• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Univ. of Oklahoma severs ties with frat after racist chant

Fraternity closes Ole Miss chapter after racial incident - CNN.com

Sigma PHI Epsilon, otherwise known as "Sig Ep" put a noose around the neck of the statue of James Meredith.

That's literally worse than what the SAE's said. They actually put a noose around the neck of it.

There ya go, that's worse :)

You're not sure what you're discussing anymore are you? You said this was widespread and happened across the board. I want you to show a fraternity with as racist a history. Not a single racist incident at a single university. Can you do that? Hell, various members here compiled about 10 incidents from SAE alone. Can you do the same with another frat? I doubt it. :)
 
Great, and I want evidence that there is racism being promoted out of the national chapter.

All of those incidents presented in this thread don't lie. You can continue to ignore them and keep claiming it's "only 3" but others have posted more incidents that you've ignored. As for your demands of evidence, what has been stated is that the promotion of these views isn't written down on paper (see: not visible to the public). However, it's clear that they're there and across more than one chapter of the fraternity. Hell, if you needed something written down to prove something is racist, Donald Sterling would still be thought of as a non racist for hiring an entire team of black people and paying them millions.
 
Last edited:
Great, and I want evidence that there is racism being promoted out of the national chapter. Show some emails, letters, speeches, notes, books, anything.

Here's your evidence that he was discussing the national organization. You don't have to wait.



Read it. If you had any clue about the subject matter you're discussing, you'd be able to comprehend the posts you are responding to. Unbelievable.

I forgot the gentleman's name, but in addition to kind of promoting his book (titled something to the effect of "Confessions of an ex-frat boy"), as a former member of that national fraternity had argued that the melody had been used for all manner of songs racist or sexist. He said he hadn't heard one this explicit until the OK video, but it was an issue, both in terms of songs and in terms of social atmosphere.

I think that this is an issue, but not something that is evenly spread throughout the country or any given chapter. It is probably there, but depends on the individual membership of a chapter.
 
Nope, not obsessing. I just remember his refusal to show any posts where his "centrist" positions came out. :shrug:

I just wanted to remind you that I predicted she would say you're getting emotional.
 
:lol: At least you admit something, that you brought it up just not to me.


I guess we are restricted to replying to those who quote us directly. God forbid you quote something someone said to someone else on a public forum!

Now nobody respond to this later please in a later post. I am responding to tres, not anyone else who may use this later. :lamo

She has a habit of mentioning things and then complaining when someone responds to them

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...frican-americans-w-98-a-7.html#post1063398903
hat's nice. Thank you for sharing your opinion with me, even though I didn't ask for it.

Calamity is a smart man. He's perfectly capable of answering for himself.
That's what the SCOTUS is going to decide. Your opinion isn't being argued in front of them.

Are you Carleen?
 
1) I don't agree with them being expelled.
2) Public accountability for offensive speech is a good thing, IMO.

Given the choice of 1) or 2), 2) is more consistent with the concept of freedom of speech and the rights and responsibilities that come with that. I'm not even arguing that whatever their ultimate punishment will be matches the severity of their 'crime' - that's impossible to judge, and it will vary from person to person. I'm sure my opinions as a white, Christian, straight, male in the South who has never in his life been disadvantaged by the color of his skin or his religion or his sex or sexual orientation might be entirely different than some black kid who went through rush at OU and was blackballed for the color of his skin.

But as a principle, the general rule, I'm for public accountability for this kind of speech. They're free to say what they want, and the public is free to condemn them for it. I don't know how else this delicate balancing act of rights and responsibilities can work.

She thinks they should be held accountable, but only up to the point the she believes they should be accountable.

If it ever goes beyond her opinion, it's a travesty!!
 
Yes, what I'm saying is I don't think these dumbs kids should necessarily be public targets (checking to make sure the l is in there.....). Yes, I think being expelled was punishment enough. It will stay with them forever. What other punishment do you think they deserve, and for how long?
I agree, they took a lot of punishment but then again, they did bring this unto themselves.
 
All of those incidents presented in this thread don't lie. You can continue to ignore them and keep claiming it's "only 3" but others have posted more incidents that you've ignored. As for your demands of evidence, what has been stated is that the promotion of these views isn't written down on paper (see: not visible to the public). However, it's clear that they're there and across more than one chapter of the fraternity. Hell, if you needed something written down to prove something is racist, Donald Sterling would still be thought of as a non racist for hiring an entire team of black people and paying them millions.

No, it's not "clear that they're there". Just stop. That's in your head and yours alone.
 
No, it's not "clear that they're there". Just stop. That's in your head and yours alone.

Denying what's obvious to so many other people really makes you look terrible. Closing your eyes and covering your ears won't change that either. Remember, various incidents, various chapters and your contention is that there is no obvious pattern within this organization. It's all... a mere coincidence.
 
