Delta Zeta Reportedly Sues DePauw

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by OTW

You're right, it is the campus PHC that decides which NPC will be invited to expand. However, to say that this won't be taken into consideration by the women who sit on PHC is just plain ridiculous. I'm sure they'll make the best decisions on what's right for their campus, but this situation's left DZ with a big fat Scarlet Letter, IMO.

I totally agree that this isn't good for Delta Zeta. Which is why I venture to guess that they (Delta Zeta HQ) may put expansion on "hold" for a while.

You live in a perfect world. Sure, we'll have the open minded PNMs, but speaking as someone who used to be an impressionable 18 year old freshman, reps are everything. They don't give a shit about the litigation, but I'm thinking that there will be a lot of them who won't want to rush a sorority with a national bad rep even though it's at no fault of the individual chapters.

You may be right. Let me ask this. Do you (and or anyone else) feel that a PNM would rather be independent than become a member? Is the rep going to be "that bad"? I still feel that the local reputation will supercede the national in most if not all cases.

No chapters have closed. See kddani's post above. She explains it nicely.

See below.

Originally Posted by kddani

And that may very well dwindle. Membership numbers will be down in the fall, and the longer this gets dragged out, the worse the results will be. Those 157 chapters have to be maintained. Thinking that this won't have any affect on their numbers and reputation is a mistake.

I agree that numbers may decrease if the case goes to trial and/or gets dragged out. But again, will it be "so bad" that a PNM would rather be an independent than join? Especially as so many of y'all have pointed out that this is no fault of the individual chapters. I would guess that every Delta Zeta chapter will (should) be prepared to address this very issue during rush.

I'd also imagine that alumnae donations will decrease greatly, and they probably already have. This lawsuit will cost an arm and a leg. DZ's finances are going to likely be in peril.

I'm sure this may be true on a national level but what about on the local (chapter) level? I'm not sure how most NPCs work, but with many NIC/IFCs, most alumni donations go directly to a local chapter or to a local housing corporation etc. And sure, the lawsuit will dip into their reserves. But I'm sure the law firm presented an fee agreement which Delta Zeta's in-house counsel reviewed and approved. Which actually makes me wonder if there isn't some sort of connection between Delta Zeta and Mr. O'Neill or his law firm. Or perhaps Mr. O'Neill is working pro bono.

There's a saying in law school/the legal field "bad facts equals bad law". If DZ did want to set an example and create certain "rights" for sororities and fraternities, they picked a horrible case to bring. This is NOT the case you want to use to set an example.

I agree 100%. However, my concern is that regardless if we like it or not, if this case moves forward, loosing it may (note *may*) set some sort of bad precedent for GLOs down the line. As such, and as much as I'm sure many people don't want to do so, it might behoove GLOs to get "behind" Delta Zeta in this. Not advocating anyone do so, but at least take a wait and see view with respect to the merits of the case.

[UGAalum94]

Is it good to file a lawsuit if losing it will create problems for GLOs down the line?

I don't claim to know everything about this situation or reorganizations, and I'm not speaking for my group at all, but I think this situation at DePauw indicated that GLOs might need some restrictions about how they do re-organizations and closings. While I don't want to open the door to a whole lot of meddling by colleges in GLO business, if no one else will lay down the rules, maybe the colleges need to to protect the interests of students who when they join one NPC organization for life expect to be active members the whole time they are in college (as long as they don't break the rules). Is that an unreasonable expectation for the students and the colleges to hold?

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

Is it good to file a lawsuit if losing it will create problems for GLOs down the line?

No.

Frankly, I doubt this lawsuit was filed irrationally. And I doubt that any attorney worth a grain of salt is going to take a case of this type unless they feel they can win it or settle it out of court. Which leads me to believe there may be some merit behind this case.

I don't claim to know everything about this situation or reorganizations, and I'm not speaking for my group at all, but I think this situation at DePauw indicated that GLOs might need some restrictions about how they do re-organizations and closings. While I don't want to open the door to a whole lot of meddling by colleges in GLO business, if no one else will lay down the rules, maybe the colleges need to to protect the interests of students who when they join one NPC organization for life expect to be active members the whole time they are in college (as long as they don't break the rules). Is that an unreasonable expectation for the students and the colleges to hold?

I understand and applaud your concept. However, I doubt any GLO wants any university to meddle in (or dictate) their fraternity/sorority business or policy.

[DGMarie]

If Depauw wanted, could they not require that Delta Zeta put into evidence materials related to their membership selection process or Initiation requirements as part of their case? We at work are often asked to provide materials for opposing counsel in times of litigation. It's part of the discovery process I believe. I'm sure there are lots of little things in secret parts here and their that when scrutinized by the right people can make anyone look bad. I agree this is a trainwreck.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by DGMarie

If Depauw wanted, could they not require that Delta Zeta put into evidence materials related to their membership selection process or Initiation requirements as part of their case? We at work are often asked to provide materials for opposing counsel in times of litigation. It's part of the discovery process I believe. I'm sure there are lots of little things in secret parts here and their that when scrutinized by the right people can make anyone look bad. I agree this is a trainwreck.

