GreekChat.com Forums

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   Greek Life (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   kappa sigma at fgcu? (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=109076)

DrPhil 04-12-2010 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916109)
This is the argument right here Knight Rider, and I'm being serious.

Hey, KSigAdvil, his username is knight_shadow.


Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916109)
This is the precise rule we think is unconstitutional. FGCU is basically inventing a rule that in order to be a registered student organization that we have to "have membership in a governing council" aka "we have to be recognized by the IFC." Such a rule puts our civil liberties in the hands of our fellow students, which is unconstitutional. Neither you nor I have the right to tel any other student he can't be recognized by the university unless we, as a "governing council" recognizes him first. Post Brown v. Board of Education, the gov't (FGCU) can't deny us right simply because our fellow citizens (IFC, Greeks, students) don't want us around. We all have rights regardless of what others want!! This is America, we are all equal!!!! That is our entire point.

This is so hilarious.

This is one of the worst and most circular threads ever.

knight_shadow 04-12-2010 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916109)
However, in order to be recognized as a GLO, it sounds like you need to have membership in a governing council.

There we go!! This is the argument right here Knight Rider, and I'm being serious. This is the precise rule we think is unconstitutional. FGCU is basically inventing a rule that in order to be a registered student organization that we have to "have membership in a governing council" aka "we have to be recognized by the IFC." Such a rule puts our civil liberties in the hands of our fellow students, which is unconstitutional. Neither you nor I have the right to tel any other student he can't be recognized by the university unless we, as a "governing council" recognizes him first. Post Brown v. Board of Education, the gov't (FGCU) can't deny us right simply because our fellow citizens (IFC, Greeks, students) don't want us around. We all have rights regardless of what others want!! This is America, we are all equal!!!! That is our entire point.

FGCU did not invent this rule. Many schools require council membership for liability purposes.

So it sounds like your issue is not with FGCU, but with IFC, an entity that does not want you at this time.

DrPhil 04-12-2010 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916116)
Knight Shadow, just in case it isn't clear, Title 9 is federal legislation. It is the law. Federal law preempts state law vis a vis something called the supremacy clause. Title 9 expressly gives fraternities and sororities the right to operate as gender-specific organizations. As such, FGCU can't invent a rule challenging our single-gender status, because it's FEDERAL LAW. Make sense?

Is this what you consider common knowledge regarding Title IX or simply your interpretation of how this pertains to FGCU?

Oh and we have threads about Title IX.

knight_shadow 04-12-2010 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916116)
Knight Shadow, just in case it isn't clear, Title 9 is federal legislation. It is the law. Federal law preempts state law vis a vis something called the supremacy clause. Title 9 expressly gives fraternities and sororities the right to operate as gender-specific organizations. As such, FGCU can't invent a rule challenging our single-gender status, because it's FEDERAL LAW. Make sense?

Being condescending doesn't help move things along, dickhead.

What rule has FGCU created that challenges your single-sex status?

Rambler1869 04-12-2010 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1916113)
FGCU did not invent this rule. Many schools require council membership for liability purposes.

So it sounds like your issue is not with FGCU, but with IFC, an entity that does not want you at this time.

Not necessarily; the school does need all groups to be registered, provide a copy of bylaws, and list of all members for liability purposes; but that's just about it. The governing body is a seperate matter.

The fight is with FGCU, not the IFC. A group of students, does not have the right to ban a lawful group of students to form an organization. They can prevent that group from being members of their own organization (IFC can vote no to IFC recognition; but they cannot vote to have them not form at all). However, the school itself, by equal protection laws is still bound to let every organization apply to become a registered student organization.

DrPhil 04-12-2010 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1916121)
What rule has FGCU created that challenges your single-sex status?

Based on the long windedness of his posts, I conclude that he doesn't know. This is just a data dump of legal stuff that he thinks pertains to this instance.

Signed,
Dr. (no quotations) Phil

knight_shadow 04-12-2010 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916122)
See what we are dealing with MysticCat? random users jump on and insult us, like "Dr" Phil. They ignore legally valid arguments, and simply take shots, which is easy to do- sit back, say nothing and take shots at people. And then you complain when we respond? Please, don't stick up for Dr. Phil.

