[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

The constitutional scholar and I have debated Supreme Court case law, and every day in Court legally trained scholars are on opposite sides of their view. I don't begrudge you guys for thining these "umbrellas" are okay, that's your opinion. I'm telling you we don't think they are constitutional. Just because every state at one point practiced separate but equal didn't make it right. Playing the yeah well a lot of states or schools discriminate so it must be okay card will get you murdered in law school or court. But finally we're arguing over the merits, so we got somewhere. We weren't' given any rules to follow, we were told no thanks. We are challenging an unconstitutional "umbrella" provision that you guys think it legal just because you either went to school somewhere (likely private) that had the same practice or simply because you don't know any other way. Finally we are passed the "you guys didn't follow the rules" arguments and on to the merits. It is unconstitutional to require fraternities to gain acceptance under this "umbrella" are we aren't the first fraternity to challenge this provision. also, not sure how you guys mock citing legal precedent, especially when your arguments are basically "my school did it that way." It is precisely those insufficient arguments that make me feel strongly that if we do end up in court, we will win in a landslide.

THEN STOP TALKING ABOUT IT HERE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.