A Multicultural Sorority?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by starang21

as legally unviable as the suit might be, quite possibly the real goal of this was to bring negative attention to the chapter. and the native american group is well within their right to "complain."

If they brought it as a federal case, they can count on being sanctioned by the court for filing a frivolous action. These kids don't even have standing, let alone a legally viable theory.

A suit filed in bad faith like that can only be bad for the person filing it. I'm assuming that this is through the university's internal student complaints system. That seems the most likely forum.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If they brought it as a federal case, they can count on being sanctioned by the court for filing a frivolous action.

Lol. If only they really sanctioned people for bringing frivolous suits. There are plenty of crazy people out there who file suits that you can't even comprehend the writing, let alone understand whether or not they have standing or anything else. They don't get sanctioned. You have to repeatedly file outlandish suits to get anything. I defend clients in "frivolous" lawsuits everyday, including in federal court.

You shouldn't make these legal issues sound so absolute. You've been acting like its black and white in this entire thread. If you've been to even one law school class, you should know that nothing in the law is ever black and white. Have you graduated and passed the bar yet?

A 4th Circuit case from 1993 doesn't hold a ton of weight. It may in the 4th circuit, but it wouldn't be a precedent throughout the rest of the country. 15 years later, courts change, things change, and who knows what would happen if the issue were revisited.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by kddani

Lol. If only they really sanctioned people for bringing frivolous suits.

True.

It couldn't be a federal case anyhow. I don't think there's any such cause of action.

A 4th Circuit case from 1993 doesn't hold a ton of weight. It may in the 4th circuit, but it wouldn't be a precedent throughout the rest of the country. 15 years later, courts change, things change, and who knows what would happen if the issue were revisited.

I couldn't find anything going the other way. Not even close. This is one of those rare situations where it is pretty black and white. The fact remains that there's no such power of the state to condemn speech that is simply offensive to some people.

Taking it to an extreme again, in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Supreme Court (see, binding) held that a St. Paul statute banning hate speech (I guess you could call the war paint hate speech) was unconstitutional. The defendant in that case was a KKK member who had burned a cross in a black person's yard.

We're talking about a college trying to assert a content-based attack on free speech. It ain't happenin'.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

If they brought it as a federal case, they can count on being sanctioned by the court for filing a frivolous action. These kids don't even have standing, let alone a legally viable theory.

A suit filed in bad faith like that can only be bad for the person filing it. I'm assuming that this is through the university's internal student complaints system. That seems the most likely forum.

however, while this might not actually hold any water in the court of law.....this is hardly a frivolous issue, and thus would probably not get any sort of sanction. and by calling it (the suit) frivolous, are you saying that the native american group has no basis to be offended? and you still haven't answered my other question.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by starang21

however, while this might not actually hold any water in the court of law.....this is hardly a frivolous issue, and thus would probably not get any sort of sanction. and by calling it (the suit) frivolous, are you saying that the native american group has no basis to be offended? and you still haven't answered my other question.

They can be offended all they want. They just don't have a lawsuit, nor can they use the University's judicial system to go after Gamma Phi Beta (if anyone cares about the Constitution, that is).

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

They can be offended all they want. They just don't have a lawsuit, nor can they use the University's judicial system to go after Gamma Phi Beta (if anyone cares about the Constitution, that is).

does that make it frivilous? i think not. we're talking about a group being offended, and taking action upon being offended. whether or not they win, it doesn't mean that they'll be sanctioned. weren't you implying that there would be acton against them if they filed?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by starang21

does that make it frivilous? i think not. we're talking about a group being offended, and taking action upon being offended. whether or not they win, it doesn't mean that they'll be sanctioned. weren't you implying that there would be acton against them if they filed?

There could be. I can't think of a good faith cause of action here. It sounds like the group filed through the University, so if the University acts, it'd be subject to a Civil Rights case if the sorority wanted to fight it (which they won't).

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Kevin

There could be. I can't think of a good faith cause of action here. It sounds like the group filed through the University, so if the University acts, it'd be subject to a Civil Rights case if the sorority wanted to fight it (which they won't).

i'm willing to bet nothing happens to the group if they file. this is hardly something that can be looked at as "frivilous."

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by starang21

i'm willing to bet nothing happens to the group if they file. this is hardly something that can be looked at as "frivilous."

I don't think they'll file a federal case. As I said, there's no (real) cause of action for this sort of "discrimination." It's probably through the University, and no, nothing bad will happen to the group except that the University should probably tell them "sorry, but we can't adjudicate these things," which will probably not happen because they've already placed the sorority on social probation, "pending review." In the end, I suspect the sorority will subject itself to a few hours of sensitivity training, then agree to be on some sort of probation for the next semester or so because they want to protect their image.

[SWTXBelle]

Okay, I'm trying not to get into much of this since I don't want anything I write as being construed as being a response from Gamma Phi, because it's NOT - anything I write is mine, and mine alone. I realize that most of you know that, but I just want to get that out there.

I think there are two issues that are being discussed:

1.) The actual event in question. Let it be noted that Gamma Phi has apologized, and is working with the university. I specifically asked what you thought would be a proper response, and received no answers, so I have to assume that everyone is okay with social probation and education. Heretofore there have been no calls for tar and feathering.

and

2.) The legality of a hypothetical response of the university. (Right now, all we know for sure is that the chapter is on social probation, but it is not clear that it is from the university or the HQ). It took four months for the offended parties to come forth, so who knows how long the university's investigation will take, or what actions will follow.

Some conflict is coming from a confusion between the two. I think it is possible for an action to be condemned as insensitive without it being illegal. A possible point is that those who filed a complaint with the university have no legal standing to argue for harm. So while they might not have a legal case, they certainly have a right to claim they are offended. But let's not confuse a moral right with a legal one.

[kddani]

Real life is not a constitutional law final. Constitutional law is never black and white.

Kevin, you're in no position to be making clear-cut, black-and-white determinations. Even if you were a licensed, practicing attorney you wouldn't be. But you're not licensed, you're not practicing and your practical experience is as a law clerk in family law.

For instance, you posted this:

Originally Posted by Kevin
If they brought it as a federal case, they can count on being sanctioned by the court for filing a frivolous action.

That is simply not true in reality. Very very rarely does anyone get sanctioned by the court for filing a "frivolous" action. You made an absolute statement "they can count on being sanctioned" without anything to back it up. What you personally think is "frivolous" is not necessarily what a court would deem frivolous. Especially a district court, where any federal action would be filed. This is a great example of you talking out of your ass in absolute terms and having no authority for what you're saying.

Thanks to Mysticat for helping you prepare for your con-law final. I don't have time to do the Lexis research (nor do I have a free account like you do) nor do I have time to check up on your citations. However, I will say that you need to stop talking out of your ass in such absolute terms and saying what a court will or will not do on a myriad of claims. You don't know, nor does anyone else know for certain.