GreekChat.com Forums
Page 5 of 9 1234 5 6789
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   Greek Life (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   A Multicultural Sorority? (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=95408)

breathesgelatin 04-14-2008 09:02 PM
1983 is a long way from 2008.

There's no way in heck Kevin will ever get what he wants because Gamma Phi is NOT going to sue the school. They would be insane to do so, even if they would win. It would just be a disaster for them.

The chapter will not sue because Gamma Phi HQ will surely not support them. If the chapter were to sue without HQ's permission, they would surely have their charter revoked.

So Kevin - your point is useless. No one is going to sue.

Actually, I'm less disgusted by the Gamma Phi party than I am by the event in question in the 1983 court case you cited. An "Ugly Woman Party"? Wow.

Kevin 04-14-2008 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by breathesgelatin (Post 1634465)
1983 is a long way from 2008.
So do you think the Constitutional allowance for free speech is now less than it was back then?

Quote:
So Kevin - your point is useless. No one is going to sue.
It's an academic point. Schools don't have the legitimate power to do jack squat to organizations who (omg) offend people.

Quote:
Actually, I'm less disgusted by the Gamma Phi party than I am by the event in question in the 1983 court case you cited. An "Ugly Woman Party"? Wow.
Actually, the Sigma Chi thing was waaaay more extreme -- this was a contest where brothers did skits dressed up as unpleasing females. Here's a quote from the factual statement of the court:

"He was painted black and wore stringy, black hair decorated with curlers, and his outfit was stuffed with pillows to exaggerate a woman's breasts and buttocks. He spoke in slang to parody African-Americans."

-- if this is permissible, surely a little war paint at a party works. This case was in 1992. If you're referring to 42 U.S.C. 1983 is the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (it's been amended and expanded since then). It forbids anyone, under color of state law (a university) from depriving people of constitutional rights. Here, the University has clearly violated the terms of that Act.

But I guess to some, being PC is more important than the Constitution. Shameful.

DSTCHAOS 04-14-2008 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by gee_ess (Post 1634345)
PC sensitivity training
Wording it this way undermines the seriousness and significance of it.

preciousjeni 04-14-2008 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1634541)
Wording it this way undermines the seriousness and significance of it.
THANK YOU, Chaos.

starang21 04-14-2008 11:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1634053)
I don't think portraying the physical characteristics of another race is per se offensive.

because you're not the one who is being offended.

starang21 04-14-2008 11:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1634494)
So do you think the Constitutional allowance for free speech is now less than it was back then?



It's an academic point. Schools don't have the legitimate power to do jack squat to organizations who (omg) offend people.



Actually, the Sigma Chi thing was waaaay more extreme -- this was a contest where brothers did skits dressed up as unpleasing females. Here's a quote from the factual statement of the court:

"He was painted black and wore stringy, black hair decorated with curlers, and his outfit was stuffed with pillows to exaggerate a woman's breasts and buttocks. He spoke in slang to parody African-Americans."

-- if this is permissible, surely a little war paint at a party works. This case was in 1992. If you're referring to 42 U.S.C. 1983 is the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (it's been amended and expanded since then). It forbids anyone, under color of state law (a university) from depriving people of constitutional rights. Here, the University has clearly violated the terms of that Act.

But I guess to some, being PC is more important than the Constitution. Shameful.
if you do something that offends a group, don't get mad when that groups says something. just as much as you have a right to offend, they have a right to say something about it. if you don't like the controversy that comes along, why do it in the first place?

Kevin 04-14-2008 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by starang21 (Post 1634591)
if you do something that offends a group, don't get mad when that groups says something. just as much as you have a right to offend, they have a right to say something about it. if you don't like the controversy that comes along, why do it in the first place?
I fully support the Native American students' right to protest and condemn Gamma Phi Beta for their actions. That's their right. Speech is and should be a two way street.

It seems that the school and the Native American groups would disagree.

What they don't get to do is use the machinery of the state to accomplish their mission. At least not legally. Gamma Phi Beta, admittedly is letting them get away with that though.

starang21 04-14-2008 11:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1634594)
I fully support the Native American students' right to protest and condemn Gamma Phi Beta for their actions. That's their right. Speech is and should be a two way street.

It seems that the school and the Native American groups would disagree.

What they don't get to do is use the machinery of the state to accomplish their mission. At least not legally. Gamma Phi Beta, admittedly is letting them get away with that though.
i don't think if they were to file a suit, that it would hold much water. this local chapter has every right to do what it wants, because it's a group of adults in it. however, the national body also has a right to say screw you to the local chapter if it has violated some of the bylaws or conduct rules of the organization.

