Yale suspends Bushes' fraternity for sexist chants

[Low C Sharp]

Schools take federal funding, including federal financial aid.

So? Congress attaches certain strings to that funding, but it doesn't make the schools government actors. The right to join a GLO is NOT one of the strings attached to funding. If you think it ought to be, write your Congressman.
________
LIVE SEX

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

So? Congress attaches certain strings to that funding, but it doesn't make the schools government actors. The right to join a GLO is NOT one of the strings attached to funding. If you think it ought to be, write your Congressman.

You're saying GLO membership isn't attached, I'm saying I suspect that the freedom of association would be. I cannot see a school being allowed to suspend a student for being a Tea Party member, for example. In this situation is isn't about being in a student organization, which I agree is not a 'right,' but about being a member of a non-campus affiliated group.

WTF are you talking about writing congressmen?

Anyway,
The Fire - Beta Theta Pi
In this case Wesleyan passed a rule prohibiting students from residing in property owned by non-student private organizations to try and force Beta to be recognized by the school. They backed off. FIRE may be a source for more information here but they're obviously biased FOR FoA rights. For example they were against the banning of DKE at Yale because of free speech itself.

Now on the other hand a California Lutheran high school was allowed to expell students for being gay. But that's a different scenario I think.

So besides just telling me they CAN do it, and that I need to write my congresscritter, hows about you tell me WHY they can do it, or show an example of it, and/or explain why we don't see student expulsion as the typical consequence of de-recognization?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You're saying GLO membership isn't attached, I'm saying I suspect that the freedom of association would be. I cannot see a school being allowed to suspend a student for being a Tea Party member, for example.

No, it wouldn't be. As I said earlier, freedom of association is a component of freedom of speech. (For that reason, all other issues aside, the Tea Party example isn't really analogous, because there you're talking about true political speech/association, which goes to the heart of the First Amendment.)

Bottom line, acceptance of federal funds does not turn a private institution into a government actor, so constitutional rights in the context of private institutions are inapplicable. Even if receipt of federal funding might require a private institution to honor some kind of freedom of association rights among students, that doesn't mean that students have any private cause of action against the private institution for violation of that right. It more likely means that the federal government can withhold future funds for violating a condition of receipt of funds.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, it wouldn't be. As I said earlier, freedom of association is a component of freedom of speech. (For that reason, all other issues aside, the Tea Party example isn't really analogous, because there you're talking about true political speech/association, which goes to the heart of the First Amendment.)

Bottom line, acceptance of federal funds does not turn a private institution into a government actor, so constitutional rights in the context of private institutions are inapplicable. Even if receipt of federal funding might require a private institution to honor some kind of freedom of association rights among students, that doesn't mean that students have any private cause of action against the private institution for violation of that right. It more likely means that the federal government can withhold future funds for violating a condition of receipt of funds.

In reading around this issue I found some suggesting that the language of constitutional rights has made its way into the usage even among non-government actors despite the fact that the law hasn't necessarily been taken that far.

So perhaps it comes down to, even though legally schools could expel a student for membership and perhaps only face consequences of potential loss of funds or a lawsuit from a student, in reality, schools don't seem to have any interest in doing so. If it is their privilege but one that is never exercised, does it matter?

I don't know enough about FIRE to speak to their reliability but they have pretty strong opinions on the matter even for non-public institutions. And Wesleyan did back down on their previous rule following pressure.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

In reading around this issue I found some suggesting that the language of constitutional rights has made its way into the usage even among non-government actors despite the fact that the law hasn't necessarily been taken that far.

The language may have well made its way into that kind of usage. Frankly, that's irrelevant legally. The Constitution is a document designed to serve a specific purpose: to define the framework, powers and limits on powers of the government. The Bill of Rights serves a specific purpose as well: to enumerate certain individual rights that the government is required to respect. To say that private citizens or private institutions are required by the Constitution to respect those rights as well is more than taking the law further; it's a foundational shift in the nature of constitutional law.

I think you may be right as to the practicalities of it. And I'm not suggesting that this means private institutions are able to "violate rights" willy-nilly. What I'm saying is that any obligation to respect individual rights must come in another way, such as when Congress makes it a crime to violate civil rights or attaches strings to receipt of federal funds. And when one seeks to have a private institution respect rights, we have to remember it's not constitutional rights that we're talking about.

As for FIRE, I don't know much about them either, though I guess I'll admit a natural skepticism. (And just because a school backed down doesn't mean FIRE was right. It can just as easily mean that the school decided the fight wasn't worth it.)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The language may have well made its way into that kind of usage. Frankly, that's irrelevant legally. The Constitution is a document designed to serve a specific purpose: to define the framework, powers and limits on powers of the government. The Bill of Rights serves a specific purpose as well: to enumerate certain individual rights that the government is required to respect. To say that private citizens or private institutions are required by the Constitution to respect those rights as well is more than taking the law further; it's a foundational shift in the nature of constitutional law.

Indeed, i do understand that. And just based on the fact that I couldn't find any real discussions about the issue outside of FIRE's site suggests to me that some of the requirements tied in by receiving federal money are untested.

I

think you may be right as to the practicalities of it. And I'm not suggesting that this means private institutions are able to "violate rights" willy-nilly. What I'm saying is that any obligation to respect individual rights must come in another way, such as when Congress makes it a crime to violate civil rights or attaches strings to receipt of federal funds. And when one seeks to have a private institution respect rights, we have to remember it's not constitutional rights that we're talking about.

True, although, I note that the constitution is supposed to just be pointing out that these are rights that people have, not rights granted by the government or the constitution itself. While that document only prohibits the government's interference, in the process that does lay down at least the argument that interference with these rights is inappropriate.

/preaching to the choir here, I know, though let me know if my understanding is wrong oh ye of mysticalcatness

As for FIRE, I don't know much about them either, though I guess I'll admit a natural skepticism. (And just because a school backed down doesn't mean FIRE was right. It can just as easily mean that the school decided the fight wasn't worth it.)

Of course, I don't know whether FIRE was right or not, no ruling was made, but I was mostly using it in contrast to the idea that it was unequivocably acceptable for schools to break that rule. FIRE thinks there is, others obviously disagree. I suppose it just hasn't been tested in court thus far at the university/college level?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

True, although, I note that the constitution is supposed to just be pointing out that these are rights that people have, not rights granted by the government or the constitution itself. While that document only prohibits the government's interference, in the process that does lay down at least the argument that interference with these rights is inappropriate.

See, I don't know that I'd go that far. The idea of rights in the Constitution goes back to Magna Carta -- the idea that there are certain rights the Crown/the government must respect. The Constitution lays down the idea that interference with those rights by the government is wrong, because we cannot escape the government (without moving) and because the government has the power to imprison or punish. Generally speaking, I have no choice about what the government role in my life, but the Constitution says the government cannot punish me for expressing views it doesn't like, as one example.

Going to a particular college is a choice, on the other hand. If there is a college that is more strict about its students' conduct (Bob Jones or Brigham Young, for example), you can choose not to go there. It's just not the same kind of relationship as exists with the government.