Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
The student newspaper says that the group was placed on social suspension.
http://media.www.dakotastudent.com/m...-3289876.shtml
I doesn't contradict my argument at all to acknowledge that situations such as this rarely come up, so this would be a matter of first impression for the North Dakota courts. I've found the only federally reported case wherein a public school sanctioned a fraternity for offensive conduct. The law here is pretty simple. That's why these cases don't go to the federal courts. It's very likely that the university will back down after a call from a lawyer. If not, they're going to risk hundreds of thousands in attorney's fees (the school pays the plaintiff's fees plus whatever else if it loses). They'll back down considering the only law on the books heavily favors Gamma Phi Beta. |
The article doesn't say who placed them on suspension which is my question. Gotta hate the passive voice.
ETA: rereading it looks like it is a prohibition from holding events with other organizations. (And probably university imposed) Does that suspension differ significantly from the one imposed in the case you cited? Would including potential punishments for events that are considered inappropriate in the student organization charter make a difference? What about the PHC Judicial Board review?
And while it may be true that the law favors the GLO, would it have to be HQ that fights it or the chapter? Either way, it is unclear that either chapter or HQ would be interested in fighting a "it's ok for us to wear warpaint" case.
I only object to calling the University's actions, if it was the university, illegal since it appears it is questionable, but would likely require a ruling to clarify.
Threaded Mode
