfere with another person's "rights". Not this case in paticluar, but in general.

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
It was a private party that was not sanctioned by Lamba Chi. Read the article. ;)

I think we are all just speaking of the irony....how ironic that they are all sporting the goods....

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
This is always a tricky line of when someone's "rights" actually interfere with another person's "rights". Not this case in paticluar, but in general.

True, but in this instance, it doesn't.

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
This is always a tricky line of when someone's "rights" actually interfere with another person's "rights". Not this case in paticluar, but in general.

you are right....

For instance...and I'll use BBDE's example...

Students have the RIGHT to have a Gay Rights Parade (as long as its peaceful, according to many Universtiy's policies)

BUT

The Universtiy has the RIGHT to tell them they cannot have the Parade on campus at certain times or at all because it would cause a distraction to the classroom and educational environment

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
you are right....

For instance...and I'll use BBDE's example...

Students have the RIGHT to have a Gay Rights Parade (as long as its peaceful, according to many Universtiy's policies)

BUT

The Universtiy has the RIGHT to tell them they cannot have the Parade on campus at certain times or at all because it would cause a distraction to the classroom and educational environment

:evillol: :evillol:

[kaorder1999]

The students had the RIGHT to have this party

BUT

The University has the RIGHT to set rules and policies that allow them to discipline students for "putting their Universtiy in a negative light"

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
It's not my fault if anyone gets upset because they can't take a joke.

True, its not.

But wasn't it you who was telling me not to make fun of the Aggies?

Is it my fault if you get upset over an Aggie joke?

:thinking:

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
you are right....

For instance...and I'll use BBDE's example...

Students have the RIGHT to have a Gay Rights Parade (as long as its peaceful, according to many Universtiy's policies)

BUT

The Universtiy has the RIGHT to tell them they cannot have the Parade on campus at certain times or at all because it would cause a distraction to the classroom and educational environment

You're very correct, but there was nothing from the University expressly prohibiting any of the parties from taking place, which include parties that are parodies of the actions of a specific ethnic group. Just because what they did was stupid and disrespectful doesn't mean that it wasn't legal.

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
You're very correct, but there was nothing from the University expressly prohibiting any of the parties from taking place, which include parties that are parodies of the actions of a specific ethnic group. Just because what they did was stupid and disrespectful doesn't mean that it wasn't legal.

that all goes back to the University just now beginning their investigation into the entire issue. I have no idea what Tarelton's policies are. If they do not have it in policy then of course they will not be punished. The University would not want to fight that battle.

[BuffyMars]

Who said anything about legality?

Did I miss something?

:confused:

[kaorder1999]

the University isn't commenting on this because they dont have all the details yet. This is an investigation that could last months. We are only hearing from the NAACP rep

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by BuffyMars
True, its not.

But wasn't it you who was telling me not to make fun of the Aggies?

Is it my fault if you get upset over an Aggie joke?

:thinking:

There is a difference, an attack on an Aggie is a personal attack, what I stated was a joke from a movie, something that everyone who has watched the movie can laugh about, not an attack on women or anyone. The more you'll be on here and get to know me, you'll realize that I am rarely serious.

[jason]

this is a link to the official statement from the university - i have not heard anything about any further investigation

Tarleton State (http://www.tarleton.edu/PresLetter/index.htm)

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
that all goes back to the University just now beginning their investigation into the entire issue. I have no idea what Tarelton's policies are. If they do not have it in policy then of course they will not be punished. The University would not want to fight that battle.

And I seriously doubt that they will, either.

[Txbroadcaster]

Here is one line from the school policy that they might use

. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive university environment.

[kaorder1999]

I am aware that every person has a constitutional right of free speech. As President of Tarleton State University, I will condemn speech which I find reprehensible.

Bold Statement!

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Here is one line from the school policy that they might use

. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive university environment.


that was my thinking when I first heard about this.

[BuffyMars]

Look bottom line is:

I PERSONALLLY, didn't like what I saw, because I thought it was a bit on the racist side, and its wrong to sterotype ANY ethnic culture that way.

Will they get in trouble? I don't know...time will tell.

Do I think they should? Yeah...much like I would if I would have done something like that growing up, my parents would have opened a can of whoop @ss on me!

How can you know if something is ignorant or stupid if you aren't shown?

I have a feeling these kids (hopefully) are already learning from their mistakes....and if they aren't well then that's their business. Some people wanna be racist and that's their perogative whether I like it or not.

[mistanice]

do you guys think this thread will be closed? So far i see no reason to do so. KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
I am aware that every person has a constitutional right of free speech. As President of Tarleton State University, I will condemn speech which I find reprehensible.

Bold Statement!

But notice that he did not say persecute...

[kaorder1999]

i wouldnt think it would be...but im not a MOD either. I think everyone is staying pretty professional in their reasoning. I havent been called an IDIOT in this thread YET!!;)

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by mistanice
do you guys think this thread will be closed? So far i see no reason to do so. KEEP HOPE ALIVE!


No reason..everyone has been civil and been a good debate

[BuffyMars]

:hairpunk: I hope not. :bigcry:

[BuffyMars]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
i wouldnt think it would be...but im not a MOD either. I think everyone is staying pretty professional in their reasoning. I havent been called an IDIOT in this thread YET!!;)

Idiot. LOL. I am totally kidding.

That was pretty rediculous earlier.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Here is one line from the school policy that they might use

. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive university environment.


Yes I am quoting myself..But this statement in their policy which a student agrees to follow when they go to the school is a way the school can punish them.

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
i wouldnt think it would be...but im not a MOD either. I think everyone is staying pretty professional in their reasoning. I havent been called an IDIOT in this thread YET!!;)

It can be arranged....:cool:

[kaorder1999]

im off to lunch. Yall keep it civil. Im thinking about chicken...thos pics made me want some chicken. Bad huh?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
im off to lunch. Yall keep it civil. Im thinking about chicken...thos pics made me want some chicken. Bad huh?

So, what are we having? Chicken or...chicken?

[mistanice]

where do they sell the best fried chicken here in CS?

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by mistanice
where do they sell the best fried chicken here in CS?

Layne's. It's right off of Texas. They sell two things: chicken strips, or chicken sandwiches. Take your pick.

[mistanice]

Originally posted by BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END
Layne's. It's right off of Texas. They sell two things: chicken strips, or chicken sandwiches. Take your pick.

Oh yeah I've seen the joint, may have to visit them!

[BIG BLUE DEFENSIVE END]

Originally posted by mistanice
Oh yeah I've seen the joint, may have to visit them!

Of course, the Dixie Chicken or Chicken Oil are always good choices.

[Pmoney]

what was on the 1st post???

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by Pmoney
what was on the 1st post???
just a link to the story