Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode
