And unfortunately, I am acquainted with a few. Bless their hearts.

I believe one of the points in the lawsuit is that DePauw did not follow their established guidelines regarding the Code of Conduct and Hearings before deciding to expel Delta Zeta from their campus.
Their Code of Conduct and Hearing Procedures are posted on the DePauw website:
http://www.depauw.edu/univ/handbooks...5&parentid=420

This process is applicable to individual students or recognized campus organizations.




Hearing RulesWhenever a hearing is to be held regarding an alleged violation of the University’s Code of Conduct, the respondent shall be given at least 72 hours notice of the charges and of the date and time of the hearing. Failure of the respondent to attend the hearing will result in the case being heard in his/her absence.
All hearings shall be closed to everyone except the judicial board, appropriate staff, the respondent, advisor to the respondent (if students desire), observer/recorder, and witnesses during the actual time of their testimony.
The respondent is entitled to be present at the hearing, to hear and respond to evidence regarding the charges, and to present witnesses and other evidence.
The respondent is entitled to be accompanied by a DePauw faculty, staff or student hearing advisor. The advisor may not address the board but may consult with the respondent prior to and during the course of the hearing.
Witnesses must be members of the DePauw faculty, staff or student body unless the chair of the judicial board rules that others may appear in the interest of the case. The respondent must give names of all relevant witnesses to the Associate Dean of Students at least 24 hours prior to the hearing. The respondent will have access to the names of all witnesses. The judicial board may call additional witnesses or seek further evidence relating to a case if the board desires clarification or further information. It is the responsibility of the respondent to notify all witnesses of the date, time and place of a hearing. If witnesses fail to appear, the hearing shall be held in their absence.
All relevant information will be admissible. The chair, in consultation with the board, will determine relevance.
All evidence and testimony presented to the judicial board are expected to be truthful, accurate and complete. Failure to give truthful and complete testimony at a hearing may result in judicial action.
The judicial board will tape-record the hearing. The deliberations of the judicial board are not recorded. Following a hearing, students may request to review tapes in the Office of Student Affairs for purposes of preparing an appeal. Hearing tapes will not be released to students, and copies will not be made for students. Once the student has exhausted all avenues of appeal, as described in the Community Standards Process, the tapes will be destroyed.

If they are serious about this lawsuit, by the time they are done with it and stuff...I don't think your overreacting at all.

That's what NPC should be afraid of right now. I think every sorority will have to have a way to answer questions about this during recruitment for the next couple of semesters for sure.

I don't know, it's not as far-reaching as some might think. As a current collegian at a school with a chapter of Delta Zeta, I have seen no effect from this story whatsoever. It's almost as though no one heard about it, which is surprising, but I think there are going to be plenty of schools and chapters of DZ (and other sororities) completely unaware and uneffected by this whole ordeal.

Though if this lawsuit business is largely publicized I can see it being an issue during formal recruitment in the fall.

Wow, this is the story that just will not die. If this is the "right" course of action for DZ nationals, I don't know. However, what I am absolutely sure of is this... for however long this drags out, the headlines will read as follows:

Discriminatory Sorority files lawsuit.

Racist Sorority fights back.

Sorority on kicking out minorities and fat girls: "It's our right".


Total PR disaster. Their position, to the public, is indefensible. They should release a mea culpa, or crawl into a hole and hope the world forgets about this little snafu.

well it's not quite at that point yet, but the headline on yahoo does read "controversial sorority sues university over eviction"

Why don't they just let this die?!

It seems to me that DePauw should have the right to choose what organizations they have official ties with, especially as a private institution. I doubt they wanted the media sh*tstorm that surrounded this whole thing, and entirely kicking DZ off campus was the easiest way to get rid of it.

Seriously, DZ's HQ needs to realize DePauw doesn't want them and GET OVER IT. Move on, try to let the whole thing blow over.

And a federal judge would probably laugh at that. You could maybe get away with that with a trial level state court judge. But membership selection is the heart of this issue.

I don't want to see anyone's ritual get put into public record, but at the same time, DZ needs to realize that this could very likely come out.

Oh man. Saw this news on another site and had to come over here to see what everyone was saying.

I don't see how this can possibly help DZ IHQ, and it's the members (their own - and all of the other NPC's too, because you know most people don't know DZ from any other sorority) who are going to suffer.

What's the chances of the case being a) thrown out or b) settled out of court? DePauw may not want to fight, but they hold what looks to most people like the high moral ground here, so they might be willing to stick it out.

