[Kevin]

What you have done here is make my argument for me. Thank you.

The "STATE or institutions/entities sponsored 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 BSA's actions offend me. They obviously offended the PKA's that needed bodyguards to safely pass between classes. The state institution gave them power by not stopping their actions. They are just as much an organization as PKA. They used campus property to post those flyers which were aimed at defaming Pi Kappa Alpha.

What the court says here is that the state institution has no right to step in either way. It would support my assertion that the two expelled members would actually have the better civil rights case.

You're right as far as the organization goes. Were these fellas members of my chapter, they'd most likely be ex-members of my chapter based on these actions. As for the school and their actions, I find them to be very out of line.

Originally posted by Phasad1913
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.