PiKA-GA State Blackface, updated and continuing

[dstbrat]

there is absolutely no way that any Greek person in the southeast did not hear about the Auburn incident. perhaps because you are from a different region of the country, you are less aware.

the point i am making is anyone who dresses up in blackface in 2004 knows that it is offensive. there really is no gray area there. it is insensitive. even if there were no black people at GSU, that would be wrong ( not to mention that GSU sits in the middle of atlanta, a city with one of the highest percentages of african-american citizens in country). those men knew what they were doing and if the leadership in the chapter didn't take a strong stand and waited on an outside source to report it, they yes they all deserve to be punished. that is how organizations work.

people don't seem to get that once you join an organization, you take on both the benefits and the responsibilities of membership. leadership isn't doing what is popular, it is doing what is right.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Phasad1913
It's Shelly v. Kraemer. I couldn't find a link, but you're grown, I'm sure you can do that leg work

**************

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, is an important civil rights Civil rights are those legal protections granted to citizens under the jurisdiction of the civil law of a state. They are distinguished from human rights in that they may be violated or removed, and they may or may not apply to all individuals living within the borders of that state.
Civil rights may include the right to vote, right to property, right to bear arms, right to free speech, right to privacy, right to associate, etc.
..... Click the link for more information. case decided by Chief Justice Vinson in 1948

Centuries: 19th century - 20th century - 21st century

Decades: 1890s 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s - 1940s - 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

Years: 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 - 1948 - 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Events
January 1 - Nationalization of UK railways to form British Railways.
January 4 - Burma gains its independence from the United Kingdom.



The facts: In 1945, a black family by the name of Shelley purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri. They did not know, but an agreement -- called a restrictive covenant This article is not about the grammatical concept of a restrictive clause.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A restrictive covenant is a promise made in a deed by the buyer of real estate, especially one not to sell it to any person not of the "White race" or otherwise considered an unacceptable owner, and not to sell it without exacting the same promise from the buyer. In the case of Shelley v. Kraemer,
..... Click the link for more information. -- had been in a part of the deed on the property since 1911. The restrictive covenant barred black or Asian persons from owning that house. The neighbors sued to restrain the Shelleys from taking possession of the property.

(1) Are (race-based) restrictive covenants legal under the Fourteenth Amendment Amendment XIV (the Fourteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and includes the due process and equal protection clauses (Section 1). It was adopted on July 28, 1868.


Interpretation and history
The first section defines who is a citizen of the United States and establishes that no state can enact laws that abridge certain
..... Click the link for more information. of the United States Constitution


Completed on September 17, 1787, and later ratified by special conventions in each of the original thirteen American states, the Constitution for the United States represents the supreme law of the United States of America and is the oldest comprehensive written national constitution still in force. It has served as a model for a number of other nations' constitutions. It created a more unified government in place of what was then a group of independent states operating under the Articles of Confederation.
..... Click the link for more information. ? (2) Can they be enforced by a court of law?

The court held that, technically, restrictive covenants are legal because (at least in 1948) private agreements to exclude persons on the basis of race did not offend the Fourteenth Amendment. The 14th Amendment only prevents public, state-sponsored discrimination.

However, the Supreme Court held that it would be unconstitutional for a court to enforce a restrictive covenant. A court is obviously a public body, and as such, is subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.

This decision brought about common interest developments (CIDs), where residents share in the cost and maintenance of services and amenities held in common. Owners are held to the covenants, contracts, and restrictions (CC&Rs) of the community. It, however, cannot exclude based on race, ethnicity, or gender.

****************

So there is the case, I really don't see how you're thinking this applies to the situation.

The court actually held that it cannot prevent anything except for public, state-sponsored discrimination. That actually would seem to be more in favor for the idiot-blackface-wearers. The school was not committing act, which at the worst is "hate speech" and at best just an idiotic faux pas. The individuals were and the organization was guilty by association.

Offensive does not equal illegal.

Calling what the BSA did "fighting words" would actually hold a helluva lot more water than the case you cited since the BSA's actions actually caused the PKA's to be/feel physically threatened to the point that they had to surround themselves with defenders to be able to safely go from class to class.

The Supremes have actually ruled (even recently) in favor of KKK/white supremist groups as far as their rights to assemble, protest, etc. As offensive as some speech may be, it takes a lot for it to be illegal.

When the school is allowed determine *which kind* of speech is worthy of expulsion, you may be heading for a very slippery slope. Next thing you know, they'll be expelling members of a Christian organization off of campus because they condemn the pro-choice movement.

[Tom Earp]

ktsnake, there is a big difference between Legality and Stupidity as you have well pointed out!

