A Multicultural Sorority?

[SWTXBelle]

For the record, Sensuret posted this in an obvious attempt to get at me.

Yes, three members of the sorority made an ill-advised costume choice - although I find it ironic that it is at the University of North Dakota - home of the Fighting Sioux (!).


But that is hardly reason to believe that the entire membership is therefore insensitive. The sorority's response is here http://www.gammaphibeta.org/news/pre..._CATEGORY_ID=5
I'm sure Sensuret meant to post it, but just forgot.

If the sorority just shrugged their shoulders and said, "Eh", then Sensuret would have a point. But I am proud of the way it was handled, and the good to come out of it is that many more people are now aware of the need for cultural sensitivity in terms of social party themes and costuming. It's a process - and there will be missteps on the way. But the important thing is to strive to improve, to encourage and educate our members to be culturally aware.

[Elephant Walk]

...

Why does it matter if it was offensive? What is it of their business?

I don't get it. How were their rights hurt in any way?

[SoCalGirl]

Does anyone have a link to the pictures? I came across them in the last couple weeks but now I can't find them. (very annoying) What I remember is that based on what I had read I was expecting people with their faces painted red (like black face). But what I saw were red hand prints and a variety of colors being used. At first I was very much "this is what's causing the problem?" After thinking about I can understand if Native Americans are offended by the photos. However, I think it's the type of image that a lot of people grew up with and so don't think it could be offensive. I firmly believe that the participants didn't intend offense. Which I think is something to be considered.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SoCalGirl

I firmly believe that the participants didn't intend offense. Which I think is something to be considered.

The intent isn't important.

We usually can't prove ill intentions. Even the idiots who wore black face and gold chains claimed not to have ill intentions. So there's no need to debate intent. We can, however, prove the outcomes and that's what the resulting offense and whatever harms caused are based on.

[SoCalGirl]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

The intent isn't important.

We usually can't prove ill intentions. Even the idiots who wore black face and gold chains claimed not to have ill intentions. So there's no need to debate intent. We can, however, prove the outcomes and that's what the resulting offense and whatever harms caused are based on.

I respectfully disagree. I think intent is important to how the situation should be handled. I don't think intent invalidates the results though.

[SWTXBelle]

The chapter is on social probation.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

The chapter is on social probation.

Sanctioned for not being politically correct. Might as well just tear up the Constitution.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SoCalGirl

I don't think intent invalidates the results though.

Exactly why intent doesn't matter.

[gee_ess]

Very good points made on both sides of this issue so far...and I agree that being sensitive to cultural differences is an important aspect of societal harmony...
but, I think the same argument about oppression, injustice, negative images unfairly perpetuated can be made about almost any subgroup.

Backwoods, redneck, hick - can be very offensive to the hardworking, blue collar laborer who puts food on your tables, drives goods and services cross country,etc. These people were often exploited, uneducated, and misused and are one of the reasons we have labor laws, etc. Yet, we love a good hoedown/Sadie Hawkins/white trash party...

I agree that the intent of the mixer was not to offend anyone and I agree that the irony of this occurring in one of the Dakotas is not lost on most.

So, while I agree there is reason to be aware that this type of behavior can go too far and be offensive in some extremes, we can't, for example, freak out every time a kindergarten class has an interactive Thanksgiving celebration where the "Indians" (in traditional garb which usually includes facepaint) have dinner with the "pilgrims."

[Kevin]

Now that they do know?

The university doesn't have the power to compel you to not offend racial groups. If their organization wants to sanction them, fine. The university has no business doing anything here, except maybe to issue a statement saying that they don't approve, but there's nothing they can do.

The fact that the university legally doesn't have the power to sanction this group preempts this entire argument as to whether it's offensive (which is still an argument).

The university has waaaay overstepped its bounds here and I hope someone sues them for it.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Now that they do know?

The university doesn't have the power to compel you to not offend racial groups. If their organization wants to sanction them, fine. The university has no business doing anything here, except maybe to issue a statement saying that they don't approve, but there's nothing they can do.

The fact that the university legally doesn't have the power to sanction this group preempts this entire argument as to whether it's offensive (which is still an argument).

The university has waaaay overstepped its bounds here and I hope someone sues them for it.

If the GLO is a student organization on the University's campus they can hold the GLO responsible as they could any other student organization. While they could not rescind the charter, they can stop recognizing the chapter on the campus or impose any other level of consequences as provided by their rules on student organizations.

I'm not seeing where the University actually did anything to the chapter except say that they would review the whole affair. And there is a provision for a chapter to be brought up in front of a Judicial Board if they hold an event that is considered questionable.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If the GLO is a student organization on the University's campus they can hold the GLO responsible as they could any other student organization. While they could not rescind the charter, they can stop recognizing the chapter on the campus or impose any other level of consequences as provided by their rules on student organizations.

I'm not seeing where the University actually did anything to the chapter except say that they would review the whole affair. And there is a provision for a chapter to be brought up in front of a Judicial Board if they hold an event that is considered questionable.

No they can't. The University cannot abridge your Constitutional rights and call it "University policy." It simply isn't within their power.