Knight Shadow, our issue is with FGCU. IFC can deny us the right to be in IFC. IFC is a bunch of students and can do whatever it wants. FGCU, however, can't deny us the right to be a student organization simply because IFC doesn't want us around. IFC and FGCU aren't one in the same. Make sense?

Wait...IFC and FGCU are separate entities? Whodathunkit??

You still haven't answered any questions asked of you.

DrPhil 04-12-2010 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916124)
Dr Phil, I don't think understanding of Title 9 is common knowledge, you have to read it and study it.

Let us know when you have done so.

redundancy/
What KSigAdvisor needs to understand is that this isn't about him. The issue of GLO recognition by colleges and universities is a longstanding one, as indicated by the posts on previous pages (before people got tired). Students and alum need to understand the how tos, whys, and hows before they get angry with institutions and feel as though insitutions are imposing upon their "legal rights." There are institutions that are violating rules and regulations (and/or "legal rights"), but that is not to be assumed just because you are told NO or whatever.
/redundancy

knight_shadow 04-12-2010 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1916112)
Hey, KSigAdvil, his username is knight_shadow.

iChuckled :)

knight_shadow 04-12-2010 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler1869 (Post 1916123)
Not necessarily; the school does need all groups to be registered, provide a copy of bylaws, and list of all members for liability purposes; but that's just about it. The governing body is a seperate matter.

The fight is with FGCU, not the IFC. A group of students, does not have the right to ban a lawful group of students to form an organization. They can prevent that group from being members of their own organization (IFC can vote no to IFC recognition; but they cannot vote to have them not form at all). However, the school itself, by equal protection laws is still bound to let every organization apply to become a registered student organization.

Your organization was formed.

You needed to be a member of a Greek council to be a Greek organization.

You were allowed (by FGCU) to petition for membership in IFC.

IFC didn't want you right now. You'll have to wait.

TSteven 04-12-2010 01:28 PM

Thank you Rambler1869 for your posts. If I may, I have a few questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler1869 (Post 1916071)
There is no policy at FGCU that says a fraternity cannot colonize without being approved. There is a punishment policy that involves initiating members; but that's it. In that regard, to date Kappa Sigma has not violated any policies of FGCU.

In terms of their wishes, the school also cannot prohibit any group from forming (freedom to assemble).

If this is true, then why has it taken from November 2008 to March 2010 to begin the process to become an RSO at FGCU?

Frankly, Kappa Sigma should have a number of alumni members that are attorneys. So if no rules were broken, then they should have been able to guide y'all through the legal paperwork rather effortlessly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler1869 (Post 1916021)
Even the Assistant General Counsel for FGCU has issued a written statement to Kappa Sigma early March, which says any individual student can reserve meeting rooms. When attempting to reserve a meeting space, that exact letter was presented and individual student was still denied.

What was the specific (official) reason for the denial?

knight_shadow 04-12-2010 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916129)
Knight Shadow, I don't think calling you out is productive, but facts are facts, and you are wrong on your liability comment. Creative a fictitious "governing body" does not absolve FGCU from liability in any way. Unless you can provide proof, I believe you completely made up that comment. One thing you are right about is that "many" universities adopt this policy, but listen on. PRIVATE universities adopt this policy because they can do whatever they want. They are private and can ban all fraternities if they'd like. FGCU is a public university and an arm of the State of Florida. Being a governmental entity, they cannot operate this way. If they hold steadfast to the position that they can, then we will have to duke it out in court someday, but we are hoping to avoid litigation because it is costly and lengthy. In the meantime, the undergraduates are being punished unfairly. They are being denied the same rights you enjoy, and that is unfair to them.

LOL

You can believe I made up the comment if you want.

It's clear that you think talking in circles and throwing a "XXX v. YYY" in your lengthy responses shows that you know what you're talking about.

If you feel that your rights have been violated, stop bitching to random usernames and take it up in court. If your argument is as strong as you think it is, you should be on FGCU's campus in no time.

