Delta Zeta Reportedly Sues DePauw

[DGMarie]

If Depauw wanted, could they not require that Delta Zeta put into evidence materials related to their membership selection process or Initiation requirements as part of their case? We at work are often asked to provide materials for opposing counsel in times of litigation. It's part of the discovery process I believe. I'm sure there are lots of little things in secret parts here and their that when scrutinized by the right people can make anyone look bad. I agree this is a trainwreck.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by DGMarie

If Depauw wanted, could they not require that Delta Zeta put into evidence materials related to their membership selection process or Initiation requirements as part of their case? We at work are often asked to provide materials for opposing counsel in times of litigation. It's part of the discovery process I believe. I'm sure there are lots of little things in secret parts here and their that when scrutinized by the right people can make anyone look bad. I agree this is a trainwreck.

That's a very, very good point, and one that is very valid.

[DGMarie]

When they are put into evidence, could they then become public record?

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by DGMarie

When they are put into evidence, could they then become public record?

If that was to happen, my guess is that the records would most likely be sealed.

[AlexMack]

Can you imagine the thought process that went into deciding to sue DePauw?

"Okay sisters, we look terrible nationally and publicly right now. How do we fix this?"
"Well we could just let this slide but I mean, Delta is our second oldest chapter. How could DePauw just kick us off? God they're so mean!"
"I know! They made us look so bad! They're such meanies!"
"I have an idea. It's brilliant and crazy and it will work! We'll sue them for making us look bad! That will clear our name and make the public hate DePauw instead!"
"That's inspired! Let's do it!"

[KillarneyRose]

Originally Posted by centaur532

Can you imagine the thought process that went into deciding to sue DePauw?

"Okay sisters, we look terrible nationally and publicly right now. How do we fix this?"
"Well we could just let this slide but I mean, Delta is our second oldest chapter. How could DePauw just kick us off? God they're so mean!"
"I know! They made us look so bad! They're such meanies!"
"I have an idea. It's brilliant and crazy and it will work! We'll sue them for making us look bad! That will clear our name and make the public hate DePauw instead!"
"That's inspired! Let's do it!"

Oh yes, and we like to put on babydoll jammies and have pillow fights with each other too

[ladygreek]

Since I am NPHC this whole concept of such high minimum numbers for a chapter is foreign to me. I bet there is another thread on this and if so could someone direct me to it.

This whole scenario could not happen in a NPHC org. I mean folx may be suspended or even expelled for hazing and other violations, but not because the chapter is struggling for members.

And it is interesting to me that the local pan-hel decides on who is invited to expand, because at my school (yeah way back then) DST was denied admittance by the University because there were no houses available, so there would be no addition sororities or fraternities.

Once our then national president (who had come to speak on campus as the first African American commissioner of civil rights) explained that we do not require houses, then the University changed its mind, and the rest of the NPHC was admitted on campus (only Kappa, Alpha and AKA had existed formally in houses, and all three ended up giving them up, because they didn't want to be restricted to the houses.)

We had existed there as part of another nearby chapter, but then we were able to get our own charter.

[jwright25]

Originally Posted by DGMarie

When they are put into evidence, could they then become public record?

I have absolutely no law training, but here is what I fear. Even if DZ's membership selection processes are brought into evidence, and even if they are kept out of the public record, there will still be people who see them. Lawyers, legal assistants, jury members, etc. Given the public nature of this thing, should it actually see a trial, there will be jury members who will want to talk. Their quotes will be along the lines of "I can't believe they judge potential members and actually tell girls they can't belong."

Thus perpetuating the myth that sororities are all snotty elitists.

I had thought this whole mess was dying down. Even the thread on GC has been a little cool as far as posts go. Perhaps it would have been more prudent to cut their losses and let it all go away naturally. Come fall recruitment it would have been old news. The media would have found something new to talk about. While some people may have thought twice before joining DZ, if the issue is no longer in the forefront, it probably wouldn't have had that devastating an effect.

This action just ensures that the story continues to be told. All sides of the story will be told, and whose side is more compelling as far as the media goes? The women who feel discriminated against or the national organization who files a lawsuit?