What many miss is the point of every Law that is enacted, can mean more restrictions of freedom.

While each individual has their own thoughts of what is good and bad, it is when someone decides for us that we run into problems!

For every action, there is a reaction and maybe not for the betterment for ALL!

[Phasad1913]

I have to run to an event but I WILL be back to explain why cited this case as a defense to my argument. I knew you would rebut this exactly the way that you did and use this line of reasoning.

In short, though, the point in this case is that the Justices found that while it is perfectly legal to think badly about another person, or race, or in the case of the PIKA students, display theire views (whatever they may or may not be) of a black person by wearing blackface, the STATE or institutions/entities spnsored by the state cannot provide its power to the individuals wishing to display such views or discriminate or anything else thay may be found insensitive to a group of people. The State, according to the Court, must refrain from empowering individuals to discriminate or act in anyway that infringes on the rights and freedoms ensured by the Constitution and/or various other civil rights laws by enforcing such acts or offering the protection of the Court. Doing so would be the same as the State itself denying the offended persons (in this case the attendess at the party or the family who was enjoined from buying the house) their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment or other laws. So, a group or person can go and draw up any number of "restrictive covernants" meant to keep people out of their neighborhoods, in the the case of Shelly, or wear as much Black paint on their face as they want, but none of that can be sanctioned by, condoned or supported by the State or State sponsored institutions such as a public university. THIS is the parallel that I saw between this case and this issue. Yes there have been other cases since this one both in agreement with the logic of the Court as well as those who supported the rights on groups like the KKK, et. al.
However, when it all boils down, the court system is very reluctant when it comes to empowering individuals or groups through the protection of the courts or under the Constitution to threaten, discriminate or terrorize people of a previously or historically oppressed people, or any people for that matter. As I said before the 13, 14 & 15 Amendments were ratified for a specific group of people for very specific reasons and that carries more weight in the eyes of the law and the State than the protection of people just out to do others harm.

I'm late now but I didn't want to lose my train of thought, I'll still be back though in case this wasn't adequate information about why I cited this case to defend my argument.
Also, to AggieSigmaNu, just like our chapters in their entirety get snatched or placed on probation when one, two or a few members haze and do something that is against the charter, illegal or simply studid, this chapter had to deal with the same repercussions for the actions of their members. That's what you agree to when you join an ORGANIZATION.

Originally posted by ktsnake
**************

Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, is an important civil rights Civil rights are those legal protections granted to citizens under the jurisdiction of the civil law of a state. They are distinguished from human rights in that they may be violated or removed, and they may or may not apply to all individuals living within the borders of that state.
Civil rights may include the right to vote, right to property, right to bear arms, right to free speech, right to privacy, right to associate, etc.
..... Click the link for more information. case decided by Chief Justice Vinson in 1948

Centuries: 19th century - 20th century - 21st century

Decades: 1890s 1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s - 1940s - 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

Years: 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 - 1948 - 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Events
January 1 - Nationalization of UK railways to form British Railways.
January 4 - Burma gains its independence from the United Kingdom.



The facts: In 1945, a black family by the name of Shelley purchased a house in St. Louis, Missouri. They did not know, but an agreement -- called a restrictive covenant This article is not about the grammatical concept of a restrictive clause.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A restrictive covenant is a promise made in a deed by the buyer of real estate, especially one not to sell it to any person not of the "White race" or otherwise considered an unacceptable owner, and not to sell it without exacting the same promise from the buyer. In the case of Shelley v. Kraemer,
..... Click the link for more information. -- had been in a part of the deed on the property since 1911. The restrictive covenant barred black or Asian persons from owning that house. The neighbors sued to restrain the Shelleys from taking possession of the property.

(1) Are (race-based) restrictive covenants legal under the Fourteenth Amendment Amendment XIV (the Fourteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and includes the due process and equal protection clauses (Section 1). It was adopted on July 28, 1868.


Interpretation and history
The first section defines who is a citizen of the United States and establishes that no state can enact laws that abridge certain
..... Click the link for more information. of the United States Constitution


Completed on September 17, 1787, and later ratified by special conventions in each of the original thirteen American states, the Constitution for the United States represents the supreme law of the United States of America and is the oldest comprehensive written national constitution still in force. It has served as a model for a number of other nations' constitutions. It created a more unified government in place of what was then a group of independent states operating under the Articles of Confederation.
..... Click the link for more information. ? (2) Can they be enforced by a court of law?

The court held that, technically, restrictive covenants are legal because (at least in 1948) private agreements to exclude persons on the basis of race did not offend the Fourteenth Amendment. The 14th Amendment only prevents public, state-sponsored discrimination.