DrPhil 04-12-2010 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916135)
"You needed to be a member of a Greek council to be a Greek organization."

No, we don't, according to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. We don't have to be accepted by IFC to be recognized by FGCU.

Oh wow.

Rambler1869 04-12-2010 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1916130)
Your organization was formed.

You needed to be a member of a Greek council to be a Greek organization.

You were allowed (by FGCU) to petition for membership in IFC.

IFC didn't want you right now. You'll have to wait.

Formed, off campus - not using school facilities. This goes back to the heart of the issue.

You do not need to be a member of a Greek council to be a Greek organization; this is a very common misconception.

The point, was being allowed to become a Registered Student Organization; which can be outside of IFC. As you do not need to be part of the Greek Council, to be a Greek organization; IFC recognition would be the ideal route, however it isnt needed to be a fraternity on a public university. As it stands, these men were denied the right to even apply as an RSO.

knight_shadow 04-12-2010 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler1869 (Post 1916138)
Formed, off campus - not using school facilities. This goes back to the heart of the issue.

You do not need to be a member of a Greek council to be a Greek organization; this is a very common misconception.

The point, was being allowed to become a Registered Student Organization; which can be outside of IFC. As you do not need to be part of the Greek Council, to be a Greek organization; IFC recognition would be the ideal route, however it isnt needed to be a fraternity on a public university. As it stands, these men were denied the right to even apply as an RSO.

If you want to be recognized by the school as a GLO and the school requires GLOs to have council membership, then yes, you do.

Psi U MC Vito 04-12-2010 01:36 PM

Look, I don't see how they are discriminating agianst you. You aren't recognized, because they require IFC membership, or at least that is what I think is the issue. However, for them to be discriminating against you, they would have to be specifically punishing you for being a member of Kappa Sigma, which they are not doing. Oh news flash, there are quite a few state organizations that run like this. No law is violated, because as I said, they are not punishing you. Hell if anything, you want them to hold you to a different standard then anybody else. That is discriminatory against them.

DrPhil 04-12-2010 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916131)
Dr. Phil, quit taking shots, we are trying to be productive, and I think we are past the name calling.

No.

Rambler1869:
There are a lot of institutions that will not allow organizations to charter a chapter unless they will automatically or eventually be under a Greek council. This allows all GLOs to be under an "umbrella" so that this "umbrella" (in combination with the local/regional or district/national entities of the GLOs) can keep it all in check. Then the Greek Life offices and the institutions have a context through which they can impose their rules and regulations.

People used to say that the rules and regulations of their GLOs supercede those of the institutions, but it actually works the other way around much of the time because the institutions are "allowing" them to be on that campus.

knight_shadow 04-12-2010 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916142)
What are you "Oh, wowing," Dr. Phil? Please provide support under any law of this State of federally where it is legal to deny recognition to students because their fellow students don't want them around. Please.

Again, we will win in court, but if we can avoid it, we will. So you guys know, filing a complaint in federal court and going through the first few stages can cost up the $50,000. We don't waste fraternity capital on lawsuits until we absolutely have to. It's called being fiscally responsible. We focus on keeping our undergraduate dues and liability costs among the cheapest in the fraternal world.

Then why the hell are you complaining about it here? What do you think we, as usernames, are going to do to change the outcome?

Psi U MC Vito 04-12-2010 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916147)
Vito I'm going to say this as nicely as I can, but you are dead wrong. Legally and no offense, you have absolutely no idea what you re talking about. I don't think you're stupid because you are wrong, so don't get all offended on me. But legally, dead wrong.

"If you want to be recognized by the school as a GLO and the school requires GLOs to have council membership, then yes, you do."

Knight Shadow, so you think it's constitutional for the school to allow other students (IFC members) to say whether we can or can't be an organization? Slippery slope. You won't find support for that theory in any doctrine legally, anywhere, but hey, it's your opinion.

