Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
If the GLO is a student organization on the University's campus they can hold the GLO responsible as they could any other student organization. While they could not rescind the charter, they can stop recognizing the chapter on the campus or impose any other level of consequences as provided by their rules on student organizations.
I'm not seeing where the University actually did anything to the chapter except say that they would review the whole affair. And there is a provision for a chapter to be brought up in front of a Judicial Board if they hold an event that is considered questionable.
|
No they can't. The University cannot abridge your Constitutional rights and call it "University policy." It simply isn't within their power.
The chapter has been put on social probation by the University. I'll bet they did all of this without even so much as a hearing. At public schools, you're entitled to certain things. Just because the school ignores the law, doesn't make the school right.
Quick research brought me to a case wherein Sigma Chi was sanctioned by George Mason University for having an "ugly woman" contest. In one of the skits, a fraternity member dressed up in "an offensive caricature of a black woman." The sanctioning was done because the fraternity's conduct was offensive and created a hostile environment to blacks and women (sound familiar?). The fraternity was given social probation for the rest of the semester and was put on probation for two years.
The fraternity sued under 42 U.S. 1983 (the Civil Rights Act) alleging that they had been deprived of Constitutional rights under the color of state law.
The 4th Circuit held that "[t]he University certainly has a substantial interest in maintaining an educational environment free of discrimination and racism, and in providing gender-neutral education. Yet it seems equally apparent that it has available numerous alternatives to imposing punishment on students based on the viewpoints they express. We agree wholeheartedly that it is the University officials' responsibility, even their obligation, to achieve the goals they have set. On the other hand, a public university has many constitutionally permissible means to protect female and minority students. We must emphasize, as have other courts, that “the manner of [its action] cannot consist of selective limitations upon speech.”
This is of course not binding on the N.D. courts, but it'd be extremely persuasive as this is almost exactly the same sort of situation.
The citation is 993 F.2d 386, (4th Cir., 1993) if anyone cares.