Earlier this week, video surfaced of members of the University of Oklahoma’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity chanting an incredibly racist song on a bus ride to a party. The song involved heavy use of the n-word and  after the video went viral on Twitter, University of Oklahoma President David Boren responded by kicking the chapter off campus and expelling two of the students involved. Those two students are named Parker Rice and Levi Pettit, and they were expelled because of their role in leading the chant. Now the SAE chapter is making noise about filing some sort of lawsuit against either the University of Oklahoma, or possibly against Boren himself.

The reason that many are now speculating that a suit may be forthcoming is because the group of students representing the now-defunct fraternity have retained Stephen Jones. Jones is a pretty recognizable legal force in Oklahoma, perhaps best known for defending Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. While Jones has yet to file any sort of lawsuit, according to KOCO Oklahoma City:

Jones said the board of directors at the OU SAE chapter asked him to investigate certain legal matters that may impact the chapter as a result of the racist chant video. Jones said he has not yet been asked to initiate litigation against any person or party at this time.

There are multiple different legal issues that could be at play here–first and foremost are possible First Amendment Rights inherent in kicking someone out of school and disbanding a fraternity based on something that they said. The debate over the First Amendment is especially complicated given that the University of Oklahoma is a public institution, not a private one. The school accepts federal and state funds and, as a public university, it represents the public–namely the government. While the University of Oklahoma can certainly argue that it’s allowed to expel the students and kick them out for violating the code of conduct, First Amendment concerns may outweigh that. While Jones isn’t representing the expelled students specifically, rather the board representing the members of SAE, it’s possible that if the expelled students decide to file the lawsuit, he’ll be on the front lines.

In addition to the First Amendment concerns, there are also possible due process and 14th Amendment issues with the way in which the students were kicked off campus. There are also concerns that those former members of SAE were painted with too broad a brush, even if some of them weren’t the offenders who participated in the chant.

Overall, it seems like a legal battle is brewing in Oklahoma. What those men did was beyond inappropriate and despicable, and from a moral point of view I think Boren’s actions were not only incredibly warranted but absolutely necessary. However, he may soon have to defend those actions in court.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Expelled Fraternity May Sue University of Oklahoma appeared first on Law Street.

Students have to go to school- it’s the law. But what happens when a student, legally bound to go to school, is suspended for a long period of time, or even expelled? In some places, there is no contingency plan to make sure the student is learning while out of school. Should students who have been suspended or expelled be expected to keep up with schoolwork the same way their peers- who remain in classes- are?

Massachusetts has recently passed a new law, which would require school districts in the state to provide some kind of provide some kind of education to students facing long-term education or expulsion. Specifically, it says: “any school district that suspends or expels a student under this section shall continue to provide educational services to the student during the period of suspension or expulsion.”

The bill does not highlight specific ways in which school districts could supplement these students’ education, but with modern technology, online options seem feasible. Some people have pointed out that the cost of educating students outside of the classroom is expensive, but if the alternative is not having students taught at all, some expenses don’t seem like that much of a problem. There are also alternative schools, which are funded publicly for students with behavioral problems. But again, each state handles admissions to these schools differently. There is also always the concern of over-filling alternative schools, and having the education there suffer as a result.

Long-term suspensions and expulsions are not the norm for most students, but have become an increasingly common way to deal with behavioral infractions of students. Many schools have instituted “zero tolerance” policies in respect to actions like fighting and bringing weapons, alcohol, or drugs to school. If a student is found to have partaken in one of the “zero-tolerance” behaviors, he or she faces immediate and severe punishment, ranging from suspension to expulsion.

While the safety of students is of course a priority, educators and legislators need to consider the ramifications of these “zero-tolerance” policies, and many others, which lead to so many suspensions and expulsions in the first place. While the Massachusetts law is a great attempt to keep students on track when they otherwise would not be, perhaps it is more important to address these problems before students have to leave school.

The ACLU outlines something known as the “school-to-prison pipeline.” People claim that when students aren’t in school, they are more likely to engage in other destructive behaviors, making it more likely for those individuals to end up in prison. The group outlines a number of policies, including zero-tolerance policies that they say only adds to the number of students suspended or expelled each year.

By implementing this law, Massachusetts has stuck a wrench in the school-to-prison pipeline, which currently exists. Rather than letting a student’s education fall by the wayside during the suspension, students will have the opportunity to continue to keep up with classes even while not in the school building itself. Obviously, the long-term benefits of the policy are not known, but it shows that state legislatures across the country could be addressing similar topics.

Regardless of whether this method has been proven to work, the idea and rationale behind it is solid. When students are in school, they’re taught. When students aren’t in school, they don’t get taught. Having a student not in school because of behavioral problems not getting taught seems like a recipe for disaster. If more states took the path Massachusetts is taking now, down the road we could see some significant changes in the population of incarceration among youth who have faced these problems in school at a young age.

[ACLU] [Sentinel and Enterprise] [Law] [Dignity Schools] [Huff Po]

—

Molly Hogan(@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Larry Darling via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Massachusetts Expands Instruction to Expelled Students appeared first on Law Street.