Again, I will ask you, do you even have any legal trianing. We have somebody who most would argue is a Constitutional scholar, telling you are talking out of your ass. You just keep saying something is illegal without explaining how it is. And I do know what I am talking about, considering I went to a state school that also require a social GLO to be recognized by our IFSC before being granted recognizance by the OGL.

knight_shadow 04-12-2010 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916147)
Vito I'm going to say this as nicely as I can, but you are dead wrong. Legally and no offense, you have absolutely no idea what you re talking about. I don't think you're stupid because you are wrong, so don't get all offended on me. But legally, dead wrong.

"If you want to be recognized by the school as a GLO and the school requires GLOs to have council membership, then yes, you do."

Knight Shadow, so you think it's constitutional for the school to allow other students (IFC members) to say whether we can or can't be an organization? Slippery slope. You won't find support for that theory in any doctrine legally, anywhere, but hey, it's your opinion.

I'll say it again: You still haven't answered questions asked of you.

I won't find any support, yet schools around the country practice it. All of a sudden, a group of undergrads feels they're entitled to something, and it's dead wrong.

Like TSteven said, if your rights were violated, KSig's lawyers likely would have stepped in.

They haven't.

Rambler1869 04-12-2010 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSteven (Post 1916134)
Thank you Rambler1869 for your posts. If I may, I have a few questions.



If this is true, then why has it taken from November 2008 to March 2010 to begin the process to become an RSO at FGCU?

Frankly, Kappa Sigma should have a number of alumni members that are attorneys. So if no rules were broken, then they should have been able to guide y'all through the legal paperwork rather effortlessly.



What was the specific (official) reason for the denial?

Missed this post earlier. The reason it has taken so long; is because the school (on multiple occasions) had refused to even issue the RSO application; because of their single-gender status as a fraternity. After the news story ran; the school did issue an application that is currently in the works; however there is still debate surrounding the single-sex protection.

Kappa Sigma does have a number of alumni who are attorney's and a number of them are currently working with the FGCU legal department (outside of formal litigation) to attempt to resolve the matter peacefully; as it is our belief that neither side wants to go that route. However, please do not take that as we wont; we just believe it should be a last resort scenario. We would have much prefered the entire issue been handled peacefully; which is why its only been until fairly recently that many of you became aware of the situation at all; as we were trying to work with the school rather than against it.

The official denial (oral, not written) was that they knew it was for a fraternity, which needed IFC recognition. Please note, the individual did not say or write that the room was for Kappa Sigma. As crazy as that sounds; its unfortunately how it went down.

DrPhil 04-12-2010 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916152)
Those "umbrellas" are a legal fallacy, and are only legal at PRIVATE institutions. FGCU can't force fraternities to be under a Greek umbrella any more than they can force a religious organization to be under a religious council umbrella. Treating Greeks differently is discrimination. And forcing all greeks through the same discriminatory process doesn't make it constitutional. some people operate under teh assumption that this "umbrella" is legal and necessary to "enforce rules." We don't, that's it.

WRONG.

TSteven 04-12-2010 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916139)
Very fair question TSteven, and I hope you'll let me answer.

FGCU wouldn't even let us apply to be an RSO. We had multiple meetings with the administration, and we were told we couldn't apply unless IFC recognized us. Finally, once we got media coverage and put enough pressure on the university, they gave us an application to apply, and I swear on anyone's grave that is the god's honest truth- FGCU wouldn't even let us apply and they told us (orally) time and time again, including the Dean of Students and the VP of student Affairs that they wouldn't recognize us unless IFC did first. As you should know, IFC also denied us the right to even go to a meeting and give a presentation until March 2010. So, unfortunately, things take forever.

If I correctly understand the current situation, at this point in time, your chapter's application to be an RSO is being reviewed by FGCU. And y'all were able to give a presentation to the IFC this past March.

So would it be fair to say that progress is being made regarding recognition by FGCU as a RSO and with the IFC as an official chapter - or colony as the case may be?

And as a follow up, what was the specific (official) reason for the denial with respect to the attempt to reserve a meeting space?

Rambler1869 04-12-2010 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1916151)
Like TSteven said, if your rights were violated, KSig's lawyers likely would have stepped in.

They haven't.

