Further...

These programs not only tread heavily on First Amendment protections, but possibly Fourteenth Amendment protections (equal treatment). There may be multiple ways for us to defend ourselves.

The Healy precedent cannot be read to state that universities are not entitled to de-recognize groups as long as they have "substantial justification." They ARE entitled to do so.

You can argue about what "substantial justification" is, but I don't believe that there has ever been a court case finding that a university withdrawing recognition from a fraternity that failed to meet university GPA standards (or the like) violated any Constitutional rights. Given that the Supreme Court recently stated that a university's stated educational goals are such a compelling government interest that they survive strict scrutiny (Grutter; Gratz); I'd be extremely surprised if there were any such case in the near future. Public universities are allowed to set all kinds of seemingly arbitrary standards for student conduct. (See the University of Virginia, which may expel you for lying to a fellow student: http://www.virginia.edu/honor/intro/explain.html). Heck, it's pretty arbitrary that UF won't give you a degree in Psychology unless you pass Statistics. But it's strongly related to a legitimate educational goal, so it's perfectly constitutional, even though it impedes your freedom of thought. It would be quite simple for UF to explain why its educational goals are impeded by recognizing fraternities that persistently failed to meet these standards over multiple years.

At any rate, at best, the issuance of these policies doesn't give anyone any federal right to sue (I can't speak for every state); there wouldn't be a cognizable injury until the de-recognition occurred, or at least was imminent.

You can be certain that UF has an excellent legal team advising it on these matters. To me, the standards look carefully drawn to survive scrutiny.

SOE is a program for Greeks - the other student organizations do not have a comparable program.


.....Kelly :)

I agree... there hasn't been a court case containing the situation we're describing. I still think it would be hard to prove that a 2.5 chapter grade point average caused "disruption" on a campus, regardless of the compelling educational interest. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Advancing our scenario, and assuming that schools do have this authority (or, more practically speaking, that fighting them through the courts would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming), the next logical step is to simply say, "thanks, but no thanks" if recognition comes tied to these programs.

There is still no statute, that I'm aware of, that requires a chapter or an interfraternity council to maintain (or even seek) campus recognition. The boys at Boulder have gone independent, and I believe that that situation will do more to affect us all than any court fight.

(Then again, and as I referenced previously, where the school - and/or town - can get you is on ground leases and zoning requirements. At Penn State, the zonig code allows for houses only if the resident chapter is "affiliated" with the school.)

At last, something we agree on. Private organizations that want to be in complete control of their membership and operation should go ahead and be fully private. Sink or swim without bringing the university's name (or liability) into the equation.

Are you saying that University should have control over which orgs. you can join or not? Are you saying that rituals should be public to University or not the orgs. shouldn't be affiliated at all? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or read too much into what you said but it gives me that vibe.

I meant exactly what I said. The thread is about a university requiring recognized fraternities to keep high GPA's, do community service, etc. If you don't want the university controlling the standards of your organization that way, then go independent.

Interesting theory, but to point out the obvious...not many (if any) national GLO's could disaffiliate with their host institutions and remain chartered. I believe in nearly all cases it is required that chapters be recognized by their respective universities or colleges in order to say open. I do agree that if the Ad club doesn't have to have a certain collective GPA, or do so many hours of service to stay recognized by the administration then Greek house's shouldn't have to either.
Besides, again in the case of national organizations we have our own expectations and standards for recognition that cover those areas. Those standards are based on the priorities of our orgs as a whole, which naturally fall in line with the priorities of higher education: leadership, academics, service, etc.

The University of Colorado's Greek system seems to think different.

-Rudey

Sure, but let's get real -- the national organization can't be everywhere at once. Let's get real some more -- all over the country, chapters of national orgs with high standards and expectations violate the rules all the time. And when a university-recognized chapter does something stupid and someone dies, it's the university's butt on the line as well as the national group's. If the university has to accept that liability when it recognizes a group, it seems only fair that it should be able to keep an eye on the chapter, too (for its own sake).

National organizations that require university recognition of chapters are making a choice, and they can choose to change their minds if they want to keep those chapters. Some national orgs have been quite willing to overlook that rule when they got the opportunity to open a chapter at Harvard.

Question for the legal experts
 

Can a college/university legally require a different set of standards for students? Basically one set for those who wish to associate via an organization and one set for those who do not?

For example, if you are not involved in any extracurricular activities, then to graduate you would only need say a 2.0 GPA and you would not be required to perform any community service. However, if you elect to be involved (be it a GLO or the AV Club) you are required to have a 3.0 GPA and perform 10 hours of community service. Thus to graduate, a different set of standards are applied to a select few. The higher GPA and the requirement to perform community service. Frankly, that seems like a double standard and would not (should not) be legal.

And are there any legal precedents for this - one way or the other?