Delta Zeta Reportedly Sues DePauw

[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.

[33girl]

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.

This whole debacle is not about our rights to decide who our members are. It's about how we treat those who already ARE members. It's about how much we can call ourselves sisterhoods and how much we should admit we are businesses.

This chapter has been in the state it was in, or should I say the tier it was on, for a long time. Did DZ really think they would be able to blow in and recolonize and have the perfect chapter for the centennial in a year's space of time?? At a school with 2500 students?? If they were really that worried about the chapter being around and healthy for the centennial, they should have done a recolonization and an image overhaul LONG before this.

[ΑΓΔSquirrelGirl]

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.

Sorry, not buying that (excuse me) crap. This isn't about "our rights". We are guests on campuses if we want to be recognized by the administration. We have to abide by their rules. I see no unfairness in this whatsoever. While some schools (UA, for instance) would probably take a HUGE hit in applications if they closed the greek system, most probably wouldn't.

This is NOT in any way shape or form about our rights to choose our own members. NO ONE has challenged that right. No one has even challenged the right to dismiss members, or force alumna status upon them. What has been challenged is the actions taken by the HQ of the organization, such as evicting sisters in the middle of the school year, and then not being consistent in statements to the public and to the school/susters. THAT was the final straw that resulted in the eviction of the entire chapter from DePauw. DePauw did NOT say that it was because of the membership review, though they obviously didn't approve of the manner in which that was conducted either (and that's their right, to disapprove).

This isn't about them somehow taking one for the team, for Greeks. They are systematically making themselves AND all of US look bad. They'll dig all the way to the center of the earth and beyond.

[PM_Mama00]

Anyone else think this may help DZ's recruitment next Fall? (or Spring) Girls who are so hooked on image and being a part of the beautiful sorority could be thinking to themselves "Well they kick out the ugly people, so if I can get in that means I'm pretty and hot!". Just thinking on a college freshman/high school perspective. Some girls just don't know about the sisterhood and committment that comes with being in a sorority. Some just want the partying and the boys.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by PM_Mama00

Anyone else think this may help DZ's recruitment next Fall? (or Spring) Girls who are so hooked on image and being a part of the beautiful sorority could be thinking to themselves "Well they kick out the ugly people, so if I can get in that means I'm pretty and hot!". Just thinking on a college freshman/high school perspective. Some girls just don't know about the sisterhood and committment that comes with being in a sorority. Some just want the partying and the boys.

No, I doubt it, because the way this is coming off to the general public is that you don't have to be pretty to GET in, you have to be pretty to STAY in, and your rolling the dice that whoever it is that's judging who's pretty and who's not thinks that you are.

[Taualumna]

Goodness! When I left to have dinner with my boyfriend yetserday afternoon, this thread was up to 2 pages. When I came home around 11:30, it had six or so!

I don't think membership selection will neccessarily be made public during the case. As people have said in the other thread, this is about kicking women who have already initiated out of the sorority (no matter how you word it, forcing someone into alum status while they are still undergraduates and while the GLO is still active, is "kicking out".) It has nothing to do with who gets in based on whatever. They aren't PNMs, they are initiated sisters.

As for ritual and its secrecy, I believe that there was a thread from long ago that talked about who outside might know about our ritual. I recall a post from OTW mentioning something that we were told at Convention. She said that people outside of our groups have to make ritual-related material, so yes, people have seen it. They just have no clue what things mean.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by NutBrnHair

"They'd like to have their good name restored and they'd like to have the chapter continue to operate," says Kevin O'Neill, an attorney with Patton Boggs in Washington, D.C., who has been consulting with Delta Zeta officials.

Kevin O'Neill is good.

This should be very interesting.

And Patton Boggs is a good firm. But I notice that he doesn't seem to be representing them in this lawsuit.

Originally Posted by kddani

Has anyone seen a copy of the complaint? Anybody know the docket number?

I've looked but haven't found it yet -- I am also unwilling to use the office PACER account to get it.

Originally Posted by TSteven

Frankly, I doubt this lawsuit was filed irrationally. And I doubt that any attorney worth a grain of salt is going to take a case of this type unless they feel they can win it or settle it out of court. Which leads me to believe there may be some merit behind this case.

Ah, I remember when I was that naive. Sorry, Steven, but there are plenty of lawyers who regularly disprove that idea.

Originally Posted by DGMarie

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

Yes.

Originally Posted by TSteven

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

As Dani said, there's little chance of that. Unless they can convince a judge that these are "trade secrets" -- which will be very difficult, I think, especially given that they're the ones who brought this lawsuit -- there's nothing privileged about this information. Private, yes; privileged, no.