I forgot the gentleman's name, but in addition to kind of promoting his book (titled something to the effect of "Confessions of an ex-frat boy"), as a former member of that national fraternity had argued that the melody had been used for all manner of songs racist or sexist. He said he hadn't heard one this explicit until the OK video, but it was an issue, both in terms of songs and in terms of social atmosphere.

I think that this is an issue, but not something that is evenly spread throughout the country or any given chapter. It is probably there, but depends on the individual membership of a chapter.

Hey Fiddy, you're talking about the Andrew Lohse book "Confessions of an Ivy League Frat Boy" that came out a few years ago. He was an SAE at Dartmouth. I know the book/story well because I live in NH and it was big news when it came out. It was also proven to be 99% bull****. He said things in the book that supposedly go on in the Greek system at Dartmouth (which I believe something like 65% of the students are members of) that are illegal, prompting the NH police to get involved and launch official investigations. There was not a single person who corroborated his stories - not one. He's making an "anti-Greek" career and it's all based on falsehoods. But in his book, which I actually read, he never mentioned any racism in SAE. He blamed SAE (and the Greek system in general) for his drug problem that almost killed him. And he accused the Greeks of hazing (which is illegal). If there was any truth to his tales, there would have been at least 1 other person who attended Dartmouth who would corroborate - and nobody did.

You can Google all this. But anything he would have to say - good or bad - would be discounted anyway since almost his entire story was a lie.
 
Denying what's obvious to so many other people really makes you look terrible. Closing your eyes and covering your ears won't change that either. Remember, various incidents, various chapters and your contention is that there is no obvious pattern within this organization. It's all... a mere coincidence.

You've decided that SAE national promotes racism because of the actions of a handful of people. Let's take the Greek system (which you know nothing about) out of the discussion then. You tell me which of these statements is obviously true, and why - I'll use similar numbers and examples that you can relate to presumably.

Mr. Smith is the principal of a school with 300 students. 47 of the students smoke pot. Mr. Smith promotes pot smoking.
Mr. Jones teaches science. He has 300 students among his 4 classes. 26 students have gotten drunk. Mr. Jones promotes underage drinking.
Linda is the manager of a girls recreation soccer league. There are 300 girls in the league. 22 of them are having unprotected sex with their boyfriends. Linda promotes unprotected sex.
 
You've decided that SAE national promotes racism because of the actions of a handful of people.

Repeating this claim just makes you look dishonest. It's quite a few chapters over quite a few states with quite a few people involved. Your contention is that these are all unrelated and not a reflection of the organization as a whole. However, we know that's not true because all of these people were acting within their official roles. Continuing to deny that is why you've lost this debate and were reduced to trying to misrepresent my posts for 3 pages. :shrug:
 
Repeating this claim just makes you look dishonest. It's quite a few chapters over quite a few states with quite a few people involved. Your contention is that these are all unrelated and not a reflection of the organization as a whole. However, we know that's not true because all of these people were acting within their official roles. Continuing to deny that is why you've lost this debate and were reduced to trying to misrepresent my posts for 3 pages. :shrug:

Why didn't you tell me which of those statements were correct? If you can tie "leadership" of a group of young people to their actions, and assume that the leadership promotes bad behavior because a few commit it, you surely can explain why you can assume any of those statements I posted are correct. Please do it. Don't snip them out of your response.
 
Why didn't you tell me which of those statements were correct? If you can tie "leadership" of a group of young people to their actions, and assume that the leadership promotes bad behavior because a few commit it, you surely can explain why you can assume any of those statements I posted are correct. Please do it. Don't snip them out of your response.

None of them because in none of these cases are these students acting as students. Every single person in these instances was acting as a member of SAE. That you don't get this yet is really why you have no case. There is no question that Democratic party promoted racism in the 1960s because every Democrat who voted against desegregation did so as a part of their official party membership. Their membership isn't incidental to the story, it's central to it. What part of this point don't you get this yet? This isn't like a person killing someone and then the fact that they're religious being used to explain their actions. This is a person carrying out actions because it's perfectly acceptable within the group that they're in. It's people carrying out activities because their role demands it. This is proven by the fact that pledges needed to perform racist actions as part of their initiation. This is proven by the fact that when those kids were chanting they weren't alone; other members were chanting right along with them. Again, it's when a person understands that these things don't happen in vacuum that one realizes that it's the organization and not a bunch of unrelated stories.
 
Last edited:
None of them because in none of these cases are these students acting as students. Every single person in these instances was acting as a member of SAE. That you don't get this yet is really why you have no case. There is no question that Democratic party promoted racism in the 1960s because every Democrat who voted against desegregation did so as a part of their official party membership. Their membership isn't incidental to the story, it's central to it. What part of this point don't you get this yet? This isn't like a person killing someone and then the fact that they're religious being used as the reason for their actions. This is a person carrying their actions because it's perfectly acceptable within the group that they're in.

