If the GLO is a student organization on the University's campus they can hold the GLO responsible as they could any other student organization. While they could not rescind the charter, they can stop recognizing the chapter on the campus or impose any other level of consequences as provided by their rules on student organizations.

I'm not seeing where the University actually did anything to the chapter except say that they would review the whole affair. And there is a provision for a chapter to be brought up in front of a Judicial Board if they hold an event that is considered questionable.

LOL.

University policies override many organization policies, as long as the organization hopes to be recognized and in good standing with the University.

They can sue all they want but the point has been made that the University CAN and it DID. :D

Those of you who think this is just about being politically correct, OKAY. That's why this stuff will keep happening and Universities and nhqs will keep handing out the sanctions.

ETA: Did the University do something beyond review the situation or has the nhq handed down the sanction?

hmm, that sounds about right. :mad: and cosign on the underlined.

No they can't. The University cannot abridge your Constitutional rights and call it "University policy." It simply isn't within their power.

The chapter has been put on social probation by the University. I'll bet they did all of this without even so much as a hearing. At public schools, you're entitled to certain things. Just because the school ignores the law, doesn't make the school right.

Quick research brought me to a case wherein Sigma Chi was sanctioned by George Mason University for having an "ugly woman" contest. In one of the skits, a fraternity member dressed up in "an offensive caricature of a black woman." The sanctioning was done because the fraternity's conduct was offensive and created a hostile environment to blacks and women (sound familiar?). The fraternity was given social probation for the rest of the semester and was put on probation for two years.

The fraternity sued under 42 U.S. 1983 (the Civil Rights Act) alleging that they had been deprived of Constitutional rights under the color of state law.

The 4th Circuit held that "[t]he University certainly has a substantial interest in maintaining an educational environment free of discrimination and racism, and in providing gender-neutral education. Yet it seems equally apparent that it has available numerous alternatives to imposing punishment on students based on the viewpoints they express. We agree wholeheartedly that it is the University officials' responsibility, even their obligation, to achieve the goals they have set. On the other hand, a public university has many constitutionally permissible means to protect female and minority students. We must emphasize, as have other courts, that “the manner of [its action] cannot consist of selective limitations upon speech.”

This is of course not binding on the N.D. courts, but it'd be extremely persuasive as this is almost exactly the same sort of situation.

The citation is 993 F.2d 386, (4th Cir., 1993) if anyone cares.

See my post above.. 42. U.S.C. 1983 says the school can't [legally] do this.

BOOOOO...HISSSSSSSSSSSS.....

Where was it said that the University put the chapter on social probation? The only mention of probation that I saw was in this thread and it was a passive sentence, no mention if HQ did it or if the University did.

And you just contradicted your post following this one. Technically the law does not, as of now, prohibit it unless a court rules since the previous precedent is not binding. "Persuasive" perhaps, but "illegal" is just an opinion at this point.

The student newspaper says that the group was placed on social suspension.

http://media.www.dakotastudent.com/m...-3289876.shtml

I doesn't contradict my argument at all to acknowledge that situations such as this rarely come up, so this would be a matter of first impression for the North Dakota courts. I've found the only federally reported case wherein a public school sanctioned a fraternity for offensive conduct. The law here is pretty simple. That's why these cases don't go to the federal courts. It's very likely that the university will back down after a call from a lawyer. If not, they're going to risk hundreds of thousands in attorney's fees (the school pays the plaintiff's fees plus whatever else if it loses). They'll back down considering the only law on the books heavily favors Gamma Phi Beta.

The article doesn't say who placed them on suspension which is my question. Gotta hate the passive voice.
ETA: rereading it looks like it is a prohibition from holding events with other organizations. (And probably university imposed) Does that suspension differ significantly from the one imposed in the case you cited? Would including potential punishments for events that are considered inappropriate in the student organization charter make a difference? What about the PHC Judicial Board review?

And while it may be true that the law favors the GLO, would it have to be HQ that fights it or the chapter? Either way, it is unclear that either chapter or HQ would be interested in fighting a "it's ok for us to wear warpaint" case.
I only object to calling the University's actions, if it was the university, illegal since it appears it is questionable, but would likely require a ruling to clarify.

Given the years of controversary about the symbolization of Native Americans, especially at UND, I find it hard to believe that these young ladies did not know it would be offensive.

The University can't sanction speech, period. It's that simple. Not the university itself or any of its surrogates, e.g., student courts, student government, etc.

What could happen here is Gamma Phi Beta's HQ could sanction the chapter or possibly Panhellenic could do something.

The school's actions are not "questionably" illegal. They just are. Schools just cannot do this sort of thing, although they try to all the time. Schools probably do this because they don't think anyone will stand up to them.

I think you're right -- in this case, it looks like the group has decided to take the path of least resistance. If it were my group, I'd be strongly urging them to fight. University policies still have to follow the Constitution.

The Constitution says that the government cannot enjoin your speech except for in a handful of situations. Wearing indian costumes to a party doesn't happen to be an exception. It doesn't present a "clear and present danger" to anyone, it doesn't urge anyone to illegal action, it's not obscene, not child pornography, etc.

If the University had the power to do this, it would follow that the states would be able to outlaw groups such as the Black Panthers, Aryan Nation, etc. for their speech -- and I'm sure you know for a fact that they can't.

Perhaps they knew and just didn't care? To me, it doesn't matter if something I does happens to offend a few hippies or native american activists or whatnot.

Heck.. me opening my trap to defend these girls has probably shaved a year off of someone's life already. I guess I should wait for the process server to serve me those papers since I clearly "discriminated" against someone.

I can think of any number of themed parties, e.g. white trash, gangsta & ho, or toga (alert the Greco-Roman anti defamation league!) which happen routinely all over the country, rarely drawing any criticism whatsoever. This is no different than any of those cases except the connection to a race of people and the relevance of stereotypes is probably even more tenuous than usual.

This really isn't a Panhellenic matter. Panhellenic is for intersorority cooperation. Now if they had all put on fat suits and wore another sorority on campus's letters, THAT would be a Panhellenic matter.

If there's a Greek council with members of all the fraternities and sororities included that holds court on judicial matters, this would be more their terrain.

As long as it's not the University or a surrogate thereof, give it the Nobel Prize.

It isn't as cut and dry as Kevin is presenting it. That case had to go before court to set some precedent but that precendent will not apply in every instance.

Free speech isn't a free-for-all, so students' "free speech" is not a free-for-all. That applies to student organizations, as well. The University can regulate certain words and actions and tell students the appropriate forums for their expressions. Every college and university has a student handbook that make it clear that free speech is respected but that no one has the right to create an offensive and hostile environment.