However, the Supreme Court held that it would be unconstitutional for a court to enforce a restrictive covenant. A court is obviously a public body, and as such, is subject to the Fourteenth Amendment.

This decision brought about common interest developments (CIDs), where residents share in the cost and maintenance of services and amenities held in common. Owners are held to the covenants, contracts, and restrictions (CC&Rs) of the community. It, however, cannot exclude based on race, ethnicity, or gender.

****************

So there is the case, I really don't see how you're thinking this applies to the situation.

The court actually held that it cannot prevent anything except for public, state-sponsored discrimination. That actually would seem to be more in favor for the idiot-blackface-wearers. The school was not committing act, which at the worst is "hate speech" and at best just an idiotic faux pas. The individuals were and the organization was guilty by association.

Offensive does not equal illegal.

Calling what the BSA did "fighting words" would actually hold a helluva lot more water than the case you cited since the BSA's actions actually caused the PKA's to be/feel physically threatened to the point that they had to surround themselves with defenders to be able to safely go from class to class.

The Supremes have actually ruled (even recently) in favor of KKK/white supremist groups as far as their rights to assemble, protest, etc. As offensive as some speech may be, it takes a lot for it to be illegal.

When the school is allowed determine *which kind* of speech is worthy of expulsion, you may be heading for a very slippery slope. Next thing you know, they'll be expelling members of a Christian organization off of campus because they condemn the pro-choice movement.

[Kevin]

What you have done here is make my argument for me. Thank you.

The "STATE or institutions/entities sponsored by the state cannot provide its power to the individuals wishing to display such views or discriminate or anything else thay may be found insensitive to a group of people". The BSA's actions offend me. They obviously offended the PKA's that needed bodyguards to safely pass between classes. The state institution gave them power by not stopping their actions. They are just as much an organization as PKA. They used campus property to post those flyers which were aimed at defaming Pi Kappa Alpha.

What the court says here is that the state institution has no right to step in either way. It would support my assertion that the two expelled members would actually have the better civil rights case.

You're right as far as the organization goes. Were these fellas members of my chapter, they'd most likely be ex-members of my chapter based on these actions. As for the school and their actions, I find them to be very out of line.

Originally posted by Phasad1913
I have to run to an event but I WILL be back to explain why cited this case as a defense to my argument. I knew you would rebut this exactly the way that you did and use this line of reasoning.

In short, though, the point in this case is that the Justices found that while it is perfectly legal to think badly about another person, or race, or in the case of the PIKA students, display theire views (whatever they may or may not be) of a black person by wearing blackface, the STATE or institutions/entities spnsored by the state cannot provide its power to the individuals wishing to display such views or discriminate or anything else thay may be found insensitive to a group of people. The State, according to the Court, must refrain from empowering individuals to discriminate or act in anyway that infringes on the rights and freedoms ensured by the Constitution and/or various other civil rights laws by enforcing such acts or offering the protection of the Court. Doing so would be the same as the State itself denying the offended persons (in this case the attendess at the party or the family who was enjoined from buying the house) their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment or other laws. So, a group or person can go and draw up any number of "restrictive covernants" meant to keep people out of their neighborhoods, in the the case of Shelly, or wear as much Black paint on their face as they want, but none of that can be sanctioned by, condoned or supported by the State or State sponsored institutions such as a public university. THIS is the parallel that I saw between this case and this issue. Yes there have been other cases since this one both in agreement with the logic of the Court as well as those who supported the rights on groups like the KKK, et. al.
However, when it all boils down, the court system is very reluctant when it comes to empowering individuals or groups through the protection of the courts or under the Constitution to threaten, discriminate or terrorize people of a previously or historically oppressed people, or any people for that matter. As I said before the 13, 14 & 15 Amendments were ratified for a specific group of people for very specific reasons and that carries more weight in the eyes of the law and the State than the protection of people just out to do others harm.

I'm late now but I didn't want to lose my train of thought, I'll still be back though in case this wasn't adequate information about why I cited this case to defend my argument.
Also, to AggieSigmaNu, just like our chapters in their entirety get snatched or placed on probation when one, two or a few members haze and do something that is against the charter, illegal or simply studid, this chapter had to deal with the same repercussions for the actions of their members. That's what you agree to when you join an ORGANIZATION.

[starang21]

people want to call others oversensitive when something offensive is done to them. but those same people sure are defensive when they're accused of being bigots and racists.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by starang21
people want to call others oversensitive when something offensive is done to them. but those same people sure are defensive when they're accused of being bigots and racists.

Perhaps because they're not and they find it offensive that they are being called racists and bigots?