That's a very, very good point, and one that is very valid.

[DGMarie]

When they are put into evidence, could they then become public record?

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by DGMarie

When they are put into evidence, could they then become public record?

If that was to happen, my guess is that the records would most likely be sealed.

[ladygreek]

Since I am NPHC this whole concept of such high minimum numbers for a chapter is foreign to me. I bet there is another thread on this and if so could someone direct me to it.

This whole scenario could not happen in a NPHC org. I mean folx may be suspended or even expelled for hazing and other violations, but not because the chapter is struggling for members.

And it is interesting to me that the local pan-hel decides on who is invited to expand, because at my school (yeah way back then) DST was denied admittance by the University because there were no houses available, so there would be no addition sororities or fraternities.

Once our then national president (who had come to speak on campus as the first African American commissioner of civil rights) explained that we do not require houses, then the University changed its mind, and the rest of the NPHC was admitted on campus (only Kappa, Alpha and AKA had existed formally in houses, and all three ended up giving them up, because they didn't want to be restricted to the houses.)

We had existed there as part of another nearby chapter, but then we were able to get our own charter.

[jwright25]

Originally Posted by DGMarie

When they are put into evidence, could they then become public record?

I have absolutely no law training, but here is what I fear. Even if DZ's membership selection processes are brought into evidence, and even if they are kept out of the public record, there will still be people who see them. Lawyers, legal assistants, jury members, etc. Given the public nature of this thing, should it actually see a trial, there will be jury members who will want to talk. Their quotes will be along the lines of "I can't believe they judge potential members and actually tell girls they can't belong."

Thus perpetuating the myth that sororities are all snotty elitists.

I had thought this whole mess was dying down. Even the thread on GC has been a little cool as far as posts go. Perhaps it would have been more prudent to cut their losses and let it all go away naturally. Come fall recruitment it would have been old news. The media would have found something new to talk about. While some people may have thought twice before joining DZ, if the issue is no longer in the forefront, it probably wouldn't have had that devastating an effect.

This action just ensures that the story continues to be told. All sides of the story will be told, and whose side is more compelling as far as the media goes? The women who feel discriminated against or the national organization who files a lawsuit?

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by DGMarie

If Depauw wanted, could they not require that Delta Zeta put into evidence materials related to their membership selection process or Initiation requirements as part of their case? We at work are often asked to provide materials for opposing counsel in times of litigation. It's part of the discovery process I believe. I'm sure there are lots of little things in secret parts here and their that when scrutinized by the right people can make anyone look bad. I agree this is a trainwreck.

I would guess (and hope) that Delta Zeta would claim ritual (membership selection) to be privileged information. And anything related to ritual as well.

[DGMarie]

I wonder if that would fly considering that Delta Zeta is claiming they have no such discrimination policies actual or implied. As Depauw's attorney I would think such information on membership selection would be pertinent to the case. I'd ask for everything they have under the moon, back a big old Rider truck up to their HQ and say load it up. But then I'm not an attorney so I get to make it up as I go!

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by DGMarie

I wonder if that would fly considering that Delta Zeta is claiming they have no such discrimination policies actual or implied. As Depauw's attorney I would think such information on membership selection would be pertinent to the case. I'd ask for everything they have under the moon, back a big old Rider truck up to their HQ and say load it up. But then I'm not an attorney so I get to make it up as I go!

I thought Delta Zeta already made public certain membership policies with respect to discrimination. Most GLOs have their policies "out there" and available to the public. The whole "We do not discriminate based on..."

[kddani]

Originally Posted by TSteven

I would guess (and hope) that Delta Zeta would claim ritual (membership selection) to be privileged information. And anything related to ritual as well.

And a federal judge would probably laugh at that. You could maybe get away with that with a trial level state court judge. But membership selection is the heart of this issue.

I don't want to see anyone's ritual get put into public record, but at the same time, DZ needs to realize that this could very likely come out.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by kddani

And a federal judge would probably laugh at that. You could maybe get away with that with a trial level state court judge. But membership selection is the heart of this issue.

I don't want to see anyone's ritual get put into public record, but at the same time, DZ needs to realize that this could very likely come out.

If true, then I would not be surprised if the NPC, NIC, IFC, NPHC, Masons, Junior League and any organization that may involve ritual and or some sort of subjective or private (secrete) membership selection files some sort of "friend of the plaintiff" brief. (What ever the heck it might be called).

Originally Posted by TSteven

I understand and applaud your concept. However, I doubt any GLO wants any university to meddle in (or dictate) their fraternity/sorority business or policy.

I agree about universities meddling in Greek business, it shouldn't happen.

However, in looking at the DePauw situation (especially after reading the statements from the University), the girls are DePauw students first. They went to DePauw for an education. If the university feels that the actions of the HQ were detrimental to the students' well-being, they have every right to say, "Hey...get the hell off the campus."

And now DZ's suing the school saying that the school was responsible for all the bad publicity? Uh, take a look in the mirror, HQ.

I know I may be out of line by saying this, but I hope DZ considers getting new authority soon.