I just looked over the initiative, and without knowing the minute details of what occured (we are really only given the "broad" picture), I'm sure the university has reason, within the initiative, for kicking them off campus. We don't know if the chapter was turning in their reports on time, or if they were recruiting correctly, etc... (as the initiative suggests).

I'm sure if this lawsuit see's the light of a courthouse/judge, both sides will present the initiative. DePauw will point out the errors DZ made and DZ will point out the errors DePauw made. It really depends on A) who made more errors and B) who makes a stronger case for the errors.

23 people in a chapther equals a struggling chapter???? you've got to be fuckin kiddin me!!! shit, i know plenty of undergrad chapters that wished they had 10 people active in their chapter, let alone 23...ionno, maybe i'm just lookin @ it from the NPHC perspective & also from someone who went to a HBCU...

Yeah, I can imagine it does seem nuts. But it's kind of a question of what's expected on a particular campus. I'm from a campus (I mean back in the day) on which chapters of 100+ girls can be considered struggling or weak because the average is 175 or something.

This kind of thread makes me wistful and wishful about NPHC rules and ideas.

(Sometimes it's a question of meeting housing obligations too. If you've got a 75 bed house. . . )

But if total for houses is around 150 yeah it's struggling. No doubt about it. Even if their (DePauw) has total at 100, they are struggling.

Also, your are misunderstanding the number, 23 women were asked to leave DZ. They only had a total of 35. Then of the 12 left, 6 quit because of what happened, which means they had a total of 6 active members when they were closed.

Really? I know this was several pages ago but the reality is people have challenged Delta Zeta on the members they wanted to keep and challenged them on their reported criteria for selecting who would be retained. We're all upset for two reasons--because DZ made those women move out when they did (which, agreed, was heinous) AND because of the reported shallowness of the criteria they used.

I am not making judgments on the merits of their case--I am simply saying that I understand what they are trying to protect and I appreciate that they don't want anyone defaming them over their membership review and membership selection.

I think challenging members to keep is somewhat different than challenging members to accept at all.

Heather17,

I think I understand your concerns, but how to you reconcile the idea of protecting groups' rights to private membership selection with filing a lawsuit dealing closely with consequences of membership decisions?

If DZ wants DePauw to state that DZ didn't not discriminate in the membership review based on appearance and race (as yesterday's newspaper article indicated DZ does) doesn't that imply to a reasonable person that DePauw would have to ascertain the standards DZ did use?

It seems to me that with the lawsuit, rather than protecting those rights, they are demanding someone breach them.

I wonder if any legal victory (and any kind of financial judgment) would be a pyrrhic victory, since, in the court of public opinion (the one that prospective members and their families occupy), this may be viewed as petty and mean spirited, and not addressing the issues that caused this mess in the first place. I wonder if there has been the concomitant effort placed on improving policies and procedures to help forestall something like this from happening again. And I wonder about the level of support amongst the DZ membership at large for this course of action.

Excellent post, Wolfman. I agree and wonder the same things completely.

I really don't think that DePauw defamed them at all, the university made their decision based on, and reported that decision to the media based on facts. They did not appreciate the way the GLO treated their students by making them move with EXTREMELY short notice RIGHT before finals. It is a FACT that they did this. I'm Not a lawyer... but doesn't TRUTH negate defamation claims ??

From dictionary.com, the definition of defamation:

1. to attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; slander or libel; calumniate: The newspaper editorial defamed the politician.

This is a simple definition. DZ would have to prove that DePauw was publishing malicious or false information.

I don't have a website link for the Legal Complaint. It was sent to me as a scanned pdf file.

Aah. I have been trying to find it and was wondering how you got your hands on it. :)

Plus isn't there the 5 ones you have to prove to win a case like this? Defamation, Libel, and I can't remember the other 3. I remember learning in class that these cases are the hardest to prove.