Line Caps

[Still BLUTANG]

i promise i will get back in my lane, but i love this statement:

Originally Posted by ladygreek

IMO if you are as selective as you should be, then a cap does not matter.

[KSUViolet06]

I understand total/quota in NPC because we all recruit together & it helps keep things fair.

I don't understand line caps on NPHCs. If you're at a school with very high demand (like hundreds of applicants), then it doesn't seem fair to me for the university to be able to say that you can only take 50 of them.

[RU OX Alum]

If they told us to only take a certain number of pledges, we would probably take twice that just to show the Admin what's up. I think that would apply for most chapters on my campus. Just an extra reason for us to recruit. Actually, we'd probably sue them.

[sigmadiva]

The rationale that I have heard about a line cap is that it is done to 'even out' the number of members in each org. Personally, I think it is a moot point because if a person wants to be a XYZ and they don't make it in undergrad, then they can wait and try again for grad - the person will still have an opportunity to be a member.

As far as having 300 people interested in your org, that is great. But I can be very sure that the org will probably not want all of those 300 people. It is better to be as selective as possible.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Should a university be able to tell an organization how many members they may accept? In BGLOs, this is known informally as a "line cap."

I know NPC orgs have something similar.... I forget the term.

Has any NIC org heard of this?


I don't agree with a university telling an organization how many members they can take. I think it penalizes the organizations -- why be punished if your org is doing everything right and attracts more qualified people than the rest?

I know NPC members have a different philosophy on this generally, so please understand that essentially I'm not talking to you, LOL. Love you, though! LOL..... but seriously, NPC members can respond if they want.

(PS - I am aware that there is another thread on this topic, but I wanted a greater breadth of contemporary responses from NPHC and non-NPHC members.)

The NIC does not advocate caps - i.e. chapter totals or rush (intake) quotas - at all. However, the NIC defers to the campus IFC regarding rush/membership. As such, a few campuses (I know of only three, but I'm sure there may be more) have (or had) some sort of cap in place. As I recall, all three caps were regarding some type of rush (intake) quota. Now for what it is worth, an individual fraternity and/or chapter might have some sort of self imposed cap.

[jadis96]

To begin with, I am NOT a lawyer (nor would I want too be, too complicated) but I have taken a few educational law classes dealing with campus and school issues.

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Interesting.

As a slight tangent..... I know that Title IX affects just about all universities, public and private, because the great majority have students on some kind of federal financial aid program.

I wonder if freedom of association could be applied to private universities for the same reason/loophole.

Based on my ed law class you're right Senusret. If a school (public or private) takes federal money, they gotta follow federal law. The only difference is privates do not HAVE to take federal money, but if they choose to then they have to follow federal law.

Originally Posted by 33girl

A private u doesn't have to recognize GLOs (or any organization). However, if they deny their students the right to belong to an organization that meets off campus, that's where they get into Freedom of Association trouble.

Part of the issue of freedom of association also deals with if you are secluding a segment of the population. For example, if there are 10 NPC's on a campus and the school does not allow a 11th NPC to get oncampus it's okay, because that segment is being covered legally. The issue would be if the uni has 10 NPC's on campus but does not allow a NPHC sorority. That is a segment of society you are not covering, yet you are not allowing them on campus.

I also believe that freedom of association is mainly used in cases dealing with religious groups. Having a campus crusade, but not allowing a jewish student union for example.

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I don't think university caps make sense unless it is about the scarcity of resources or something of that nature.

I definitely think Delta should have line caps.

What style?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by jadis96

Based on my ed law class you're right Senusret. If a school (public or private) takes federal money, they gotta follow federal law. The only difference is privates do not HAVE to take federal money, but if they choose to then they have to follow federal law.

No, that's really a little too broad. Laws like Title IX specifically state that compliance with them is a prerequisite to receipt of federal funds. So, if a school violates the provisions of Title IX, that school risks forfeiting federal money.

Freedom of Association however is a constitutional right that applies only to the government. The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights have been construed to include a right of association, which the federal government cannot infringe upon. The Fourteenth Amendment extends that to the state governments, including state (public) schools.

But AlphaFrog is right -- there is a difference between prohibiting association in Greek groups and recognizing GLOs. A public university cannot tell you what organizations you can or can't belong to. But a public university can decide not to recognize Greek life on campus, as long as it does do across the board.

Part of the issue of freedom of association also deals with if you are secluding a segment of the population. For example, if there are 10 NPC's on a campus and the school does not allow a 11th NPC to get oncampus it's okay, because that segment is being covered legally. The issue would be if the uni has 10 NPC's on campus but does not allow a NPHC sorority. That is a segment of society you are not covering, yet you are not allowing them on campus.

I also believe that freedom of association is mainly used in cases dealing with religious groups. Having a campus crusade, but not allowing a jewish student union for example.

Both of examples issues deal more with equal protection of the laws than freedom of association. I've seen freedom of association arise most frequently in a political context -- association with people of similar political philosophies.

[1908Revelations]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I'm sure I've read that at a public uni. they can't deny your right to be there, but they can make it as difficult as possible to get recognition, etc...

From my understanding we (not just AKA, but most campus orgs) are at the university as a privilege and they can give us the boot at any time at their discretion no questions asked. That doesent mean we won't exist, but not to the university. We can still attend school there just not hold functions on campus or identify with the university.

[aopirose]

Originally Posted by 33girl

A private u doesn't have to recognize GLOs (or any organization). However, if they deny their students the right to belong to an organization that meets off campus, that's where they get into Freedom of Association trouble.

It's funny that you mention this. I was looking at Bowdoin yesterday and they actually have a Social Code dealing with membership in exlusionary organizations. Since 1997, Bowdoin students cannot join fraternities, sororities, or any group that excludes on the basis of gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, etc. (Student memberships were completely phased out by 2000.) I wonder of any student has joined any such organization and been brought up to a judicial committee.