I think this is a whole lot more complex than those who are most upset by the video would seem to want to consider.
So that WNAS doesn't get his indignities all out of whack, let me first say that I'll totally denounce the actions shown on the video as deplorable. But maybe with an asterisk. I'd add to the conversation that my OU degree was called Ethical And Religious Studies. So while I don't have any claim to superiority in the discussion, let's just say that I understand the process of determining how such actions should be considered pretty well.
I don't think you have to be liberal, conservative, centrist or purple to find the actions highly objectionable. There would seem to be something institutionally obvious in the song of the video. These guys seem to be singing it together in a manner that more than suggests that it's been sung probably many times before. There is a problem with that. I get that.
Now I'm a born aginner. So there are more than a few things that I find quite objectionable. What Nero did, using the dead or sometimes live bodies of first century believers as the stuff to make torches from to light his city, or the crucifixion of some simply for their beliefs is something as objectionable as I can imagine. And I understand that African Americans suffered similarly horrific treatment in our culture for several centuries. So part of my point here, is that there is a history. So how far back do we go to form the basis of our objections. And I use this hyperbole with the full understanding that what happened 2000 years ago has not as much relevance and less than 100 years ago.
But
Those on what I'd call the world view left ... i.e. those who would say that there is not such thing as absolute truth, want to have the unilateral authority to make up the exceptions to that. I find lots of objection to those who would take the Lord's name in vain. That used to be a sizable cultural agreement in years past. Not so much now. But if someone does that in what most reasonable people would call excess, say on this board, especially on the premium side, then making objection to that is considered a position mostly worthy of ridicule. This is my asterisk point.
When I was even in elementary school, there were several members of my family members in the generation older than I, who were pretty blatant racists. They weren't mean about it. Just stupid. And I argued with them pretty frequently about how short of common sense their arguments were. One of the things I'm proudest of in my life, just generally, was that in Plano, Tx in 1966, the only African American track athlete to make the state meet and I became the first interracial roommates in the history of the school district, to share a hotel room as roomies for the trip to Austin. I'm sure both of us caught considerable ribbing at least from our peers.
Because of these things, I considered myself to be above being labelled as a racist or even of having racist tendencies. I've since learned that I shouldn't have been nearly so proud of myself. We all have thoughts we should work on.
I get that this tape is embarrassing to OU and at least some, to all of us who love OU, to varying degrees.
But I think 22's point is more than valid. I don't understand the unique designation, especially for those on the world view left, who would say that free speech is free for a reason, but then selectively say that this sort of speech is uniquely objectionable to the point that a fraternity house should be closed. I'm all for SAE losing any lor all privileges as a fraternity. And maybe my info is wrong, but my understanding is that guys who live in the frat house, have been told they'll have to get out. Many of them had nothing to do with the video. And that, if true, I do not understand.
To step further into trouble, I'd also contend that the stupid and horrible actions in the video, are less objectionable, than say some "art" of the African American culture, that calls for the killing of say police officers. I thought our first African American president basically used speech that led to the killing of two NYC police officers, in the aftermath of what went on after the no billing by the Missouri grand jury several months ago. I found his speech highly objectionable. I understand that there are those who would disagree. And that's okay.
My overall point is this. I don't understand why the use of the N word is the one totally unforgivable sin. I basically quit spending much time with a couple of my closest relatives, because they liked to toss the N word around. I find it very objectionable. I didn't want my kids around anybody on any regular basis who made that too often part of their thought process and speech. As a believer in absolute truth, I think it's wrong. Period.
What the drunken frat boys did in "private," deserves considerable sanction. But I don't get the uniqueness of their idiocy. And I don't think I'm alone in this lack of "insight."
And I get the feeling that if some, say white or black liberal politician made stupid, highly offensive statements in private, that most of the media would be talking about the violation of their privacy, and who was it who stabbed them in the back by recording and then releasing this video.
SAE as an OU fraternity deserves whatever actions their national leadership and OU's leadership throws at them. But I find the punishment of those who weren't on the bus, to be curiously "without due process." And I think the selectively indignant outcry to be more than a little self serving.