While it is a PR disaster, from a legal perspective, it might not be. Until we know exactly what is in the suit - and what relevant Indiana law is - there's no way to know whether or not the suit will succeed. And hey - it even depends on the judge. A good lawyer knows the law - a great lawyer knows the judge. No telling how this will play out - JMHO.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...703290488/1196

Based on this article, it says that the case was filed in US District Court in Terre Haute.

At this point, I'm surprised DZ didn't just let it rest. It had finally dropped off the news radar, but then last night it was back on the evening news and back in the Indianapolis Paper this morning. I'm not sure if this will hurt DZ nationally, but just from speaking with my friends here in Indy-- it's not helping them in Indiana.

Also, as soon as I heard this on the news last night, all I could think of was "I wonder what Greek Chat has to say about this". I wasn't dissapointed!

Thanks for the link, ForeverRoses. The possible suit by the former members is interesting - I guess if DZ can claim the University ruined its reputation, it only makes sense that the former (or alumnae?) members could claim the same of DZ. Of course, the DZ suit seems to be from a purely business perspective - sigh. Someone tell me when it's over!

No Kevster, I think the university is deciding that you shouldn't notify women a week before finals that they're not going to have a place to live when they get back from break - when you previously told them that they would.

If there's any sorority or fraternity that has a problem with that, they can just bite me.

This might go way above that - as far as things like exactly how they decide to select their members. For example, a girl has a 4.0 so she gets 25 points on their 100 point scale or something. (This is a pulled from my nether regions example and I'm not saying any group does this) This is stepping into ritual territory.

I find it interesting that the only thing on the DZ web site is information about this debacle. It is like this is their sole reason for existence now. Sad.

This whole debacle is not about our rights to decide who our members are. It's about how we treat those who already ARE members. It's about how much we can call ourselves sisterhoods and how much we should admit we are businesses.

This chapter has been in the state it was in, or should I say the tier it was on, for a long time. Did DZ really think they would be able to blow in and recolonize and have the perfect chapter for the centennial in a year's space of time?? At a school with 2500 students?? If they were really that worried about the chapter being around and healthy for the centennial, they should have done a recolonization and an image overhaul LONG before this.

As I understand it, DePauw did not have an official policy regarding releasing GLO members from their housing until AFTER the DZ incident. While no one condones the members being forced out on short notice, it should be noted that this was not against any University policy at the time it happened. Please correct me if I am wrong.
It is possible to do something which is WRONG, but not, for lack of a better term, illegal. DePauw also has a procedure in place to deal with both students and organizations which are in violation of university policies, and to the best of my knowledge they did not follow this in their handling of DZ.
No one looks good in this mess, but we need to distinguish between actions which we disapprove of and actions which may be illegal or in violation of established policies. The legal battle will be decided on a different criteria than the PR battle.
I think an important issue is whether or not an organization has the right to be boneheaded about handling their membership selection. As we've seen in the PR war, it carries its own penalty, without the University lifting a finger.
I imagine the next DZ convention will be far more interesting than most.

Sorry, not buying that (excuse me) crap. This isn't about "our rights". We are guests on campuses if we want to be recognized by the administration. We have to abide by their rules. I see no unfairness in this whatsoever. While some schools (UA, for instance) would probably take a HUGE hit in applications if they closed the greek system, most probably wouldn't.

This is NOT in any way shape or form about our rights to choose our own members. NO ONE has challenged that right. No one has even challenged the right to dismiss members, or force alumna status upon them. What has been challenged is the actions taken by the HQ of the organization, such as evicting sisters in the middle of the school year, and then not being consistent in statements to the public and to the school/susters. THAT was the final straw that resulted in the eviction of the entire chapter from DePauw. DePauw did NOT say that it was because of the membership review, though they obviously didn't approve of the manner in which that was conducted either (and that's their right, to disapprove).

This isn't about them somehow taking one for the team, for Greeks. They are systematically making themselves AND all of US look bad. They'll dig all the way to the center of the earth and beyond.

But what obligation legally is the university under to extend an invitation to a sorority to be recognized and then keep that no matter what? I just fail to see how DePauw or anyway school is obligated to recognize an organization, especially when they have brought continuous bad publicity and have been stubborn and obnoxious towards their host.

It isn't about membership selection. The only thing DePauw has done that is remotely related to membership selection is to make a rule that organizations can't dump those that they promised to treat as family out on their butts in the middle of a school year, unless there is a dangerous/legal issue involved (I would assume this means drugs, bodily harm, etc.). I fail to see how this is unfair. Maybe forcing organizations to plan far in advance when dealing with a situation such as the Delta chapter had will promote a more gentle and sisterly/brotherly attitude and force those in charge to have time to think about what they are doing.

