[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So you could make an argument for an ex post facto ad hoc review of speech to determine whether a group should be sanctioned for the content of their speech could pass strict scrutiny and keep a straight face?

Sure. I'm a lawyer. I can argue anything with a straight face.

BTW, in suggesting that there's a problem with an ex post facto review of speech to determine whether it was sanctionable, surely you're not suggesting that it would have been preferable for UND to engage in peremptory enforcement or prior restraint, 'cause talk about things the courts tend not to like.

As for ad hoc, how do we know it was really ad hoc? Maybe it was, or maybe there's more there that we don't know about.

Let's apply strict scrutiny.

Let's don't, because as I've already said, we don't know nearly enough to really flesh out such an application. We're just guessing at what really happened, with our main source of info being an article in the student newspaper -- not necessarily the source I'd want to count on.

You said it youself:

I think the school would assert that providing a safe and comfortable learning environment is a compelling governmental goal.

(Emphasis mine. Of course, kudos for at least looking at the University Code of Conduct.) That might be what the school would assert and it might not. All we've got is speculation. We don't know nearly enough to play the "somebody should sue" card.

Look, UND might indeed go down the tubes if a suit were filed. But it's not a slam dunk. (I tend to think, based on the minimal information we have, that a plaintiff might not even make it past a motion to dismiss -- I still haven't seen anything that actually says UND has taken any action against the chapter. The article you cited seems to make it as likely that Gamma Phi Beta HQ or campus Panhellenic took the initial action.) To suggest otherwise is simply doesn't further any discussion.

And by the way, with regard to this, which I missed earlier:

Originally Posted by Kevin

42. U.S.C. 1983 says the school can't [legally] do this.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 says nothing of the sort. Section 1983 only allows someone to sue for violation of civil rights; it gives the courts jurisdiction over such claims. But it does not create any substantive rights -- the right in question must be found elsewhere (presumably, in this case, the First Amendment). Section 1983 says nothing about what can and can't legally be done.