[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

. . . and since none of you have any real life experience, please listen for a moment before you form your retorts.

Now, you know what happens when you assume.

Of course we all fight this perception, but the fraternity responds that even if such were true, there are less restrictive means to uphold campus structure than a complete ban on all Greeks, and that such a complete ban is unconstitutional since fraternities and sororities are protected classes called "expressive organizations" which are entitled to complete protection of the first amendment as decided by the Supreme Court in 1972.

Healy v James?

And can you provide a cite for any case holding that public colleges and universities must recognize Greek life, because I know of no such cases. Public institutions cannot prohibit membership in Greek organizations, and if Greek life is recognized, then the same rules must apply to all GLOs, but I know of no case saying that Greek life must be recognized. (Which is irrelevant here anyway, since FGCU does recognize Greek life.)

This is a legal question, not a question of fact, and so it is decided by a judge. The test applied is a balancing test weighing each groups rights, i.e., the school's interest in setting their own policies (banning all Greeks) and the fraternity's rights to exercise their first amendment rights at a public institution. (Side note, this balancing test is inapplicable at private schools, in case you were wondering. Private schools play by their own rules. Public schools, such as FGCU, are state entities funded by taxpayer monies, and have to follow the same rules as the government, i.e. they can't discriminate against student groups). The outcome usually depends upon the jurisdiction and the judges, and each jurisdiction has it's own set of factors they consider.

Are you suggesting that when First Amendment rights are at issue, various jurisdictions can apply strict scrutiny standards other than the standards adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States? Or are you just noting that states may have greater protections than those afforded by the First Amendment?

By recognizing the fraternities already on campus, but denying Kappa Sigma those same rights, FGCU is blatantly discriminating against Kappa Sigma. . . . FGCU, however, as a public institution, is legally bound to provide Kappa Sigma with the same liberties it affords to the other fraternities already on campus, which includes providing meeting space on campus. FGCU cannot infringe upon our civil liberties merely because some of the students on campus (IFC) don't want us on campus. This will be remedied, I promise you. FGCU has no legal ground to stand upon, but I can't get into it any further.

From what I can see, you are grossly overstating an equal protection analysis. If you've read the cases, you know that the expressive association of which you speak is the right to associate for the purposes protected by the First Amendment: speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion.

FGCU clearly does not appear to dicriminate against Greek-letter organizations on these grounds -- the existence of fraternities and sororities at the school puts that argument to rest. Nor is Kappa Sigma being "discriminated" against because of any activity protected by the First Amendment. It's not a matter, say, of Kappa Sigma requiring a belief in God, while the school says that recognized organizations cannot exclude students on the basis of religion. Nope, from what I've seen, the Kappa Sigma colony is not being recognized because it failed/refused to follow the procedures that apply to all fraternities for colonization and recogniztion.

FGCU did provide the Kappa Sigma colony with the same liberties it provided other fraternities -- or at least it provided it with the opportunity for those liberties. If the colony is being deprived of those liberties, it appears to be due to the colony's own choices, not discrimination by FGCU. Doesn't sound like a promising equal protection or First Amendment case to me.

You are simply young, uneducated, and wrong. We were all there once.

Yep. I was indeed there once. But these days I'm a member of the United States Supreme Court Bar with 20+ years of practice in constitutional law under my belt. How about you?