Yes, they did. In February a formal notification was sent by the Kappa Sigma legal commision to FGCU, stating our position; in hopes of a speedy turn around. As I mentioned earlier; there are other talks in the works between the legal teams

knight_shadow 04-12-2010 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler1869 (Post 1916158)
Yes, they did. In February a formal notification was sent by the Kappa Sigma legal commision to FGCU, stating our position; in hopes of a speedy turn around. As I mentioned earlier; there are other talks in the works between the legal teams

I think you should tell KSigAdvisor to stop talking, as you're a better representation of your organization.

If the wheels are turning and you all are working toward getting this resolved, why is this being debated on a message board? Why not let this thing run its course?

Psi U MC Vito 04-12-2010 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916152)
Those "umbrellas" are a legal fallacy, and are only legal at PRIVATE institutions. FGCU can't force fraternities to be under a Greek umbrella any more than they can force a religious organization to be under a religious council umbrella. Treating Greeks differently is discrimination. And forcing all greeks through the same discriminatory process doesn't make it constitutional. some people operate under teh assumption that this "umbrella" is legal and necessary to "enforce rules." We don't, that's it.

Yes, but campus religious organizations also will not keep out people not of their faith. greek orginzations are treated differently, because they are run differently. they are exclusinary by nature. By requiring it to be part of an umbrella, they are really recognizing the umbrella organization. By doing so, they are recognizing a group that theroetically any male student can be a member of. Perfect example of the difference between IFC and individual organization is the mutually exclusive nature of them.

DrPhil 04-12-2010 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1916151)
I won't find any support, yet schools around the country practice it. All of a sudden, a group of undergrads feels they're entitled to something, and it's dead wrong.

This would make an excellent thread.

Quite a few of us have experience with institutions that perceivably have annoying and sucky Greek Life rules and regulations. Annoying and sucky do not equal illegal. However, that's why all of our organizations have attorneys.

Good luck to the KSig attorneys who will determine whether it's worth it and able to be ironed out. However, honestly, there are plenty of ways that institutions can informally make GLOs' existences a living hell after they've essentially forced themselves on campus.

knight_shadow 04-12-2010 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916160)
The constitutional scholar and I have debated Supreme Court case law, and every day in Court legally trained scholars are on opposite sides of their view. I don't begrudge you guys for thining these "umbrellas" are okay, that's your opinion. I'm telling you we don't think they are constitutional. Just because every state at one point practiced separate but equal didn't make it right. Playing the yeah well a lot of states or schools discriminate so it must be okay card will get you murdered in law school or court. But finally we're arguing over the merits, so we got somewhere. We weren't' given any rules to follow, we were told no thanks. We are challenging an unconstitutional "umbrella" provision that you guys think it legal just because you either went to school somewhere (likely private) that had the same practice or simply because you don't know any other way. Finally we are passed the "you guys didn't follow the rules" arguments and on to the merits. It is unconstitutional to require fraternities to gain acceptance under this "umbrella" are we aren't the first fraternity to challenge this provision. also, not sure how you guys mock citing legal precedent, especially when your arguments are basically "my school did it that way." It is precisely those insufficient arguments that make me feel strongly that if we do end up in court, we will win in a landslide.

THEN STOP TALKING ABOUT IT HERE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

DrPhil 04-12-2010 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916162)
Rambler is an excellent advocate, a scholar and a gentlemen. Similarly, TSteven should be the only one talking for your side, he does a way better job than you all.

Nevermind, knight_shadow started it. LOL.

Rambler1869 04-12-2010 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 1916159)
If the wheels are turning and you all are working toward getting this resolved, why is this being debated on a message board? Why not let this thing run its course?

Like I said (if it really matters); we didnt start this. I just jumped in, because of all the misinformation that I had read by outside individuals.

I would love to say its all getting "worked out"... but unfortunately it has taken a lot longer and more pressure from Kappa Sigma to get this far, as the school had basically tried to move on and ignore the situation. I'm hopeful that eventually these men will not only be able to use school facilities; but also be recgonized be the IFC (that part may just take the longest; but is really a seperate issue).

knight_shadow 04-12-2010 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler1869 (Post 1916167)
Like I said (if it really matters); we didnt start this. I just jumped in, because of all the misinformation that I had read by outside individuals.

