I have to run to an event but I WILL be back to explain why cited this case as a defense to my argument. I knew you would rebut this exactly the way that you did and use this line of reasoning.
In short, though, the point in this case is that the Justices found that while it is perfectly legal to think badly about another person, or race, or in the case of the PIKA students, display theire views (whatever they may or may not be) of a black person by wearing blackface, the STATE or institutions/entities spnsored by the state cannot provide its power to the individuals wishing to display such views or discriminate or anything else thay may be found insensitive to a group of people. The State, according to the Court, must refrain from empowering individuals to discriminate or act in anyway that infringes on the rights and freedoms ensured by the Constitution and/or various other civil rights laws by enforcing such acts or offering the protection of the Court. Doing so would be the same as the State itself denying the offended persons (in this case the attendess at the party or the family who was enjoined from buying the house) their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment or other laws. So, a group or person can go and draw up any number of "restrictive covernants" meant to keep people out of their neighborhoods, in the the case of Shelly, or wear as much Black paint on their face as they want, but none of that can be sanctioned by, condoned or supported by the State or State sponsored institutions such as a public university. THIS is the parallel that I saw between this case and this issue. Yes there have been other cases since this one both in agreement with the logic of the Court as well as those who supported the rights on groups like the KKK, et. al.
However, when it all boils down, the court system is very reluctant when it comes to empowering individuals or groups through the protection of the courts or under the Constitution to threaten, discriminate or terrorize people of a previously or historically oppressed people, or any people for that matter. As I said before the 13, 14 & 15 Amendments were ratified for a specific group of people for very specific reasons and that carries more weight in the eyes of the law and the State than the protection of people just out to do others harm.
I'm late now
but I didn't want to lose my train of thought, I'll still be back though in case this wasn't adequate information about why I cited this case to defend my argument.
Also, to AggieSigmaNu, just like our chapters in their entirety get snatched or placed on probation when one, two or a few members haze and do something that is against the charter, illegal or simply studid, this chapter had to deal with the same repercussions for the actions of their members. That's what you agree to when you join an ORGANIZATION.
Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
**************
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, is an important civil rights Civil rights are those legal protections granted to citizens under the jurisdiction of the civil law of a state. They are distinguished from human rights in that they may be violated or removed, and they may or may not apply to all individuals living within the borders of that state.
Civil rights may include the right to vote, right to property, right to bear arms, right to free speech, right to privacy, right to associate, etc.
..... Click the link for more information. case decided by Chief Justice Vinson in 1948
Centuries: 19th century - 20th century - 21st century
Decades: 1890s 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s - 1940s - 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s
Years: 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 - 1948 - 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Events
January 1 - Nationalization of UK railways to form British Railways.
January 4 - Burma gains its independence from the United Kingdom.
The facts: In 1945, a black family by the name of Shelley purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri. They did not know, but an agreement -- called a restrictive covenant This article is not about the grammatical concept of a restrictive clause.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A restrictive covenant is a promise made in a deed by the buyer of real estate, especially one not to sell it to any person not of the "White race" or otherwise considered an unacceptable owner, and not to sell it without exacting the same promise from the buyer. In the case of Shelley v. Kraemer,
..... Click the link for more information. -- had been in a part of the deed on the property since 1911. The restrictive covenant barred black or Asian persons from owning that house. The neighbors sued to restrain the Shelleys from taking possession of the property.
(1) Are (race-based) restrictive covenants legal under the Fourteenth Amendment Amendment XIV (the Fourteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and includes the due process and equal protection clauses (Section 1). It was adopted on July 28, 1868.
Interpretation and history
The first section defines who is a citizen of the United States and establishes that no state can enact laws that abridge certain
..... Click the link for more information. of the United States Constitution
Completed on September 17, 1787, and later ratified by special conventions in each of the original thirteen American states, the Constitution for the United States represents the supreme law of the United States of America and is the oldest comprehensive written national constitution still in force. It has served as a model for a number of other nations' constitutions. It created a more unified government in place of what was then a group of independent states operating under the Articles of Confederation.
..... Click the link for more information. ? (2) Can they be enforced by a court of law?
The court held that, technically, restrictive covenants are legal because (at least in 1948) private agreements to exclude persons on the basis of race did not offend the Fourteenth Amendment. The 14th Amendment only prevents public, state-sponsored discrimination.
However, the Supreme Court held that it would be unconstitutional for a court to enforce a restrictive covenant. A court is obviously a public body, and as such, is subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.
This decision brought about common interest developments (CIDs), where residents share in the cost and maintenance of services and amenities held in common. Owners are held to the covenants, contracts, and restrictions (CC&Rs) of the community. It, however, cannot exclude based on race, ethnicity, or gender.
****************
So there is the case, I really don't see how you're thinking this applies to the situation.
The court actually held that it cannot prevent anything except for public, state-sponsored discrimination. That actually would seem to be more in favor for the idiot-blackface-wearers. The school was not committing act, which at the worst is "hate speech" and at best just an idiotic faux pas. The individuals were and the organization was guilty by association.
Offensive does not equal illegal.
Calling what the BSA did "fighting words" would actually hold a helluva lot more water than the case you cited since the BSA's actions actually caused the PKA's to be/feel physically threatened to the point that they had to surround themselves with defenders to be able to safely go from class to class.
The Supremes have actually ruled (even recently) in favor of KKK/white supremist groups as far as their rights to assemble, protest, etc. As offensive as some speech may be, it takes a lot for it to be illegal.
When the school is allowed determine *which kind* of speech is worthy of expulsion, you may be heading for a very slippery slope. Next thing you know, they'll be expelling members of a Christian organization off of campus because they condemn the pro-choice movement.
|