But, if private schools recieve any federal funding they have to follow certain rules. Now they can get around that. Such is the case at Grove City College in PA, they refuse any federal funding even stafford loans and pell grants, they won't take state funds either. They had problems with the feds before and some of their rules so they decided to pull the old "we don't take your money we don't have to follow your rules" approach.

I know my chapter is in a similar situation right now, although at a public school. We lost university recognition becuase they hate greek life, but, national still supports us 100%, there are threats but, if you can prove it is a community organization or find other forms of umbrellaing yourself it makes a stronger case.

I believe it is for exactly that reason that some private schools avoid taking federal money.

So?

Frankly, the rights of college students haven't always been observed by universities. There is a general attitude by most colleges of 'in parentis locale' (sorry if I mangled that latin), which means that the college/universities acts as if they are the student's parents in their absense. This is the basis of many school policies that have existed for decades ('you must do X because we say so, because its for your own good', etc) There have been issues with students right of free speech being recognized, issues of assembly, etc.

Thus, many schools will do stuff like approve/disapprove college organizations, and take action against those they don't want. This can include not allowing any GLOs, etc. This topic has been a subject thread in the past. I've been told by some students of issues with them trying to establish a chapter of my GLO, and being blocked by either other students (student body must approve new clubs/orgs) or the admin because they don't see the need for 'one more service group'.

Take a look at the past when, say, freshman were FORCED to wear certain types of clothing (beanies, etc). One school I know of had a mandatory sophomore organization whose only purpose for existing was to make sure these sort of traditions were followed by the freshman!

A lot of this sort of stuff has changed in the last few decades, but a lot of it still remains.

This is what has lead to things like 'unions' for graduate student to protect themselves, etc. Its as if the civil rights movement hasn't fully sunk in in the college world.

If by "use" the federal constitution you mean that private educational institutions cannot restrict the rights guaranteed by the Constitution (such as the right of free association), then that would be a big "nope."

The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, is the document that establishes the federal government and its powers and limitations, that defines the relationships between the states and the federal government, and that in some instances defines the relationship of private citizens to the government. Various amendments, both in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere, protect individual rights from governmental -- state or federal -- interference, but those constitutional provisions simply do not apply to private institutions.

With regard to the right to freely associate, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no laws . . . abriding the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people to peaceably assemble . . . " (The right of free association is based on these clauses, and the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states, including states-sponsored colleges, from infringing on the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment.) Congress can make laws prohibiting private institutions from violating civil rights, but private colleges are not prevented by the Constitution from prohibiting certain organizations on campus. One simply cannot claim that a private instutution has violated one's constitutional rights.

As far as receiving federal money goes, federal money cannot be used in an unconstitutional way, but that does not make the recipient of the federal money generally subject to the constitutional restrictions placed on government. The more common situation is that Congress attaches strings to the receipt of federal money -- if you want federal money, then you have to comply with those conditions. Private institutions choose not to receive federal funds so as not to have to deal with the conditions established by Congress.

But the Constitution only deals with the relationship between government and the governed, and between the federal and state governments.

MysticCat got this exactly right.

Unless Congress decides to pass a law requiring schools that accept federal money to allow national Greek life, how the school is funded doesn't enter into the question. If you don't like the rules your private school imposes, you have a Constitutional right to go elsewhere.

IvySpice: Congress has made rules about federal funding and what must be done if private institutions accept it. Such as they must follow certain constitutional requirements; freedom of speech, assembly, association. They just don't have to follow them as much as public institutions. The ball is in the institution's court if they want to recieve or decline federal funding. Either they want to play by the rules or they don't want the money that badly.

But that doesn't mean that the Constitution applies to private institutions; it means that Congress has, by statute, (or a federal department has, by regulation) put conditions on the receipt of federal funds. If it accepts the funds, the institution also accepts the conditions. It's a matter of contract. In exchange for federal funds, the instutition agrees to do/not do certain things. (And I certainly stand to be corrected, but I think IvySpice is right -- Congress has in no way mandated that private institutions that receive federal funds must, as a condition of receiving those funds, allow Greek life.)

The Constitution itself still doesn't apply, though. If someone wants to challenge what a private institution is doing based on receipt of federal funds, then they have to make a claim that the institution is violating the conditions of receiving the federal funds, and the institution may have to forfeit or pay back the federal funds for not complying with the conditions it accepted when it took the federal funds.

But no one can claim that the private institution violated their constitutional rights.

They don't have to allow Greek life, but they cannot prevent the students from forming Greek groups on their own without college recognition, or discipline them for doing so, which is what Bowdoin and some other schools tried to do.