If true, then I would not be surprised if the NPC, NIC, IFC, NPHC, Masons, Junior League and any organization that may involve ritual and or some sort of subjective or private (secrete) membership selection files some sort of "friend of the plaintiff" brief. (What ever the heck it might be called).

Kevster?

Anyone else think this may help DZ's recruitment next Fall? (or Spring) Girls who are so hooked on image and being a part of the beautiful sorority could be thinking to themselves "Well they kick out the ugly people, so if I can get in that means I'm pretty and hot!". Just thinking on a college freshman/high school perspective. Some girls just don't know about the sisterhood and committment that comes with being in a sorority. Some just want the partying and the boys.

I agree. Regardless of how individuals may feel about this, I'm sure GLO HQs (and the NPC, and the NIC, and the NPHC, and other groups) are quite concerned about the fall out as it may apply to *their* organizations.

No, I doubt it, because the way this is coming off to the general public is that you don't have to be pretty to GET in, you have to be pretty to STAY in, and your rolling the dice that whoever it is that's judging who's pretty and who's not thinks that you are.

Kevin O'Neill, the attorney. Not you, Stevester. LOL.

I'd also like to bring up the whole "the school told us to do a membership review" thing. As we have seen on GC many times, Boys And Girls Are Different. The membership review that's been referenced was conducted by a fraternity. I seriously, seriously doubt that the same criteria was used by them, or would be used by any fraternity, that would be used by DZ or any sorority. Men and women look for different things when choosing members. If anything, the pres of DePauw was naive in not realizing that.

Goodness! When I left to have dinner with my boyfriend yetserday afternoon, this thread was up to 2 pages. When I came home around 11:30, it had six or so!

I don't think membership selection will neccessarily be made public during the case. As people have said in the other thread, this is about kicking women who have already initiated out of the sorority (no matter how you word it, forcing someone into alum status while they are still undergraduates and while the GLO is still active, is "kicking out".) It has nothing to do with who gets in based on whatever. They aren't PNMs, they are initiated sisters.

As for ritual and its secrecy, I believe that there was a thread from long ago that talked about who outside might know about our ritual. I recall a post from OTW mentioning something that we were told at Convention. She said that people outside of our groups have to make ritual-related material, so yes, people have seen it. They just have no clue what things mean.

And Patton Boggs is a good firm. But I notice that he doesn't seem to be representing them in this lawsuit.

I've looked but haven't found it yet -- I am also unwilling to use the office PACER account to get it.

Ah, I remember when I was that naive. Sorry, Steven, but there are plenty of lawyers who regularly disprove that idea.

Yes.

As Dani said, there's little chance of that. Unless they can convince a judge that these are "trade secrets" -- which will be very difficult, I think, especially given that they're the ones who brought this lawsuit -- there's nothing privileged about this information. Private, yes; privileged, no.

Won't matter. DePauw is entitled to pursue and will be allowed to pursue any discovery regarding anything that is relevant to the matters involved in the lawsuit (which will include membership selection and retention criteria) or anything that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The scope of discovery is very broad.

With the caveat that I haven't read the complaint, it seems to me that the Delta Zeta leadership is getting some very, very bad advice. I don't see much good coming out of this for them.

DZ is suing DePauw, the former Delta DZs are considering suing DZ.

It sounds like DZ is going to be spending allot of money on court costs.

So who is going to pay for all of this? I assume DZ doesn't have some sort of legal fund, and I would assume that DePauw has deeper pockets that DZ and can drag this out for a fairly long time.

Plus from one of the previous articles, one of the "kicked-out" DZs has a father that is a partner at a prominent law firm here in Indy, so I'm sure that suit will have some pro-bono workers.

So is DZ going to send out letters to all alums asking for donations for legal fees?

Not legal advice, of course.
 

Madness!

Other lawyers have already correctly explained why privilege and the right to choose members freely are going to do zip to protect DZ in this case.

Someone several pages back suggested that perhaps the problem was that DePauw did not follow its own published grievance procedures in kicking out DZ.

It doesn't have to. In the absence of a two-sided contract referencing the grievance procedure -- like, say, a collective bargaining agreement between an employer and a union -- handbooks outlining internal procedures are unenforceable. They're instructions from the institution to its staff, NOT binding contracts with everyone who may interact with the institution.

Barring very unusual circumstances that aren't present here, any promises DePauw may have made about DZ coming back are likewise unenforceable. Both parties are sophisticated corporate entities, not consumers. If DZ wanted to make sure the university stuck to its word, they should have drawn up a contract. Otherwise, DePauw is perfectly entitled to change its mind and kick them out.