I would love to say its all getting "worked out"... but unfortunately it has taken a lot longer and more pressure from Kappa Sigma to get this far, as the school had basically tried to move on and ignore the situation. I'm hopeful that eventually these men will not only be able to use school facilities; but also be recgonized be the IFC (that part may just take the longest; but is really a seperate issue).

I apologize. That part of my response was directed more to KSigAdvisor. You've done a great job attempting to clear up misconceptions. He is on a mission to prove that everyone on GC is an idiot, but is ending up looking stupid in the process.

knight_shadow 04-12-2010 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1916165)
Nevermind, knight_shadow started it. LOL.

What'd I do this time?? lol

TSteven 04-12-2010 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916162)
Similarly, TSteven should be the only one talking for your side, he does a way better job than you guys.

Thanks?

MysticCat 04-12-2010 02:20 PM

Is there a reason you won't answer these simple questions?
Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1916062)
KSigAdvisor, it's been asked a number of times in this thread: Are you an undergrad? I'll add to the question: Do you have a legal education?

I'm assuming from the way you don't answer that you don't want to say that you don't have any legal training? Am I wrong in making that assumption?


Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916074)
You don't find the case law persuasive? How about Title 9? Our stance is that FGCU, as a public university, has to treat everyone equally. This means that they can't discriminate against the undergraduates who want to form their own fraternity, aka Kappa Sigma. The specific discrimination is the denial of public facilities for meetings and other legal purposes, as described in Heely v. James (I know the case was about political speech, but the holding was not limited to political speech, so it's binding for the fact that universities can't deny meeting space). I have cited the 1st and 14th amendments, as well as Title 9. What exactly is so unpersuasive then?

Here's the thing, the fundamental disagreement I have with your arguments. I'm familiar with the constitutional provisions you cite and with the case law growing out of them. I'm familiar with Title IX. I'm familiar with the cases you cite -- I've even gone back and reread some of them. It seems to me that you're taking bits and pieces of what the cases say and putting them together in ways that the cases simply will not support. In some instances, frankly, the way you talk about cases (Brown v Bd of Education) leads to me believe you really don't understand what you're talking about.

I'm fully aware that expressive associational rights may be involved. I'm also aware that many of us on a message board may have a very incomplete understanding of what has actually happened at FGCU, and that a better understanding may change our thinking (including possibly my "similarly situated" argument).

But here's my bottom line: if this were to go to court, I'd be very comfortable betting that the court if it came to the issue would hold what was held by the court in what is likely the most on-point case legally (I understand there are factual distinctions):
The Chapter must next show a deprivation of the right of its members to freely associate. In this vein, the University argues that its withdrawal of official recognition did not in anyway harm the right of Chapter members to associate with each other.

The University's position is correct. The withdrawal of recognition did not in and of itself deprive Chapter members of their First Amendment rights. Nothing in the University's sanction prevents the Chapter from continuing to exist. It may recruit current George Mason students as members, schedule meetings, and host social events. n11 The withdrawal of official recognition simply removes the imprimatur of the University from the Chapter's activities and denies the Chapter use of the University's name, resources, and property. Although the Chapter may become a less attractive organization as a result of losing official recognition, the University's action does not deprive Chapter members of their constitutional right to associate with each other.
n.11. Indeed, the Chapter still recruits members, holds regular meetings, and hosts parties.
Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, 538 F. Supp. 2d 915, 923-924 (E.D. Va. 2008), aff'd 566 F.3d 138 (2009).

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916122)
See what we are dealing with MysticCat?

I see that you're reaping the attitude you sowed.

Rambler1869 04-12-2010 02:30 PM

MysticCat - as I am unaware of all the details of the case; does it state whether the members of Sigma Chi at GMU able to use any school facilities and/or post any flyers on school boards? Or just say it was allowed to still meet?
There may or may not be other cases to be quoted... really all outside my area of expertise. I can only talk about what I know, as I have done so far.