"Federal funds" also applies to any federally affiliated scholarships.

Not so. To point out just one of many examples: if this were true, how could it be that BYU receives federal financial aid funding (http://saas-dev.byu.edu/depts/finaid/oview.aspx?lms=4) and yet requires its students to conform to a very strict code of sexual conduct (http://honorcode.byu.edu/Honor_Code_...tuous_Life.htm), even though viewing pornography (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...croft2004.html) and homosexual activity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas) are constitutionally protected rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, respectively?

Of course they can. What federal law would prevent it? The GOVERNMENT did not stop Bowdoin from punishing its students. It was an issue of alumni support and public relations. That has nothing to do with Congress, the Constitution, etc.

Actually, this is the most relevant law passed concerning this issue (Sponsored by a deke):




Freedom of Speech and Association on Campus Act of 1997

HR 980 IH

105th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 980
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to protect the speech and association rights of students attending institutions of higher education.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 6, 1997
Mr. LIVINGSTON (for himself, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. MICA, Mr. TIAHRT, and Mr. SENSENBRENNER)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to protect the speech and association rights of students attending institutions of higher education.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Speech and Association on Campus Act of 1997'.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF STUDENT SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION RIGHTS.

Title XII of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`SEC. 1214. PROTECTION OF STUDENT SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION RIGHTS.

`(a) PROTECTION OF RIGHTS- No student attending an institution of higher education on a full- or part-time basis shall, on the basis of protected speech and association, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination or official sanction under any education program, activity, or division directly or indirectly receiving financial assistance under this Act, whether or not such program, activity, or division is sponsored or officially sanctioned by the institution.

`(b) SANCTION-

`(1) IN GENERAL- No funds shall be made available under this Act to any institution of higher education that the Secretary finds, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, has violated subsection (a) of this section.

`(2) INAPPLICABILITY TO STUDENT ASSISTANCE- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any funds that are provided under this Act for student financial assistance.

`(c) EXCEPTION- This section shall not apply to an institution of higher education that is controlled by a religious or military organization, if the speech or association is not consistent with the religious tenets or military training of the institution.

`(d) SANCTIONS FOR DISRUPTION PERMITTED- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the imposition of an official sanction on a student that has willfully participated in the disruption or attempted disruption of a lecture, class, speech, presentation, or performance made or scheduled to be made under the auspices of the institution of higher education.

`(e) DEFINITIONS-

`(1) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION- The term `institution of higher education' has the meaning given in section 1201(a).

`(2) PROTECTED SPEECH- The term `protected speech' means speech that is protected under the 1st and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution, or would be so protected if the institution of higher education were subjected to those amendments.

`(3) PROTECTED ASSOCIATION- The term `protected association' means the right to join, assemble, and reside with others that is protected under the 1st and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution, or would be protected if the institution of higher education were subject to those amendments.

`(4) OFFICIAL SANCTION- The term `official sanction'--

`(A) means expulsion, suspension, probation, censure, condemnation, reprimand, or any other disciplinary, coercive, or adverse action taken by an institution of higher education or administrative unit of the institution; and

`(B) includes an oral or written warning made by an official of an institution of higher education acting in the official capacity of the official.'.

What you quoted is the bill as introduced, but not as actually enacted. The enacted version (Higher Education Amendments of 1998 [Public Law 105-244], § 112) was much weaker, only providing that

It is the sense of Congress that no student attending an institution of higher education on a full- or part-time basis should, on the basis of participation in protected speech or protected association, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination or official sanction under any education program, activity, or division of the institution directly or indirectly receiving financial assistance under this Act , whether or not such program, activity, or division is sponsored or officially sanctioned by the institution.

The version as enacted has no penalties or sanctions for institutions that don't agree with this "sense of Congress." In other words, this is nothing more than Congress's opinion -- all bark, no bite.

But both versions point up exactly what IvySpice and I have been saying -- that private institutions are not subject to the Constitution -- since both versions provide that:

The term "protected association" means the joining, assembling, and residing with others that is protected under the first and 14th amendments to the Constitution, or would be protected if the institution of higher education involved were subject to those amendments. and

The term "protected speech" means speech that is protected under the first and 14th amendments to the Constitution, or would be protected if the institution of higher education involved were subject to those amendments.

WOW, You are The Bomb!:)

Many Suppositions run rampant or rabid dont they?:(

The fraternities have houses very close but not on campus and they hold their functions there or at hotels. Can't advertise on campus such as during school festivals but you can tell people about events and wear your letters. Pretty much, you just don't have the school's support.