The chapter has been put on social probation by the University. I'll bet they did all of this without even so much as a hearing. At public schools, you're entitled to certain things. Just because the school ignores the law, doesn't make the school right.

Quick research brought me to a case wherein Sigma Chi was sanctioned by George Mason University for having an "ugly woman" contest. In one of the skits, a fraternity member dressed up in "an offensive caricature of a black woman." The sanctioning was done because the fraternity's conduct was offensive and created a hostile environment to blacks and women (sound familiar?). The fraternity was given social probation for the rest of the semester and was put on probation for two years.

The fraternity sued under 42 U.S. 1983 (the Civil Rights Act) alleging that they had been deprived of Constitutional rights under the color of state law.

The 4th Circuit held that "[t]he University certainly has a substantial interest in maintaining an educational environment free of discrimination and racism, and in providing gender-neutral education. Yet it seems equally apparent that it has available numerous alternatives to imposing punishment on students based on the viewpoints they express. We agree wholeheartedly that it is the University officials' responsibility, even their obligation, to achieve the goals they have set. On the other hand, a public university has many constitutionally permissible means to protect female and minority students. We must emphasize, as have other courts, that “the manner of [its action] cannot consist of selective limitations upon speech.”

This is of course not binding on the N.D. courts, but it'd be extremely persuasive as this is almost exactly the same sort of situation.

The citation is 993 F.2d 386, (4th Cir., 1993) if anyone cares.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No they can't. The University cannot abridge your Constitutional rights and call it "University policy." It simply isn't within their power.

The chapter has been put on social probation by the University. I'll bet they did all of this without even so much as a hearing. At public schools, you're entitled to certain things. Just because the school ignores the law, doesn't make the school right.

Quick research brought me to a case wherein Sigma Chi was sanctioned by George Mason University for having an "ugly woman" contest. In one of the skits, a fraternity member dressed up in "an offensive caricature of a black woman." The sanctioning was done because the fraternity's conduct was offensive and created a hostile environment to blacks and women (sound familiar?). The fraternity was given social probation for the rest of the semester and was put on probation for two years.

The fraternity sued under 42 U.S. 1983 (the Civil Rights Act) alleging that they had been deprived of Constitutional rights under the color of state law.

The 4th Circuit held that "[t]he University certainly has a substantial interest in maintaining an educational environment free of discrimination and racism, and in providing gender-neutral education. Yet it seems equally apparent that it has available numerous alternatives to imposing punishment on students based on the viewpoints they express. We agree wholeheartedly that it is the University officials' responsibility, even their obligation, to achieve the goals they have set. On the other hand, a public university has many constitutionally permissible means to protect female and minority students. We must emphasize, as have other courts, that “the manner of [its action] cannot consist of selective limitations upon speech.”

This is of course not binding on the N.D. courts, but it'd be extremely persuasive as this is almost exactly the same sort of situation.

The citation is 993 F.2d 386, (4th Cir., 1993) if anyone cares.

Where was it said that the University put the chapter on social probation? The only mention of probation that I saw was in this thread and it was a passive sentence, no mention if HQ did it or if the University did.

And you just contradicted your post following this one. Technically the law does not, as of now, prohibit it unless a court rules since the previous precedent is not binding. "Persuasive" perhaps, but "illegal" is just an opinion at this point.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Where was it said that the University put the chapter on social probation? The only mention of probation that I saw was in this thread and it was a passive sentence, no mention if HQ did it or if the University did.

The student newspaper says that the group was placed on social suspension.

http://media.www.dakotastudent.com/m...-3289876.shtml

And you just contradicted your post following this one. Technically the law does not, as of now, prohibit it unless a court rules since the previous precedent is not binding. "Persuasive" perhaps, but "illegal" is just an opinion at this point.

I doesn't contradict my argument at all to acknowledge that situations such as this rarely come up, so this would be a matter of first impression for the North Dakota courts. I've found the only federally reported case wherein a public school sanctioned a fraternity for offensive conduct. The law here is pretty simple. That's why these cases don't go to the federal courts. It's very likely that the university will back down after a call from a lawyer. If not, they're going to risk hundreds of thousands in attorney's fees (the school pays the plaintiff's fees plus whatever else if it loses). They'll back down considering the only law on the books heavily favors Gamma Phi Beta.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Now that they do know?

The university doesn't have the power to compel you to not offend racial groups. If their organization wants to sanction them, fine. The university has no business doing anything here, except maybe to issue a statement saying that they don't approve, but there's nothing they can do.

The fact that the university legally doesn't have the power to sanction this group preempts this entire argument as to whether it's offensive (which is still an argument).

The university has waaaay overstepped its bounds here and I hope someone sues them for it.

LOL.

University policies override many organization policies, as long as the organization hopes to be recognized and in good standing with the University.

They can sue all they want but the point has been made that the University CAN and it DID.

Those of you who think this is just about being politically correct, OKAY. That's why this stuff will keep happening and Universities and nhqs will keep handing out the sanctions.

ETA: Did the University do something beyond review the situation or has the nhq handed down the sanction?