violation of constitutional rights?
 

I have a situation at my university. There is this new NPC law that says we cannot "favor" any fraternity. I feel this is a violation of the first amendment rights of freedom of speech and expression. My fiance is the president of his fraternity and I am not allowed to say "Rush ---" so basically they are limiting these rights if I cannot express my feelings. Also we were forced to remove facebook pictures that favored this fraternity. Honestly to me this whole situation is more about the principle of the matter as I feel they cannot legally tell us what to wear/say/display and it over steps their authority. Any thoughts? or please correct me if there is some reason this is legal.:confused:

Aren't you in a local?

You also have a right to not be a member of an organization whose rules and guidelines you do not agree with.

The Constitution is the framework for the governmental structure of the United States. It deals with the scope of powers of the federal government, how the federal government relates to state governments, and how governments (federal and state) relate to citizens. It protects certain rights from government intrusion. With specific regard to your question, it provides that the government (federal or state) cannot infringe upon your free speech rights or free association rights.

Neither the NPC nor the local panhellenic council is the government. Therefore, the Constitution and constitutional rights are completely irrelevant to the situation you're describing.


I weep sometimes when I think just how little people seem to know about something so basic to our civic life.

SNAPS to that my friend. This seems like something that would be addressed in your Panhellenic rules or Greek Life rules.

I agree 100% with MC and others above.

But, as an FYI to the OP, this is not just on your campus. This is an NPC resolution adopted on October 22, 2010 applying to all campuses (campi?):confused: When you chose membership into your organization, you agreed to abide by it's rules. Even if you are a local, if you are in your campus Panhellenic, same situation.

Here's a link to the resolution:
http://www.npcwomen.org/resources/pd...ecruitment.pdf

You should use the grievance procedures available to you through your organization and through your school if you feel strongly enough about it.

Even if the first amendment itself doesn't apply here, if it feels wrong, it is worth looking in to.

I was under the impression that unlike unanimous agreements, resolutions were merely recommendations and only enforceable by campus panhellenics amending their by-laws to coincide with them.

Of course, I'm not an expert on the matter.

If this is the "NPC law" the OP is talking about, it doesn't even seem to do what she claims. The "Resolved" paragraphs say (with my emphasis):

Quote:

Resolved, That pursuant to the provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 confirming the single-sex designation for women’s and men’s fraternities, the National Panhellenic Conference member groups expect their members not to participate in any men’s fraternity recruitment events; and Resolved, That College Panhellenics are encouraged to adopt a policy that restricts Panhellenic women from participating in any men’s fraternity recruitment events.

The main predicate for these "Resolved" paragraphs is this:

Quote:

Whereas, Women serving as hostesses and guests for men’s recruitment events or participating in any way may compromise the ability for men’s fraternities and women’s fraternities/sororities to remain single sex organizations;

I'm not sure how "participating in any men's fraternity recruitment events" equals saying anything that favors a particular fraternity.

And sorry, and perhaps it's because I just happened to read this thread again, but I did chuckle at how the resoution applies NPC terms -- recruitment and prospective new members -- to men's groups that typically don't use those terms. :D

You're right...it is essentially a recommendation. But, the recommendation applies to all campuses, which is what I meant. Sorry for being unclear.

I can, of course, only speak from my personal experience, but I know that our sorority is expecting all our chapters to abide by this, even if the campus Panhellenic is not, and is encouraging our chapters to be the ones to make the recommendation to the campus Panhellenic if it is not being done. I know, also, that it is not really being met with any resistance at any of these campuses because without exception (that I am aware of), all of the other sororities are being told the same thing by their (I)NQ.

Now, all that said, is it REALLY being implemented and followed everywhere? Is it just good lip service? That, I have no idea...

Who knows what the rule REALLY says? It's like a big ole game of telephone.

I don't know if I want to scream "IT'S A FREE COUNTRY!" or "DEY TOOK ARR JERBS!"

I, for one, certainly thought this was Merica.

I think it's more important to focus on getting rid of brothel laws. This other constitutional stuff can wait.

OP, it is legal because the First Amendment only protects your rights to free speech and expression from GOVERNMENT action. That protection doesn't extend to private organizations...that includes your particular sorority (both your chapter and the national organization, if applicable), your college Panhellenic council, the NPC, and possibly your university (if it is a private university, versus a state university). When I say "private" organizations, I mean literally any and every group that is not run or funded by the state or national government. The reason that the protection doesn't extend to those private organizations is because you have opted to be a part of those organizations...you chose what college to go to and you chose to join a sorority (and that choice came with membership in your college Panhellenic, and the NPC if you are in a national organization). Opting into your college and your sorority membership, you get special benefits. Sometimes those benefits are going to come with heightened responsibilities or restrictions, based on the policies of that special group. The government's take on it is that your rights are protected well enough by the fact that you can quit or leave whatever group you have associated yourself with whenever you choose, for whatever reasons you see fit.