If this case moves forward, do you - or any other legal folk - anticipate any legal repercussions that might affect other fraternal organizations? More to the point, could this case set some sort of negative precedent?

Having recognized Delta Zeta, (a voluntary action on the part of DePauw) the school is bound by its own rules to treat it exactly as it said it would - through the University's self-written policies. That's why the policies are there in the first place - to ensure that all students and organization are treated equitably. Would any GLO want to go on at a college or university where they were subject to the whims of administrators? If so, those institutions which are anti-Greek (Cornell springs to mind) could just kick off the whole system without regard to the rights of the students and organizations. The students and organizations have obligations they must meet, as does the host institution. Again, I have yet to be presented with anything that shows that Delta Zeta received due process.
Am I the only one who sees the irony in DePauw kicking off DZ without due process because they "kicked out" (I know, I know) members without due process?
The policy - instituted AFTER the DZ debacle - that GLOs can't throw anyone out of the house mid-year is a good one. But it was not in place at the time Delta Zeta did so, and so Depauw can hardly say DZ did not meet their obligations. They can be upset, they can change the policy, but to throw out the chapter without going through the procedure THEY outline for transgressions by student organizations is to basically declare that the University is a dictatorship, not an institution built on a rule of law.
And whether or not a member is an active or an alumnae is indeed a membership issue. I married during college, and so became an alumna. Does the university have the right to say, no, she can remain active because we say so? I'd argue no - that is a membership issue for the GLO to decide.

Upon reading my previous post, I fear that I come off as too "pro-DZ" headquarters. That is not my intention. But I think it is dangerous to allow host institutions to throw out their own rule books when deciding how to deal with GLOs whose actions they do not approve of.
My earnest hope and prayer is that somehow this can be resolved before it goes to court. I don't see anyone really benefitting from a court battle. 'Cept the lawyers, of course.

From a non-legal standpoint, I think Delta Zeta appears to be on its face hypocritical.

On the one hand, they had no problem giving their own members the boot without any sort of process which made sense to anyone.

On the other hand, they're complaining when Depauw, a private school seems to have done exactly the same thing to Delta Zeta.

Legally, I know I'd be misstating the theory, but it seems to me that some species of equitable estoppel might operate as a strong defense for the University.

That aside, also legally, I don't believe that (absent a contractual duty) Depauw has any obligation to follow its own policies with regard to any matter. Those policies may provide some sort of intra-organization decision-making framework, but policies of private organizations generally do not operate as contractual obligations to the outside world.

Thank you for putting into words what I failed to communicate properly!

Yes it is really sad.

They can post a whole page about how they are trying to sue the pants off of DePauw, but they can only write a tiny 1-inch blurb about how they "are sorry for any hurt feelings" the reorg may have caused their own sisters.

As IvySpice said just a few posts ago, Delta Zeta really can't have a cause of action based on DePauw's failing to follow its internal policies.
That's very hard to say without actually reading the complaint that has been filed and DePauw's motion to dismiss or answer, that will be filed. At this point, we are all only speculating as to what the allegations and actual claims are, and what DePauw's defenses (and counter-claims, if any) will be, since they are what lay out the issues that will be decided in this case.

Okay, I'm curious. Can anyone with a legal background explain exactly what equitable estoppel is? I'm assuming it's something along the lines of it's unfair to hold people to standards you aren't willing to abide by yourself, but I know next to nothing about law.

Does anybody know what exactly happens when a new Greek org comes on campus? I know how expansion works, but are there any documents signed by the group, the school, and/or the local PHC? I just wonder if there is anything there that could become part of the case.

Thank you counselor. A few follow up questions if I may.

In your opinion, is this the type of case that might be tried before a jury? Or do you feel it will more likely be tried before a judge. Also, based on the merits as presented (real and perceived), what is your opinion on the case being outright dismissed?

estoppel

equitable estoppel

A type of estoppel that bars a person from adopting a position in court that contradicts his or her past statements or actions when that contradictory stance would be unfair to another person who relied on the original position. For example, if a landlord agrees to allow a tenant to pay the rent ten days late for six months, it would be unfair to allow the landlord to bring a court action in the fourth month to evict the tenant for being a week late with the rent. The landlord would be estopped from asserting his right to evict the tenant for late payment of rent. Also known as estoppel in pais.

I would guess it depends on the school and what services they - the school - might provide. Housing as an example. I'm sure there are other areas covered like risk management etc.