Kevin 04-14-2008 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by starang21 (Post 1634598)
i don't think if they were to file a suit, that it would hold much water. this local chapter has every right to do what it wants, because it's a group of adults in it. however, the national body also has a right to say screw you to the local chapter if it has violated some of the bylaws or conduct rules of the organization.
I don't disagree a bit as to their HQ. If the chapter did file suit, see above. It'd win. The question isn't even close. Apparently, and the article is unclear what this "discrimination action" is, but some group of Native Americans has filed some sort of discrimination complaint. I don't know if that's with the school or if it's a federal case. Whichever it is, it's completely meritless.

-- of course by "they" you could be referring to anyone.

starang21 04-14-2008 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1634053)
Blackface is something which has its own sordid history. We know why that's offensive.

"Redface" has no such history. I don't think portraying the physical characteristics of another race is per se offensive.
i did just want some clarification on this. are you saying practices such as "yellow, brown, red, >insert color<face" aren't neseccarily offensive, however blackface is?

starang21 04-15-2008 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1634605)
I don't disagree a bit as to their HQ. If the chapter did file suit, see above. It'd win. The question isn't even close. Apparently, and the article is unclear what this "discrimination action" is, but some group of Native Americans has filed some sort of discrimination complaint. I don't know if that's with the school or if it's a federal case. Whichever it is, it's completely meritless.

-- of course by "they" you could be referring to anyone.
as legally unviable as the suit might be, quite possibly the real goal of this was to bring negative attention to the chapter. and the native american group is well within their right to "complain."

Kevin 04-15-2008 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by starang21 (Post 1634609)
as legally unviable as the suit might be, quite possibly the real goal of this was to bring negative attention to the chapter. and the native american group is well within their right to "complain."
If they brought it as a federal case, they can count on being sanctioned by the court for filing a frivolous action. These kids don't even have standing, let alone a legally viable theory.

A suit filed in bad faith like that can only be bad for the person filing it. I'm assuming that this is through the university's internal student complaints system. That seems the most likely forum.

kddani 04-15-2008 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1634623)
If they brought it as a federal case, they can count on being sanctioned by the court for filing a frivolous action.
Lol. If only they really sanctioned people for bringing frivolous suits. There are plenty of crazy people out there who file suits that you can't even comprehend the writing, let alone understand whether or not they have standing or anything else. They don't get sanctioned. You have to repeatedly file outlandish suits to get anything. I defend clients in "frivolous" lawsuits everyday, including in federal court.

You shouldn't make these legal issues sound so absolute. You've been acting like its black and white in this entire thread. If you've been to even one law school class, you should know that nothing in the law is ever black and white. Have you graduated and passed the bar yet?

A 4th Circuit case from 1993 doesn't hold a ton of weight. It may in the 4th circuit, but it wouldn't be a precedent throughout the rest of the country. 15 years later, courts change, things change, and who knows what would happen if the issue were revisited.

Kevin 04-15-2008 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kddani (Post 1634672)
Lol. If only they really sanctioned people for bringing frivolous suits.
True. :)

It couldn't be a federal case anyhow. I don't think there's any such cause of action.

Quote:
A 4th Circuit case from 1993 doesn't hold a ton of weight. It may in the 4th circuit, but it wouldn't be a precedent throughout the rest of the country. 15 years later, courts change, things change, and who knows what would happen if the issue were revisited.
I couldn't find anything going the other way. Not even close. This is one of those rare situations where it is pretty black and white. The fact remains that there's no such power of the state to condemn speech that is simply offensive to some people.

Taking it to an extreme again, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Supreme Court (see, binding) held that a St. Paul statute banning hate speech (I guess you could call the war paint hate speech) was unconstitutional. The defendant in that case was a KKK member who had burned a cross in a black person's yard.

We're talking about a college trying to assert a content-based attack on free speech. It ain't happenin'.

starang21 04-15-2008 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1634623)
If they brought it as a federal case, they can count on being sanctioned by the court for filing a frivolous action. These kids don't even have standing, let alone a legally viable theory.

A suit filed in bad faith like that can only be bad for the person filing it. I'm assuming that this is through the university's internal student complaints system. That seems the most likely forum.
however, while this might not actually hold any water in the court of law.....this is hardly a frivolous issue, and thus would probably not get any sort of sanction. and by calling it (the suit) frivolous, are you saying that the native american group has no basis to be offended? and you still haven't answered my other question.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:48 PM.
Page 5 of 9 1234 5 6789
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.