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by DGMarie

If Depauw wanted, could they not require that Delta Zeta put into evidence materials related to their membership selection process or Initiation requirements as part of their case? We at work are often asked to provide materials for opposing counsel in times of litigation. It's part of the discovery process I believe. I'm sure there are lots of little things in secret parts here and their that when scrutinized by the right people can make anyone look bad. I agree this is a trainwreck.

I would guess (and hope) that Delta Zeta would claim ritual (membership selection) to be privileged information. And anything related to ritual as well.

[DGMarie]

I wonder if that would fly considering that Delta Zeta is claiming they have no such discrimination policies actual or implied. As Depauw's attorney I would think such information on membership selection would be pertinent to the case. I'd ask for everything they have under the moon, back a big old Rider truck up to their HQ and say load it up. But then I'm not an attorney so I get to make it up as I go!

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by DGMarie

I wonder if that would fly considering that Delta Zeta is claiming they have no such discrimination policies actual or implied. As Depauw's attorney I would think such information on membership selection would be pertinent to the case. I'd ask for everything they have under the moon, back a big old Rider truck up to their HQ and say load it up. But then I'm not an attorney so I get to make it up as I go!

I thought Delta Zeta already made public certain membership policies with respect to discrimination. Most GLOs have their policies "out there" and available to the public. The whole "We do not discriminate based on..."

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by TSteven

I thought Delta Zeta already made public certain membership policies with respect to discrimination. Most GLOs have their policies "out there" and available to the public. The whole "We do not discriminate based on..."

Just because they have that statement on their website does not neccessarily mean it is adhered to everywhere (and that's for everyone, not just DZ chapters).

Since membership selection is private and so is the "business" that each GLO conducts, who's to say Suzie Q didn't get into XYZ because of her race, weight, dress size, or how popular she is with the guys? She might be involved in lots of things on campus and someone can say she'd be too busy to be commited to the chapter and that could be it and use that as an excuse to not put her on bid lists or to put her on the "Congratulations! You're a great sister and you can live the rest of your collegiate life as an alumna with all the rights and privilages of an active sister.... except you can't wear letters or come by the house" list

[LPIDelta]

I am not an expert but one of the things I got out of my higher education law class was that if you don't protect your rights, they can be taken away. Yeah, its true--DZ may suffer in numbers or reputation by pursuing this suit. And as an administrator, I would be hesitant about bringing a group to campus that was known for suing another school.

But I wonder--wouldn't it be worse if we, GLOs, lost the right to decide who our members are? Wouldn't it be worse if we didn't have a right to be autonomous and run our organizations by our own values? (This is also why many orgs are resistant to university efforts for values congruence relationship statements etc.)

We need to protect our rights.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by Heather17

I am not an expert but one of the things I got out of my higher education law class was that if you don't protect your rights, they can be taken away. Yeah, its true--DZ may suffer in numbers or reputation by pursuing this suit. And as an administrator, I would be hesitant about bringing a group to campus that was known for suing another school.

But I wonder--wouldn't it be worse if we, GLOs, lost the right to decide who our members are? Wouldn't it be worse if we didn't have a right to be autonomous and run our organizations by our own values? (This is also why many orgs are resistant to university efforts for values congruence relationship statements etc.)

We need to protect our rights.

Well said!

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by Heather17

I am not an expert but one of the things I got out of my higher education law class was that if you don't protect your rights, they can be taken away. Yeah, its true--DZ may suffer in numbers or reputation by pursuing this suit. And as an administrator, I would be hesitant about bringing a group to campus that was known for suing another school.

But I wonder--wouldn't it be worse if we, GLOs, lost the right to decide who our members are? Wouldn't it be worse if we didn't have a right to be autonomous and run our organizations by our own values? (This is also why many orgs are resistant to university efforts for values congruence relationship statements etc.)

We need to protect our rights.

I personally do not agree they should have any legs to stand on because they have never handled this situation in a manner that leads me (and many people) to believe they are completely innocent in all the things that happened.

If they are going to take on the "OMG WE'RE A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DISMISS WHOEVER WE WANT TO BECAUSE WE'RE A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION AND WE ARE ON THIS CRUSADE FOR ALL OF GREEKDOM" then hey, more power to them, but not everyone is going to buy it.