Originally Posted by Taualumna

I don't think membership selection will neccessarily be made public during the case. As people have said in the other thread, this is about kicking women who have already initiated out of the sorority (no matter how you word it, forcing someone into alum status while they are still undergraduates and while the GLO is still active, is "kicking out".) It has nothing to do with who gets in based on whatever. They aren't PNMs, they are initiated sisters.

Won't matter. DePauw is entitled to pursue and will be allowed to pursue any discovery regarding anything that is relevant to the matters involved in the lawsuit (which will include membership selection and retention criteria) or anything that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The scope of discovery is very broad.

With the caveat that I haven't read the complaint, it seems to me that the Delta Zeta leadership is getting some very, very bad advice. I don't see much good coming out of this for them.

[ForeverRoses]

DZ is suing DePauw, the former Delta DZs are considering suing DZ.

It sounds like DZ is going to be spending allot of money on court costs.

So who is going to pay for all of this? I assume DZ doesn't have some sort of legal fund, and I would assume that DePauw has deeper pockets that DZ and can drag this out for a fairly long time.

Plus from one of the previous articles, one of the "kicked-out" DZs has a father that is a partner at a prominent law firm here in Indy, so I'm sure that suit will have some pro-bono workers.

So is DZ going to send out letters to all alums asking for donations for legal fees?

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by ΑΓΔSquirrelGirl

Sorry, not buying that (excuse me) crap. This isn't about "our rights". We are guests on campuses if we want to be recognized by the administration. We have to abide by their rules. I see no unfairness in this whatsoever. While some schools (UA, for instance) would probably take a HUGE hit in applications if they closed the greek system, most probably wouldn't (I know mine wouldn't).

This is NOT in any way shape or form about our rights to choose our own members. NO ONE has challenged that right. No one has even challenged the right to dismiss members, or force alumna status upon them. What has been challenged is the actions taken by the HQ of the organization, such as evicting sisters in the middle of the school year, and then not being consistent in statements to the public and to the school/susters. THAT was the final straw that resulted in the eviction of the entire chapter from DePauw. DePauw did NOT say that it was because of the membership review, though they obviously didn't approve of the manner in which that was conducted either (and that's their right, to disapprove).

This isn't about them somehow taking one for the team, for Greeks. They are systematically making themselves AND all of US look bad. They'll dig all the way to the center of the earth and beyond.

Thank you for putting into words what I failed to communicate properly!

[LPIDelta]

Originally Posted by ΑΓΔSquirrelGirl

This is NOT in any way shape or form about our rights to choose our own members. NO ONE has challenged that right.

Really? I know this was several pages ago but the reality is people have challenged Delta Zeta on the members they wanted to keep and challenged them on their reported criteria for selecting who would be retained. We're all upset for two reasons--because DZ made those women move out when they did (which, agreed, was heinous) AND because of the reported shallowness of the criteria they used.

I am not making judgments on the merits of their case--I am simply saying that I understand what they are trying to protect and I appreciate that they don't want anyone defaming them over their membership review and membership selection.

[GeekyPenguin]

I think challenging members to keep is somewhat different than challenging members to accept at all.

[UGAalum94]

Heather17,

I think I understand your concerns, but how to you reconcile the idea of protecting groups' rights to private membership selection with filing a lawsuit dealing closely with consequences of membership decisions?

If DZ wants DePauw to state that DZ didn't not discriminate in the membership review based on appearance and race (as yesterday's newspaper article indicated DZ does) doesn't that imply to a reasonable person that DePauw would have to ascertain the standards DZ did use?

It seems to me that with the lawsuit, rather than protecting those rights, they are demanding someone breach them.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Heather17

Really? I know this was several pages ago but the reality is people have challenged Delta Zeta on the members they wanted to keep and challenged them on their reported criteria for selecting who would be retained. We're all upset for two reasons--because DZ made those women move out when they did (which, agreed, was heinous) AND because of the reported shallowness of the criteria they used.

I am not making judgments on the merits of their case--I am simply saying that I understand what they are trying to protect and I appreciate that they don't want anyone defaming them over their membership review and membership selection.

I wonder if any legal victory (and any kind of financial judgment) would be a pyrrhic victory, since, in the court of public opinion (the one that prospective members and their families occupy), this may be viewed as petty and mean spirited, and not addressing the issues that caused this mess in the first place. I wonder if there has been the concomitant effort placed on improving policies and procedures to help forestall something like this from happening again. And I wonder about the level of support amongst the DZ membership at large for this course of action.