Fraternity Boys Defending their Racist Remarks

Last year two brothers of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity at the University of Oklahoma were expelled from the university while chanting racist remarks at one of the fraternity events. After this occurred, the University of Oklahoma was ranked in the top 10 list of colleges for free speech. Many people were outraged that the University expelled two of the brothers because they believed that this was a violation of First Amendment rights. After this event occurred, free speech on college campuses was an international concern that completely swept through the nation. 


Freedom of speech is a constitutional amendment that must be upheld by public universities throughout the United States. Private universities are allowed to take away the right of students to protest using freedom of speech, because they are not funded by the government. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) believes that even though private universities state that they will protect students first amendment rights, they often fail to do so. Not only do students find their First Amendment rights violated, professors often do as well. 


Although the University was greatly criticized for making this decision, I also find it very interesting, how the fraternity boys were not. Even though the University did violate the students First Amendment rights, they were screaming racist chants that I found to be extremely offensive. I do believe that students should have the right to protest and speak their minds freely, but I also believe that this is definitely an ethical issue.

State V. Mann Class Case

During class on February 18th 2016, two different groups debated over the famous court case of State V. Mann. In this court case, the State argued that Mr. Mann did not have the right to shoot his slave, Lydia when she tried to escape from him. Mr. Mann argued that he did have the right to shoot her because he was her property. The class presented this court case very well and brought up interesting points that I did not know about this famous court case.

One point in particular that I found to be interesting is that Mr. Mann won this case because slavery was legal in the state of North Carolina at the time and Lydia was considered Mr. Mann's property. At the time of this court case laves were considered to be property rather than people. This argument was presented by the defendants of Mr. Mann stating that it was destruction of his own property, rather than injuring a human being. With this being said, the court claimed that Mr. Mann violated no laws because he was destructing his own property rather than injuring a person. At the end of the presentation I found out that Mr. Mann did indeed win this court case because he did not violate any constitutional laws at the time.

I personally believe that this court case is morally wrong because slavery was not only unconstitutional but violated many ethical values. I believe that both parties presented this court case very well. Both groups knew a ton of information about the court case and were able to present their sides without any bias on the court case.

Supreme Court Justice Passes Away

Recently, U.S Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, passed away at the age of 79. Scalia was the leading conservative voice on the Supreme Court and his death has caused a heated debate on whether or not President Obama should fill his seat in an election year. Since Scalia died during an election year many people wonder whether or not Obama should choose the replacement for Scalia or if the next presidential candidate should choose who replaces him in the Supreme Court.

Obama has taken a personal oath to replace Scalia's spot. Obama said "These are responsibilities that I take seriously, as should everyone. They're bigger than any one party. They are about our democracy. They're about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life." Obama personally believes that this has nothing to do with which political party the country stands for rather than the democratic country as a whole. Other political figures disagree with Obama on his personal belief. 

One politician in particular, Mitch McConnell believes that his seat should be filled after the upcoming presidential election. McConnell believes that the American people should have a say in their new Supreme Court Justice. If President Obama immediately chooses the Supreme Court Justice  the American people will not have a say in their new Justice. Another politician Reid, who represents Nevada believes that the seat should be filled right away. He believes that it is unprecedented for the seat not to be filled for almost a year. 

This debate on whether or not the Supreme Court Justice spot should be filled continues to be discussed. Since President Obama is a democratic politician, many people believe that he will fill the Supreme Court Justice with a democratic candidate, and that would go against Scala's wishes. 

The Bible: For Slavery or Against Slavery

For centuries, many people have argued over the idea whether or not the bible states whether slavery should be permitted or prohibited. Certain verses of the bible express the idea that slavery did exist in ancient times so why wouldn't it exist today. Other verses express the idea that slavery should cease to exist. The question that many people seem to debate on is whether we should interpret the bible literally or whether we should use the knowledge that we have acquired today to help us understand the bibles deeper meanings.

Another issue that many people dispute over is that many biblical figures seem to have contradicting opinions about slavery. At one point in the bible, it may appear that they support slavery but at another point it can be argued that they are against slavery. One conclusion that historians and people who study the bible have come up with, is that the bible has very contradicting views on slavery. While some areas of the bible state that slavery was accepted during the era of Christ, other areas argue that it was greatly frowned upon.

The argument that historians faced for many years was whether or not the Supreme Court could make a decision based on biblical values seeing as there were so many differing views in the different ways that the bible could be interpreted. If the Supreme Court was making decisions based on biblical values then how would they come to a "just" decision. This argument ultimately let to the Supreme Court making decisions based on the U.S Constitution rather than arguments based on biblical values.

Religion vs. Justice

Throughout time many people wonder if religious values have played a part in the decisions of Supreme Court Justices. As time has passed on many Supreme Court Justices have come and gone which means that religious values throughout the Supreme Court have changed. Certain instances where the Supreme Court has made decisions based on religious values were when topics about the provision of contraception was discussed. Two Court Cases in particular where religious values made an impact on Supreme Court decisions were Town of Greece v. Galloway and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

In the case of Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Court ruled that public prayer was appropriate before town hall meetings. The Supreme Court contained several devout Catholics on the bench when this court decision was made which caused the public to believe that the Court decision was made based on religious views. Another recent instance where religious values has made an appearance in the Supreme Court Cases was in the decision of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. In this court case the Court ruled that small-business owners didn’t have to provide contraception coverage to employees if it meant that it would conflict with their religious beliefs. Many devoted Catholics do not believe in the use of contraceptives. The public believes that since there was many practicing Catholics on the Supreme Court bench when this decision was made, this could have played a role in their decision. After studying the use of the bible in Supreme Court decisions during class, I found this article to be very interesting. It is ok that someone’s religious views can directly impact a Supreme Court decision or is this morally wrong? Since Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Religion is one of our First Amendment Rights I believe that religious values should not play a factor in Supreme Court decisions.