Probation for Discrimination against Gays
 

Kappa Alpha Psi at Morgan State University (Alpha Iota chapter) has been placed on probation until 2015 based on a University finding that they violated University policies regarding discrimination by rejecting a candidate based on the fact they were gay. Media messages between brothers were noted as part of the finding.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/12/f.../#.Up9Bs8RDs1I

Is this another chink in the wall of GLOs selecting who they desire as members?

GLOs are a social group who are selective about who we wish to invite to become members.

So once again others want to rule how we choose members. Don't we have the right to choose who we want?
Not everyone fits into each group. We are not all alike or feel the same, but it should be our choice.
Or could this have been a set up?

Student organizations generally have to adhere to a student code of conduct. A student code of conduct is enforceable so long as it doesn't violate the students' rights. Maryland law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, so no, I don't see how there's a problem with enforcing that Code of Conduct.

Yes, we have the right to select who wish to join. And yes, fit is a large part of it. But rejecting somebody based on solely or even primarily on basis of sexual orientation is something else. It is the same kind of logic that allowed Greek organizations for decades to forbid non-white or non-christian members from membership.

Also, if you are stupid enough to discuss membership selection via text message, well, you are stupid.

Millennials.

Did anyone read the comments on the article? Some of them are just.. despicable.

Apparently being part of a fraternity that is put on social probation is life ruining. Who knew?

I'd guess it's the stupid that's really life-ruining.

I guess it is my adversion of more intervention by outsiders coming into our houses that I thought I would post as I did.

I can also understand the exclusion of those that do not fit our so called profile. These gives schools who regulate our organizations a stronger fist of control.
But let me also add, I can only speak for me and some of LXA chapters, we have had gays in them. Most of them were very instrumental in our growth and still are as Alums. In fact two of them, one from my Zeta and another from another Zeta know each other in drag queen clubs in Kansas City, LOL!:D

Again this shows that the unknown scares or worrys each of us and our GLOs.

For the social fraternities here, I don't think many would object to a school taking action for a similar situation regarding race. OTOH, many would object to the same thing regarding gender.

If Kappa Alpha Psi nationally chose to fight it, they would probably win. A Christian Fraternity has successfully fought to keep rules requiring officers to fit a specific group of beliefs (including the immorality of gays). (I think one was at UNC?)

But I just can't see Kappa Alpha Psi doing that.

I don't know that it's so clear cut, naraht. The state of Maryland doesn't allow discrimination based along those lines and Kappa Alpha Psi is not a religious organization, so they don't have a free exercise excuse to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I doubt you're right.

^^^^ Agree.

I think any group would have a hard time fighting this based on moral grounds and a group's requirements for "Christian" moral character with members sending social media messages with homophobic comments regarding the potential member. The members lost any chance at the moral high ground when they went so public with their thoughts about the PNM.

Religious Organization...
 

I agree, I can't see Kappa Alpha Psi doing it. They are not as overtly religious as at least one other member of the NPHC and as such it would be a stretch to see them covered by a religious exemption.

And according to http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...,4172534.story , no reaction from Nationals.

I share Tom Earp's concerns regarding government intrusion into privacy issues. I also share the concerns of those who are a bit offended by some of the comments made among the membership in social media exchanges. I am also troubled by the thoughts that state law prohibits this sort of discrimination and that should decide the issue.
Seems to me that this is a freedom of association issue which was decided by the US Supreme Court a few years back in the City of New Orleans v. Certain Carnival Organizations where the court slam dunked the city in its attempt to force open the membership of Carnival Organizations which were seen to be discriminating in their membership selection. The Court ruled that freedom of association was a constitutional issue and its ruling trumped all inferior courts' rulings, state laws, and city ordinances. In short, one has the right to choose who one wants to hang with.
From my point of view if a guy rushes, the chapter likes him, and he is a good fit then what is the problem? Likewise, if he is not liked and is not seen as a good fit then again, what is the problem? Bid him or don't bid him. It is the chapters business and it is private family business.

Do you have a citation? Googling the case name isn't turning anything up.

That sounds like a trade association. I also imagine the sort of discrimination wasn't racial/sexual/gender/national origin/religion, etc.

The offending group in this case wouldn't be in trouble at all except here's one of the rare cases where sexual orientation discrimination can actually be proved.

It would be private family business if they were not chartered on college campuses.

Morgan is a university, which is allowed to have rules governing all of their student organizations. It is also public.

Exactly the question I had. The only thing I can find is The Wiki article on Mardi Gras in the US, whch says:

But, no citations to these court cases, and all my googling on the ordinance has failed to turn up any references to lawsuits, though I found lots of news stories about the ordinance and/or its sponsor, Dorothy Mae Taylor. Many of the stories I found suggested the ordinance, or a revisions of it, is still in effect.

Oh, and it does seem to be pretty obvious, not to mention pretty well documented, that some of the krewes were "seen to be discriminating in their membership selection" because they were discriminating in the membership selection.

I'll try to dig up the appropriate citations.

