OU's Sigma Alpha Epsilon Chapter May Sue University And Its President
BALDWIN: You're watching CNN. I'm Brooke Baldwin stuck with the new backlash to the University of Oklahoma. It is now coming from this infamous fraternity, local chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, SAE. The fraternity booted off campus over a video that shows members shouting this racist chant. Now the twist is they may sue the school and perhaps even the president of the university. Our Oklahoma City affiliate KFOR (ph) is reporting a high-powered attorney hired by the chapter as some SAE members, they're upset that they are all being branded as bigots and racists. In fact, we're hearing -- we could be hearing from the attorney a little bit later during the show. Joining me now, CNN and HLN legal analyst Danny Cevallos and Joey Jackson both from all defense attorneys, both, as far as I can tell, on far ends of the spectrum as far as how this story should be treated. So my first question and this is to either of you, would this local fraternity have a case? And we don't know what kind of litigation, you know, this could look like. Would they have a case here?</s>DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Let's analyze it this way. There are two separate issues, right, the fraternity versus the national fraternity. They probably have no case there because that's a private entity. It's probably covered in their bylaws or their internal rules. They can revoke a charter probably however they want to. But I don't know. I haven't seen the charter. None of us have. As the university goes, that's a different issue. University of Oklahoma is a public university so it must follow the First Amendment. It cannot suppress protected speech. And a student's attendance at a university, a public university is a property right that is protected by due process. This has been the law for decades. So if they're going to revoke their status, the university is going to kick the university off summarily, do those students within that fraternity have due process rights by virtue of their membership in the fraternity. It's an interesting constitutional question.</s>JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: All due process means is --</s>JACKSON: Right? All due process means is that you're afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard.</s>BALDWIN: (Inaudible) students would say that they can get that, have them like this.</s>JACKSON: You know, well, if there's something called a summary action, that means I take action now and if you want to grieve (ph) it, by all means, we'll have a proceeding and we'll address it at that proceeding. But I don't have to wait until I get a ruling for you to go but let's talk about the law for one minute here if we could.</s>BALDWIN: OK, sure.</s>JACKSON: The reality is that here you have a balance, I -- I would argue that not only did the university is what they did constitutionally protect it but I would argue that they had an affirmative obligation to do it. You ask why. There's something called Title VI also of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and what does it say? It says that no discrimination for anyone getting federal funding could be tolerated so you can make the argument. If the school doesn't act, then are they deemed to be otherwise embracing these statements?</s>BALDWIN: But the fraternity is taking a step further, not only with the university act but then this local fraternity, SAE, staying back to the university. They're continuously exploring legal avenues against the university and the university president.</s>BALDWIN: The students are.</s>JACKSON: Right.</s>CEVALLOS: Yes. The students are, to the extent of their free speech, they feel their speech has been suppressed or they haven't been afforded due process, they may. The real constitutional question is, do you have standing as a member of a fraternity when the fraternity is the thing that has been kicked off campus. In other words, just by virtue of their membership, can they challenge the fact that, yes, this fraternity was summarily kicked off campus. Going to Mr. Jackson's comment, the students who were expelled absolutely have a claim because that was done unconstitutionally and a very, very short version is the vast majority of speech is protected. Some speech is not. Things like harassment.</s>BALDWIN: What about defamation?</s>CEVALLOS: But the problem is Oklahoma did not proceed on the theory of defamation. They have always said that this is a hostile environment, therefore it's harassment. And if it's harassment, the Supreme Court is clear, Mr. Jackson.</s>JACKSON: If he call me "Mr. Jackson" I know I'm in trouble.</s>BALDWIN: You're in serious --</s>CEVALLOS: Crystal clear that yes harassment is something that is severe, it's something that's pervasive. But it's more than that, it's something that effectively denies a student the access to his or her education and I don't see that here under the facts, though Mr. Jackson may disagree.</s>JACKSON: Well, OK. And here is what I would have to say.</s>BALDWIN: OK.</s>JACKSON: There's a student code of conduct and let's say what it says, it says that they can act, that is the school, if there is conduct which can be found intimidating, harassing, or humiliating. Now, could you make the argument that this conduct is found in that way? Absolutely, you can.</s>CEVALLOS: Agree.</s>JACKSON: When you attend a university the reality is that you have to abide by those codes of conduct.</s>BALDWIN: Yes.</s>JACKSON: And if you don't, guess what. You leave.</s>BALDWIN: Right, right.</s>JACKSON: The other thing to mention is that we all have rights of free speech but those rights are limited and we have to take responsibility for what we say. Defamation, you mentioned one. The other thing, fire in a theater, there are number of things that are not protected and when you engage in something that is in a cause of conduct that affect somebody else, there's a right to act, they did act and it will be upheld.</s>CEVALLOS: Last point, Joey Jackson -- Joey Jackson makes a good point, makes a good point. It is in the student code but student codes have time and time again been shot down as unconstitutional by district courts. This could be another one of those.</s>BALDWIN: OK, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Cevallos, that was excellent.</s>JACKSON: Thank you Ms. Baldwin.</s>BALDWIN: Thank you very much.</s>CEVALLOS: Thank you.</s>BALDWIN: Appreciate it. Let's see what happens, and again that lawyer talking within the show. We'll see what he says. Coming up next here on CNN, video from inside the gas station where those Boston bombing suspects two years ago, they stopped for food where the man they carjacked somehow managed to escape. You will hear his 911 call. It turned out to be key here in leading authorities to the Tsarnaev brothers. You're watching CNN. Don't move.