/Law student rant over.

Previous posters are right: your remedy in this situation is to determine what avenues are open to you to change or at least work within the restriction. I would suggest first getting explicit clarification from the university/office of student activities/your college Panhellenic council/whoever is imposing this regulation as to what exact is being "banned." Is it t-shirts or posters reading "Rush XYZ!" worn or posted by sorority women that are not allowed? Is it joining Recruitment Facebook groups set up by the fraternities to recruit potential new members? Is it any sorority woman attending fraternity parties or events during recruitment? Is the restriction limited just to the time period that Recruitment is actively going on, or is it a year-long thing? Are you allowed to have pictures on Facebook of you and your fiance if neither of you are wearing letters or insignia? It seems like this policy has been presented to you in a vague manner (or maybe you just didn't get into all the details in your post, which is fine), so if that's the case, you need to get clarification. It may turn out that it's not as restrictive or as big of a deal as you thought it was- if you just have to remove pictures of your organization holding events with the fraternities for the duration of Rush Week, is that the biggest imposition ever? Is it a little annoying? Maybe. But women who serve as Rho Gammas/Gamma Chis or are on the Panhellenic Executive Board are asked to do essentially the same thing (remove anything from their profile that indicates what sorority they are in) with their Facebooks for the duration of Sorority Recruitment as well. My point is...once you get clarification from the powers-that-be as to what is actually off limits, it may end up being simply a minor inconvenience, as opposed to an oppressive restriction on the way you can express yourself.

I think it's great that you are so supportive of your fiance's chapter; not everyone is lucky enough to have a partner that supports the things that are important to them. Presumably, the fact that you have selected an XYZ man as having the qualities you want in a future husband speaks well to the other members of XYZ and the chapter as a whole also. Let them sell those great points to the potential new members coming to their Rush events themselves! :)

I wish I could "like" the last three or so posts. Oh my goodness haha

This is comedy gold. Love it! :D

Actually, the government doesn't have a take on it. I think you mean the law's take on it. Not the same thing.

/practicing lawyer rant over ;)

Campuses all over the country are restricting free-speech rights. Have you checked with FIRE to see your campus's reputation? Just input the school name and it will tell you how well the school infringes on individual rights (whether "legal" or not).

That resolution is about being hostesses. I see nothing about Facebook or wearing a "I Heart XYZ" pin.

If a WHOLE CHAPTER was forced to wear shirts promoting a certain fraternity, that would not work. If pictures of only one fraternity are on a CHAPTER website, that also would not work. But if one person wants to say Rush XYZ, or put pics on her personal page? I honestly can't see where that would have anything to do with this resolution.

Sororities shouldn't favor one fraternity on their chapter FB page or website anyway, not because of any NPC resolution, but because it can turn off rushees who don't like that fraternity. "Like" everyone on your campus or don't like anyone.

She didn't say the university is infringing on her rights, she said "NPC" is.

The resolution that has been cited doesn't restrict free speech rights. It says no participation in fraternity rush events -- or more to the point is says that NPC member groups expect their members not to participate in men's fraternity rush events and encourages Collegiate Panhellenics to adopt policies to that effect.

The sky is not falling.

I looked up the campus where I work. The some of policies that are on there are old and way out of date. How do I know? I have been working on the policy manual for the past week for Res. Life.

At least yours is listed. My alma mater (considered the flagship campus) isn't even there. One of the satellite campuses, is. :rolleyes:

Ugh, I can't believe I typed that :o Thank you for setting it right! It seems my brain is already starting to fry, and the semester is only a few weeks underway...sigh. It's going to be a very, very long year...:rolleyes:

YOU TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OFF MY KEYBOARD! Seriously I am a law student, but i learned this in high school government. So sad a college student thought panhellenic was governed by the US Constitution

Is there any truth to the suggestion that women helping host male rush events compromises the single sex status of either group? If so, how? And how would that work in a way that having other events together wouldn't similarly compromise?

When they have other closed events (like mixers) together, there are no rushees of either sex running around. Everyone at the event is either a pledge (who's signed a bid) or initiated member of the fraternity or the sorority.