A Multicultural Sorority?

[AOE2AlphaPhi]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Thank God. That class was a nightmare.

I'm totally working on a Con Law final right now, and I'll definitely agree with you there!

[starang21]

Originally Posted by kddani

And I think that's exactly why he's doing it - to make your head explode. The vast majority of GC cannot argue back because he's using a lot of legalese and trying to input various standards, etc. It's a diversion from an actual discussion about what happened and people's feelings about it.

i don't disagree with him whether or not this would actually hold up in a court of law. however, whether or not it's legally viable doesn't change the fact that it's morally wrong. you guys are arguing two different things.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Dance my puppets.....dance!

Yeah . . . cause you TOTALLY started this thread in order to have a discussion of Constitutional law break out. Bravo!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by kddani

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

That depends on whether you're talking to Scalia or Brennan

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.

I never represented otherwise and I don't see how any of that is particularly relevant to anything. You can tell me it's not black and white, but I'll bet you can't tell me of a similar situation where strict scrutiny was not applied to a content based restriction.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So you could make an argument for an ex post facto ad hoc review of speech to determine whether a group should be sanctioned for the content of their speech could pass strict scrutiny and keep a straight face?

Sure. I'm a lawyer. I can argue anything with a straight face.

BTW, in suggesting that there's a problem with an ex post facto review of speech to determine whether it was sanctionable, surely you're not suggesting that it would have been preferable for UND to engage in peremptory enforcement or prior restraint, 'cause talk about things the courts tend not to like.

As for ad hoc, how do we know it was really ad hoc? Maybe it was, or maybe there's more there that we don't know about.

Let's apply strict scrutiny.

Let's don't, because as I've already said, we don't know nearly enough to really flesh out such an application. We're just guessing at what really happened, with our main source of info being an article in the student newspaper -- not necessarily the source I'd want to count on.

You said it youself:

I think the school would assert that providing a safe and comfortable learning environment is a compelling governmental goal.

(Emphasis mine. Of course, kudos for at least looking at the University Code of Conduct.) That might be what the school would assert and it might not. All we've got is speculation. We don't know nearly enough to play the "somebody should sue" card.

Look, UND might indeed go down the tubes if a suit were filed. But it's not a slam dunk. (I tend to think, based on the minimal information we have, that a plaintiff might not even make it past a motion to dismiss -- I still haven't seen anything that actually says UND has taken any action against the chapter. The article you cited seems to make it as likely that Gamma Phi Beta HQ or campus Panhellenic took the initial action.) To suggest otherwise is simply doesn't further any discussion.

And by the way, with regard to this, which I missed earlier:

Originally Posted by Kevin

42. U.S.C. 1983 says the school can't [legally] do this.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 says nothing of the sort. Section 1983 only allows someone to sue for violation of civil rights; it gives the courts jurisdiction over such claims. But it does not create any substantive rights -- the right in question must be found elsewhere (presumably, in this case, the First Amendment). Section 1983 says nothing about what can and can't legally be done.

[Drolefille]

MysticCat, have I mentioned how awesome you are lately?

Cause I don't think I have.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by starang21

you all are arguing two different things.

DUH.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

MysticCat, have I mentioned how awesome you are lately?

Cause I don't think I have.

He's great.

Are we being billed right now?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Are we being billed right now?

Oh no. For y'all, it's always pro bono.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Sure. I'm a lawyer. I can argue anything with a straight face.

This made me LOL.

God, I LOVE listening to (well, in this case READING) lawyers argue back and forth. Who's got the next citation, come on, bring it!!!!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

This made me LOL.

Just wait 'til you see me in action on TAR.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Just wait 'til you see me in action on TAR.

Oh my god, we are so gonna SMOKE the other teams!!!!

[tld221]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Oh no. For y'all, it's always pro bono.

i REALLY want to execute an "internet lawyer" joke but im not old-school enough to do it.

[DSTRen13]

I'm not a lawyer or law student or anything close, so maybe someone can help me out with this. Where does the idea that public universities cannot regulate their students' on-campus actions come from? By accepting admission into the school, are they not agreeing adhere to its policies and procedures? People do not seem to question that students in elementary and secondary level public schools should have to conform to standards of behavior or risk sanctions; why is this such a controversial issue for the public university? Because the students are there by choice? (To me, this argument seems invalid - a code of conduct for students who are enrolled in a school of their choosing is more acceptable than students who are enrolled in a school they are required to attend.)

[SWTXBelle]

Just a clarification - the event which started this discussion did not occur on university property.