I don't think anyone here believes what these guys did wasn't offensive. However, the notion that you can be expelled from a public school for saying/doing something that the administration disagrees with is actually a pretty frightening proposition.

[starang21]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Perhaps because they're not and they find it offensive that they are being called racists and bigots?

I don't think anyone here believes what these guys did wasn't offensive. However, the notion that you can be expelled from a public school for saying/doing something that the administration disagrees with is actually a pretty frightening proposition.

isn't there such a thing as the honor code or something to that extent at universities?

[Kevin]

Originally posted by starang21
isn't there such a thing as the honor code or something to that extent at universities?

Many have something like that. The VMI Honor Code comes to mind: "I will not lie, cheat or steal. Nor will I tolerate those who do".

Regardless of what an honor code says, public institutions can and cannot do certain things.

[Phasad1913]

Originally posted by ktsnake
What you have done here is make my argument for me. Thank you.

The "STATE or institutions/entities sponsored by the state cannot provide its power to the individuals wishing to display such views or discriminate or anything else thay may be found insensitive to a group of people". The BSA's actions offend me. They obviously offended the PKA's that needed bodyguards to safely pass between classes. The state institution gave them power by not stopping their actions. They are just as much an organization as PKA. They used campus property to post those flyers which were aimed at defaming Pi Kappa Alpha.

What the court says here is that the state institution has no right to step in either way. It would support my assertion that the two expelled members would actually have the better civil rights case.

You're right as far as the organization goes. Were these fellas members of my chapter, they'd most likely be ex-members of my chapter based on these actions. As for the school and their actions, I find them to be very out of line.

What the court says here is that the state institution has no right to step in either way. It would support my assertion that the two expelled members would actually have the better civil rights case.

I don't think these two individuals would have a stronger civil rights case, still. I also do not think at all that I made your case for you. But if that's how you see it, fine.

[starang21]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Many have something like that. The VMI Honor Code comes to mind: "I will not lie, cheat or steal. Nor will I tolerate those who do".

Regardless of what an honor code says, public institutions can and cannot do certain things.

i think public institution also might have an honor code.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by starang21
i think public institution also might have an honor code.

VMI is state supported. That's why they now admit women. If a school has an honor code or any other type of code of contuct for students, the Constitution trumps it (as long as it's a state supported school).

[dstbrat]

they has been a trend in higher ed in the last 10 years or so to adopt a school creed. auburn has the "auburn creed" uga has 'the pillars of the arch' and i believe alabama just adopted one. bascially, because of the poor decisions that students were making, the universities thought it prudent to state that as students at said school, we should conduct oursleves in a way that bring honor and not shame to our schools. and they are being used in judicial hearings.

[2blue]

Georgia State University suspended a black student organization Thursday after finding it harassed a member of a fraternity that had hosted a party where two students appeared in blackface.

The Black Student Alliance, an umbrella organization of black student groups, also violated university policy by distributing an intentionally misleading flier on campus that told students about the party, the university found.

The blackface incident at a party thrown by the nearly all-white Pi Kappa Alpha chapter spurred campus protests and public forums at one of Georgia's most diverse state universities. Almost one-third of the 28,000 students at Georgia State are African-American.

At one of those forums, an African-American student who is a member of Pi Kappa Alpha said he was called derogatory names by members of the Black Student Alliance. The student, Rick Burt, later filed a complaint saying the alliance fliers had depicted his fraternity as racist, stirred up outrage, and subjected him to harassment.

On Thursday, Dean of Students Rebecca Stout backed the findings of a student judicial panel that looked into the allegations. She found the alliance engaged in discriminatory harassment against Burt.

The senior, who said he is the only black active member of his fraternity, said he was called a "Sambo" and an "Uncle Tom."

The fliers included a photo taken from the Internet, reportedly of students from another university, in blackface and white hooded robes. It read: "Happy Black History Month from your Friends of Pi Kappa Alpha."

On Thursday, Burt said he was pleased. "They knowingly and willingly, as an organization, violated those sections of the [student] code."

Shakeema Bell, a student speaking for the Black Student Alliance, said the organization and its supporters are outraged and plan to appeal.

The Black Student Alliance will be suspended through Dec. 19. It has to vacate its Student Center office space by May 21. Its members must perform at least 200 hours of community service, and its executive leaders have to complete a diversity education program.

Last week, the university suspended the fraternity Pi Kappa Alpha through Dec. 19 for the blackface incident. It cannot host parties with alcohol until May 2005, or at least one semester after its charter is renewed. It has to participate in community service and apologize in writing to the predominantly African-American fraternity Phi Beta Sigma, which filed the complaint about the party

[James]

Pi kappa alpha really needs to get a lawyer on this one. That verdict is certainly not fair.