Students acting as students? I didn't know that smoking pot qualifies as "acting as a student". But riding on a bus is a "member of SAE activity". Oh I've read it all.

In other words, my examples prove you are wrong. Thanks!
 
Students acting as students? I didn't know that smoking pot qualifies as "acting as a student". But riding on a bus is a "member of SAE activity". Oh I've read it all.

More misrepresenting and being purposely obtuse. Nobody said riding the bus was racist. It was the chanting that was racist and the people who engaged in it did so as members of SAE. Continuing to deny this just makes you look defeated.
 
More misrepresenting and being purposely obtuse. Nobody said riding the bus was racist. It was the chanting that was racist and the people who engaged in it did so as members of SAE. Continuing to deny this just makes you look defeated.

"Chanting on a bus" is SAE activity. Of course!

Okay, you win. You proved that the inappropriate acts of all students are always being promoted by an adult, either one they see every day or an entire corporation of them who are 1000 miles away! Woot!
 
"Chanting on a bus" is SAE activity. Of course!

More misrepresentation: It was the chant that was racist and the people who engaged in it did so as members of SAE.

That doesn't meant chanting is an SAE activity. What it means is that the people who engaged in racist chanting were doing so as members of the fraternity. The chant was made for the fraternity and was song by the members as part of their group dynamic continuing to deny it makes you look silly. :shrug:
 
More misrepresentation: It was the chant that was racist and the people who engaged in it did so as members of SAE.

That doesn't meant chanting is an SAE activity. What it means is that the people who engaged in racist chanting were doing so as members of the fraternity. The chant was made for the fraternity and was song by the members as part of their group dynamic continuing to deny it makes you look silly. :shrug:

Like I said, you proved that the actions of students are the result of adults promoting it, even adults who are 1000 miles away! It's the case everywhere. The bad behavior of students can always be attributed to adults promoting it. I got it! You can stop posting about it now. Adults make students do stupid things because they promote bad behavior.

Let's get back to the topic, which isn't SAE national. It's this chapter.
 
I agree, they took a lot of punishment but then again, they did bring this unto themselves.

They sure did. I made a lot of stupid mistakes when I was young too. Luckily I, like most people, didn't get caught.

There are a lot of blood thirsty people who seem to want these kids to fry. And what they did wasn't even illegal, although you certainly wouldn't know it. Meh. The good thing for them is this country is easily distracted by shiny objects. This will be old news in about 2 days and nobody will remember these guys.
 
Like I said, you proved that the actions of students are the result of adults promoting it, even adults who are 1000 miles away! It's the case everywhere. The bad behavior of students can always be attributed to adults promoting it. I got it! You can stop posting about it now. Adults make students do stupid things because they promote bad behavior.

More misrepresenting just makes you look silly at this point. The best part is that you believe it is all coincidental. Remember, multiple incidents, multiple members, multiple chapters, multiple universities, all tied by the same organization. Your conclusion? All coincidental. :)
 
More misrepresenting just makes you look silly at this point. The best part is that you believe it is all coincidental. Remember, multiple incidents, multiple members, multiple chapters, multiple universities, all tied by the same organization. Your conclusion? All coincidental. :)

I'm posting on topic, which is not SAE national. It's about a few yahoos from this chapter getting caught singing a racist song on a bus, the fraternity losing its charter, and 2 of the yahoos being expelled.

Maybe a new thread in the Academia Section on how all national Greeks promote the bad behavior of their members (well, how leaders in general promote bad behavior of students) would be appropriate if you'd like to continue talking about that?
 
I'm posting on topic, which is not SAE national. It's about a few yahoos from this chapter getting caught singing a racist song on a bus, the fraternity losing its charter, and 2 of the yahoos being expelled.

Well, we knew you'd get to this point eventually. However, it was you that took issue with my contention that this was a reflection of the organization as a whole. Then spent 30 pages trying to refute it with absurd comparisons. You can report me if you want, however my contention still stands: All of these incidents, including this one are a reflection of SAE as an organization. :)
 
You're not sure what you're discussing anymore are you? You said this was widespread and happened across the board. I want you to show a fraternity with as racist a history. Not a single racist incident at a single university. Can you do that? Hell, various members here compiled about 10 incidents from SAE alone. Can you do the same with another frat? I doubt it. :)

Are you really pulling that card? lol? Are you telling me there's never been a single incident for any scenario of incidents?

What a juvenile argument.

Two black people killed a white couple from England in Baltimore. Does that mean all black people want to kill white people?

Your argument makes about as much sense as a football bat.
 
Are you really pulling that card? lol? Are you telling me there's never been a single incident for any scenario of incidents?

Reading comprehension, it helps you avoid making such asinine statements. What has been asked is for you to show a history of an organization. Not a single incident. That's what's been done in this thread. Continuing to ignore it won't help you.
 
Back
Top Bottom