Rambler1869 04-12-2010 02:32 PM

Either way, I think that it is important to note... that those men who originally recognized, they were given the chance to be on campus (later taken away for various reasons) - then they fought to come back opn campus. (This is how I understand it)

The case of FGCU, the men have not been allowed to use school facilities at all

TSteven 04-12-2010 02:50 PM

First off, thanks MysticCat for posting the case information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler1869 (Post 1916202)
MysticCat - as I am unaware of all the details of the case; does it state whether the members of Sigma Chi at GMU able to use any school facilities and/or post any flyers on school boards? Or just say it was allowed to still meet?

There may or may not be other cases to be quoted... really all outside my area of expertise. I can only talk about what I know, as I have done so far.

Rambler169 - Gusteau, who has posted in this thread, is a member of the Greek Community at George Mason University and he may be able to shed more light on this. But my understanding is that the Iota Xi Chapter currently may not use any of the George Mason facilities. Basically, all of this: "n.11. Indeed, the Chapter still recruits members, holds regular meetings, and hosts parties" takes place off campus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler1869 (Post 1916204)
Either way, I think that it is important to note... that those men who originally recognized, they were given the chance to be on campus (later taken away for various reasons) - then they fought to come back on campus. (This is how I understand it)

You are correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler1869 (Post 1916204)
The case of FGCU, the men have not been allowed to use school facilities at all.

True. However, the precedent - as I understand it - is that the court agreed with the public university (GMU) that "the University's action does not deprive Chapter members of their constitutional right to associate with each other" when denying official recognition and use of campus facilities.

MysticCat 04-12-2010 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler1869 (Post 1916202)
MysticCat - as I am unaware of all the details of the case; does it state whether the members of Sigma Chi at GMU able to use any school facilities and/or post any flyers on school boards? Or just say it was allowed to still meet?

Here's what the court said:
The University is a public institution located in Fairfax County, Virginia, where, until May 8, 2006, the Chapter was an officially recognized student group. n2 Between February 2005 and August 2006, the Chapter and its members were involved in a string of on- and off-campus incidents that culminated in the revocation of the Chapter's official University recognition and the individual discipline of several Chapter members.
n2 According to the district court, "[o]fficial recognition allows a student group to publish their affiliation with the University, apply for certain university funds, and seek assistance from the University in planning events." Iota Xi Chapter of the Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, 538 F. Supp. 2d 915, 919 n.2 (E.D. Va. 2008).
. . . . As a result of the Panel's decision, the University imposed the following sanctions. First, it revoked the Chapter's University recognition until at least September 1, 2016. n4 Second, the Dean of Students and the Director of Student Activities were instructed "to monitor membership in George Mason University recognized fraternal organizations to insure that the current membership of Sigma Chi fraternity does not reemerge under a different name." J.A. 151.
n4. The revocation of University recognition precludes the Chapter from applying for University funding and publicizing itself as an officially recognized organization. Furthermore, the Chapter may not participate in "organizational affairs which would imply university recognition." J.A. 872-C. Loss of recognition also precludes the Chapter from booking space on campus or using campus facilities.
Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, 566 F.3d 138, 141, 143 (4th Cir. 2009). So it appears they were not allowed to use school facilities in any way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler1869 (Post 1916204)
Either way, I think that it is important to note... that those men who originally recognized, they were given the chance to be on campus (later taken away for various reasons) - then they fought to come back opn campus. (This is how I understand it)

I think that's irrelevant to the question of whether lack of school recognition constitutes an unconstitutional deprivation of expressive association for a chapter of a fraternity when that chapter can still recruit from the student body and schedule business and social activities.

DrPhil 04-12-2010 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916218)
Again, thank you and sorry for my insults, I'm aggressive by nature.

Welcome to GC where you are a goldfish among sharks.

MysticCat 04-12-2010 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor (Post 1916218)
MysticCat, thank you. . . .

You still didn't answer the question, so I'll take it that my assumption is correct and you don't have any legal training.

As far as I know, no effort was made to seek review of the Sigma Chi case in the Supreme Court. And yes, I think the holding is correct would likely be mirrored in most courts. Leonie Brinkema isn't a lightweight.

And apology accepted.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:58 AM.

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