University of Oklahoma SAE fraternity members apologize: Is it too late?

Two OU students, identified as the leaders in a video where members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity make racial chants, have been thrown out of school.

Sue Ogrocki/AP
University of Oklahoma junior Brooke Aston, right, adds her fingerprint to a sign to be carried to the now closed University of Oklahoma's Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity house during a rally.

After being expelled from the University of Oklahoma for racist speech, one member of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity issued an apology while the parents of the second student did the same.

The video surfaced on Sunday after anonymous sources sent the video – which showed Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity members chanting racial slurs and referencing lynching – to the school newspaper and a black activist group on campus. The fraternity was promptly closed down by the university and the members evicted after the video made national headlines and elicited protests.

In light of the visceral reactions and national disappointment in the students’ behavior, it raises the question of whether or not their apologies can undo some of the damage that has already been done.

Former OU student Parker Rice, who appeared to be leading the chant in the publicized video, apologized for his actions and said it was “a horrible mistake.”

"For me, this is a devastating lesson and I am seeking guidance on how I can learn from this and make sure it never happens again. My goal for the long-term is to be a man who has the heart and the courage to reject racism wherever I see or experience it in the future," Mr. Rice said in a statement, reported NBC News.

The other student was identified as Levi Pettit, son of Brody and Susan Pettit. In a statement, the parents apologized to “the entire African American community [and the] University of Oklahoma.”

“[Our son] made a horrible mistake and will live with the consequences forever ... He is a good boy, but what we saw in those videos is disgusting,” they said, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The national SAE office issued a statement condemning the behavior of the OU chapter, and stated that they will begin the proceedings to expel the currently suspended members from the national organization. They denounced the video, and stated such behavior or chants are neither taught nor accepted by the national organization.

“Our investigation has found very likely that the men learned the song from fellow chapter members, which reiterates why Sigma Alpha Epsilon did not hesitate to close the chapter completely because of the culture that may have been fostered in the group,” the statement reads.

University president David Boren expelled the two students Tuesday. In the expulsion letter, he stated the students were expelled “because of [their] leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.”

While many support the decision to expel the students – including the national SAE organization – others argue that the decision is not constitutional. Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, argues that even if the speech is racist and offensive, the students are still protected under the First Amendment.

“[R]acist speech is constitutionally protected, just as is expression of other contemptible ideas; and universities may not discipline students based on their speech. That has been the unanimous view of courts that have considered campus speech codes and other campus speech restrictions,” Mr. Volokh writes in the Washington Post.

Volokh continues to say that socially, the students’ actions will have plenty of consequences, and how long they follow them into their lives is “an interesting ethical question.”

“[I]n any event it’s pretty clear that the offending students are going to pay a substantial social and likely economic price for their actions,” he writes. “Under the First Amendment, though, the government – including the University of Oklahoma – generally cannot add to this price, whether the offensive speech is racist, religiously bigoted, pro-revolutionary, or expressive of any other viewpoint, however repugnant it might be.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.