Delta Zeta Reportedly Sues DePauw

[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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

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 comcomitant 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.

Excellent post, Wolfman. I agree and wonder the same things completely.

[Glitter650]

Originally Posted by Heather17

I appreciate that they don't want anyone defaming them over their membership review and membership selection.

I really don't think that DePauw defamed them at all, the university made their decision based on, and reported that decision to the media based on facts. They did not appreciate the way the GLO treated their students by making them move with EXTREMELY short notice RIGHT before finals. It is a FACT that they did this. I'm Not a lawyer... but doesn't TRUTH negate defamation claims ??

[kddani]

Originally Posted by Glitter650

I really don't think that DePauw defamed them at all, the university made their decision based on, and reported that decision to the media based on facts. They did not appreciate the way the GLO treated their students by making them move with EXTREMELY short notice RIGHT before finals. It is a FACT that they did this. I'm Not a lawyer... but doesn't TRUTH negate defamation claims ??

From dictionary.com, the definition of defamation:

1. to attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; slander or libel; calumniate: The newspaper editorial defamed the politician.

This is a simple definition. DZ would have to prove that DePauw was publishing malicious or false information.

[PM_Mama00]

Originally Posted by kddani

From dictionary.com, the definition of defamation:

1. to attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; slander or libel; calumniate: The newspaper editorial defamed the politician.

This is a simple definition. DZ would have to prove that DePauw was publishing malicious or false information.

Plus isn't there the 5 ones you have to prove to win a case like this? Defamation, Libel, and I can't remember the other 3. I remember learning in class that these cases are the hardest to prove.

[Ch2tf]

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.

It is my understanding that besides the issue of the membership review (how it was conducted and the criteria used to decide who stays and who goes), the University decided to cut ties with DZ because of how they handled the situation post MR. Meaning how they began passing the blame around (putting a good portion of it on the University), not fully answering questions (as they did in the latest interview to USA today), denying "alumna" members their rights as sisters in good standing (financially)and their nixing all media commentary on the subject---which by the way is apparently a decision that has been recinded.

[AlphaFrog]

Question: Could NPC HQ send them some sort of "cease and desist" letter?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Question: Could NPC HQ send them some sort of "cease and desist" letter?

Nope. They aren't suing on behalf of NPC or using any of NPC's resources. NPC doesn't have a "quit acting like an asshat" clause.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Nope. They aren't suing on behalf of NPC or using any of NPC's resources. NPC doesn't have a "quit acting like an asshat" clause.

Now might be a good time to consider adding one. I'm not really sure how they'd word it though.

I'm sure it'd be like one of those "memos" that my boss sends the "company" (aka, my co-worker and I) that are blatantly aimed at one of us, but she sends it to the "company" anyway to pretend like it's not.

[LPIDelta]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Question: Could NPC HQ send them some sort of "cease and desist" letter?

I got the feeling NPC was supporting DZ's stance.

March 29

March 1

[IvySpice]

In your opinion, is this the type of case that might be tried before a jury? Or do you feel it will more likely be tried before a judge.

Not having read the complaint, I think this is the type of case that never reaches trial. (That's true of the vast majority of cases anyway.) I'll be stunned speechless if this case doesn't either settle or get dismissed long before that point.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by IvySpice

Not having read the complaint, I think this is the type of case that never reaches trial. (That's true of the vast majority of cases anyway.) I'll be stunned speechless if this case doesn't either settle or get dismissed long before that point.

Thanks. That is my feeling as well. Maybe not so much the stunned speechless part.