The Carnival Krewes were the "secret" organizations within the old guard white private clubs like the Pickwick Club, the Boston Club, Louisiana Club, Bienville Club, etc. They were highly selective with waiting lists of 12 years and longer. They were not commercial organizations and according to my Dad one could not even discuss business at the clubs. They were really 19th Century social clubs like the ones I knew in London. Since they paid for all expenses out of their own pockets I gather they really resented the city trying to force their membership. I have to check on this but I seem to remember that 2 or 3 of the more prominent Black Krewes joined in the suit contesting the city ordinance saying that their membership rules were very stringent and just as old as the 'White' krewes and nobody was going to tell them who they had to admit to membership. Perhaps someone can help me with this but I think it was the Zulu SA&P Club, the Illinois Club, and the Autocrat Club.
Anyway, I'll do some more research.

I just searched on Lexis and couldn't find anything.

I did a Westlaw(Next) search for U.S. Supreme Court only, 'freedom of association carnival organizations.' Got nothing.

I do have an account with my firm, so if anyone can give me some text which would be found in the opinion, I can probably find it.

I feel like I've just walked into: The Paper Chase.

Good hunting, gentlemen.

The Wiki reference I found said said SCOTUS denied review, so I'm assuming what needs to be looked for is Fifth Circuit or Eastern District of Louisiana. I'm not having any luck finding anything on Lexis, though, and I've tried a variety of search terms. If it's there, it's buried so deep I'm not getting to it.

Since it seemed to be a local ordinance, is it possible it was Supreme Court of Louisiana?

I think I found a more on-point case anyhow: Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale, 120 S.Ct. 2446 (2000). It held:

So that doesn't really answer the question as to whether Maryland's student code of conduct can do what it's being used to do, though I think if you asked Kappa Alpha Psi's HQ (and here I am just speculating) that they'd probably not think that the forced inclusion of this individual would necessarily impair their ability to advocate public or private viewpoints, except those viewpoints which were discussed in the OP, which I'm guessing Kappa Alpha Psi's HQ would definitely not endorse.

At any rate, there is no forced inclusion happening here. The organization is placed on probation, not even double-secret probation. I doubt they'll be dumb enough to talk about sexual orientation discrimination via social media again.

I think (and I am no lawyer here) that the rules generally state you can be as selective as you want in a private scenario and not receiving any public funds. Which means, in my interpretation that public schools get public funding so any Greek systems have to play along. Or on the other end, there are golf courses who won't host PGA tournaments because they choose to be able to select their membership however they want. That's not due to public funding but is a mandate of that association. So any Greek letter organization can have whatever restrictions they want, but only at schools that will allow said restrictions. Why they would want to is another argument altogether.

Maybe we all are forgeting one thing, THE PERSON!

Maybe he did not fit in period gay or straght?

Could this whole thing be just a ploy?

Tom, there was social media evidence indicating that his sexuality was a reason (maybe THE reason) he was excluded. That's problematic because it says they didn't look at the whole person.

There are two issues at play here, and in the case that dukeguy seems to be talking about. The first is whether the government can tell a private association how it must select members. That's the question Dale addresses, and it says "no, the government can't."

The second question is whether the government can choose treat organizations that discriminate differently from those that don't—whether in the context of a school denying or limiting recognition or in the context of a city denying the organization permission to participate in a parade. The answer to that second question is murky for me.

In other words, an organization has the right to choose its members and set its criteria for membership. But does it also have a right to expect public accommodation if those criteria are contrary to public policy?

A threshold question would be whether the HQ of Kappa Alpha Psi backs the discriminatory activities of the chapter. In other words, the route to proper redress doesn't necessarily have to be through the courts--if the national body reprimands its chapter, that pretty much tells us what we need to know.

I read the article, which seemed pretty short. Maybe I'm missing something here. He cited a gay slur through social media. I'm guessing someone used a nasty term about the guy but, can we all be 100% certain that his sexuality was the entire reason he was dismissed? I'm an LGBTQI advocate but, I also recognize that there may be times, as someone mentioned earlier, when someone just does not mesh well with the members. Why does it automatically have to be because he was gay?

WE don't have to be 100 percent certain. The university is.

I know this is venturing into membership selection, but how important is stuff like "fit" in NPHC organizations as compared to things like resume, service history and letters of rec?

It doesn't have to be the entire reason. If it was considered at all, it is discrimination, and that violates the university's policy. This is no different from a potential employer saying to a colleague "I think als463 was a great candidate, but she just got married. I wonder if she's planning to get pregnant soon."

Are we at the point yet that when someone isn't offered a bid, that they are refused that they can pul the disctimination card out?

Maybe the person was gay, but a real jerk? Do we have to take jerks now? Or someone smells bad?

PCNess is getting out of hand!

It's important but it depends on the organization, chapter, and circumstances how important it really is. Also consider that some orgs have legacy policies and others don't.

Right. And I am really not understanding why anyone would jump to the defense of this particular's chapter's "rights."

Did you miss the part where there is evidence that his sexuality was a factor in his being rejected? If there is a personality conflict, fine. But discrimination against somebody because he falls into a protected class is just wrong. It's a return to the bad old days of only rich Christian white men in fraternities.

This has nothing to do with political correctness. This is a chapter that was PROVEN to have discriminated against a candidate for factors that they were NOT ALLOWED to use in the selection process.

Are you serious? :confused:

People still use the phrase "politically correct" and its derivatives? :rolleyes:

If an applicant is a jerk, and the jerkiness is not about sexual orientation, there is no need to speak negative regarding sexual orientation. That includes slurs. :mad: