kappa sigma at fgcu?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

The constitutional scholar and I have debated Supreme Court case law, and every day in Court legally trained scholars are on opposite sides of their view. I don't begrudge you guys for thining these "umbrellas" are okay, that's your opinion. I'm telling you we don't think they are constitutional. Just because every state at one point practiced separate but equal didn't make it right. Playing the yeah well a lot of states or schools discriminate so it must be okay card will get you murdered in law school or court. But finally we're arguing over the merits, so we got somewhere. We weren't' given any rules to follow, we were told no thanks. We are challenging an unconstitutional "umbrella" provision that you guys think it legal just because you either went to school somewhere (likely private) that had the same practice or simply because you don't know any other way. Finally we are passed the "you guys didn't follow the rules" arguments and on to the merits. It is unconstitutional to require fraternities to gain acceptance under this "umbrella" are we aren't the first fraternity to challenge this provision. also, not sure how you guys mock citing legal precedent, especially when your arguments are basically "my school did it that way." It is precisely those insufficient arguments that make me feel strongly that if we do end up in court, we will win in a landslide.

THEN STOP TALKING ABOUT IT HERE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

Rambler is an excellent advocate, a scholar and a gentlemen. Similarly, TSteven should be the only one talking for your side, he does a way better job than you all.

Nevermind, knight_shadow started it. LOL.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Nevermind, knight_shadow started it. LOL.

What'd I do this time?? lol

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

Similarly, TSteven should be the only one talking for your side, he does a way better job than you guys.

Thanks?

[Rambler1869]

MysticCat - as I am unaware of all the details of the case; does it state whether the members of Sigma Chi at GMU able to use any school facilities and/or post any flyers on school boards? Or just say it was allowed to still meet?
There may or may not be other cases to be quoted... really all outside my area of expertise. I can only talk about what I know, as I have done so far.

[Rambler1869]

Either way, I think that it is important to note... that those men who originally recognized, they were given the chance to be on campus (later taken away for various reasons) - then they fought to come back opn campus. (This is how I understand it)

The case of FGCU, the men have not been allowed to use school facilities at all

[TSteven]

First off, thanks MysticCat for posting the case information.

Originally Posted by Rambler1869

MysticCat - as I am unaware of all the details of the case; does it state whether the members of Sigma Chi at GMU able to use any school facilities and/or post any flyers on school boards? Or just say it was allowed to still meet?

There may or may not be other cases to be quoted... really all outside my area of expertise. I can only talk about what I know, as I have done so far.

Rambler169 - Gusteau, who has posted in this thread, is a member of the Greek Community at George Mason University and he may be able to shed more light on this. But my understanding is that the Iota Xi Chapter currently may not use any of the George Mason facilities. Basically, all of this: "n.11. Indeed, the Chapter still recruits members, holds regular meetings, and hosts parties" takes place off campus.

Originally Posted by Rambler1869

Either way, I think that it is important to note... that those men who originally recognized, they were given the chance to be on campus (later taken away for various reasons) - then they fought to come back on campus. (This is how I understand it)

You are correct.

Originally Posted by Rambler1869

The case of FGCU, the men have not been allowed to use school facilities at all.

True. However, the precedent - as I understand it - is that the court agreed with the public university (GMU) that "the University's action does not deprive Chapter members of their constitutional right to associate with each other" when denying official recognition and use of campus facilities.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Rambler1869

MysticCat - as I am unaware of all the details of the case; does it state whether the members of Sigma Chi at GMU able to use any school facilities and/or post any flyers on school boards? Or just say it was allowed to still meet?

Here's what the court said:

The University is a public institution located in Fairfax County, Virginia, where, until May 8, 2006, the Chapter was an officially recognized student group. n2 Between February 2005 and August 2006, the Chapter and its members were involved in a string of on- and off-campus incidents that culminated in the revocation of the Chapter's official University recognition and the individual discipline of several Chapter members.

n2 According to the district court, "[o]fficial recognition allows a student group to publish their affiliation with the University, apply for certain university funds, and seek assistance from the University in planning events." Iota Xi Chapter of the Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, 538 F. Supp. 2d 915, 919 n.2 (E.D. Va. 2008).

. . . . As a result of the Panel's decision, the University imposed the following sanctions. First, it revoked the Chapter's University recognition until at least September 1, 2016. n4 Second, the Dean of Students and the Director of Student Activities were instructed "to monitor membership in George Mason University recognized fraternal organizations to insure that the current membership of Sigma Chi fraternity does not reemerge under a different name." J.A. 151.

n4. The revocation of University recognition precludes the Chapter from applying for University funding and publicizing itself as an officially recognized organization. Furthermore, the Chapter may not participate in "organizational affairs which would imply university recognition." J.A. 872-C. Loss of recognition also precludes the Chapter from booking space on campus or using campus facilities.

Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, 566 F.3d 138, 141, 143 (4th Cir. 2009). So it appears they were not allowed to use school facilities in any way.

Originally Posted by Rambler1869

Either way, I think that it is important to note... that those men who originally recognized, they were given the chance to be on campus (later taken away for various reasons) - then they fought to come back opn campus. (This is how I understand it)

I think that's irrelevant to the question of whether lack of school recognition constitutes an unconstitutional deprivation of expressive association for a chapter of a fraternity when that chapter can still recruit from the student body and schedule business and social activities.

[KSUViolet06]

This thread is way too long, Can I get the Cliff's notes version?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

This thread is way too long, Can I get the Cliff's notes version?

KSigAdvisor is in this picture. He really is. Look hard.

[Rambler1869]

Originally Posted by 33girl

KSigAdvisor is in this picture. He really is. Look hard.

Despite who or when a comment was made...(I think virtually everyone has been guilty of this at some point). Can I ask at this point we all get away from the bashing, and talk about the actual issue?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Rambler1869

Can I ask at this point we all get away from the bashing, and talk about the actual issue?

No. What more is there to say about the "actual issue?"

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

KSigAdvisor is in this picture. He really is. Look hard.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Well since they're being so "discriminated" against, I thought I would add a pic of their compadres at the Birmingham riots.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Well since they're being so "discriminated" against, I thought I would add a pic of their compadres at the Birmingham riots.

FAIL.