kappa sigma at fgcu?

[LaneSig]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

LaneSig,

Choice #2 isn't "Eff you!" on our part. Do you label everyone protecting their 1st Amendment Rights this way? We were told "Eff you!" by the school. It's hard trading points with you because of your lack of understanding for what is going on here. If a group is protesting on a public sidewalk, and the police tell them "No" or "Eff you get out of here," and the group persists, then who is right? You may not like what we have to say, but you have to accept the fact that we have the right to say it. See the difference there? We never said "Eff you" we respectfully said this is the United States of America and under the laws of this country, you can't deny us the right to freely associate, and thus we support the young men on campus who want to be a part of our organization. We are sticking up for our rights, what do you not see about this? If your local city government put a gag order on your First Amendment rights, what would you say? Why on earth would you stick up for the government violating the rights that for centuries we have fought so hard to protect. Contrary to Princess' statements, you wouldn't make anyone I know proud. All you are doing is condemning these kids for standing up for themselves. Challenging the system is difficult, and there are many naysayers along the way. We did choose our own path, but like I said before, we aren't afraid of the struggle. You should be ashamed of yourself as a United States American.

MysticCat, since you are legally educated, can you please drop the bias for one second and help progress this discussion along? Yes, I'm asking for a neutral statement from you since all of you who have been on this Greek Chat thing for years seem to stick together. Please describe the difference to your cronies between disagreeing with a message and disagreeing with the right to present the message.

Rambler, it's nearly impossible to conduct intelligent and constructive discourse on this thing. All anyone wants to focus on is the negative. Not one person will stand up and say "Although I disagree with your stance, I acknowledge you have the right to say it." LaneSig's example #2 from above is the perfect example. He describes our actions in defending our right to equal protection as saying "Eff You." You can't get anywhere in a conversation when these people fail to understand the basics of our Bill of Rights.

What I'm noticing is that you are tending to focus on little parts and ignoring the big picture. There were several aspects of my post that begged for responses. Examples: Reasons for not waiting. The acknowledgment that Kappa Sigma created the issue. Your own actions in your 2nd post. The discussion of why shouldn't the Administration believe that you will follow campus rules and policies, when from the beginning of the colony you didn't wish to follow their policies of expansion.

Where have I ever said that I am against freedom of speech or association? I'm not.

Again, when you decided to go with Choice #2, you effectively did tell FGCU that you did not need to follow their wishes or policies. The "F--- you" is metaphorical.

But, again, it's all about the Constitution and not about Kappa Sigma's actions. Because, of course, Kappa Sigma is completely blameless in this situation.

[Rambler1869]

Originally Posted by LaneSig

Again, when you decided to go with Choice #2, you effectively did tell FGCU that you did not need to follow their wishes or policies. ..

There is no policy at FGCU that says a fraternity cannot colonize without being approved. There is a punishment policy that involves initiating members; but that's it. In that regard, to date Kappa Sigma has not violated any policies of FGCU.

In terms of their wishes, the school also cannot prohibit any group from forming (freedom to assemble).

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Rambler1869

In terms of their wishes, the school also cannot prohibit any group from forming (freedom to assemble).

The school did not prohibit the group from forming.

If KS wants to be recognized, it needs to follow the FGCU's rules.

[Rambler1869]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

The school did not prohibit the group from forming.

If KS wants to be recognized, it needs to follow the FGCU's rules.

It has every single posted policy, rule and guideline. Earlier I posted the link to the IFC bylaws and expansion guidelines. I could probably find links for the other offices involved. But check it out; if you can find an actual policy these men broke, I would like to see it; as I am genuinely unaware of any broken policies.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

BLAH BLAH BLAH

You sit here and type out these novels while failing to answer the questions that have been asked several times.

You're trying to break the rules BEFORE colonizing, yet you claim you'll follow the rules once you're recognized. Bullshit.

[Rambler1869]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

You're trying to break the rules BEFORE colonizing, yet you claim you'll follow the rules once you're recognized. Bullshit.

They are colonized; there arent any policies that prohibit colonizing. What rules have been broken? Regardless of how anyone feels how it should or should not have been handled; what actual rule(s) were broken?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Rambler1869

They are colonized; there arent any policies that prohibit colonizing. What rules have been broken? Regardless of how anyone feels how it should or should not have been handled; what actual rule(s) were broken?

If everything was handled properly, why are you all here complaining?

[Rambler1869]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

If everything was handled properly, why are you all here complaining?

We didnt start this discussion. In terms of why we are here now... Personally, I simply wanted to explain our side as there were a number of misconceptions surrounding what has been happening.
Our complaint, as I said earlier, is that this group of men have been denied the right to even apply as an RSO; thus not allowed to use the same facilities granted to organizations of the exact same type.
IFC recognition would be the ideal; but we also acknowledge their right to grant or deny membership. However, we do not believe that the school has any grounds to deny any organization to register and use facilities, that is peaceful and does not disrupt the education of another student.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Rambler1869

We didnt start this discussion. In terms of why we are here now... Personally, I simply wanted to explain our side as there were a number of misconceptions surrounding what has been happening.
Our complaint, as I said earlier, is that this group of men have been denied the right to even apply as an RSO; thus not allowed to use the same facilities granted to organizations of the exact same type.
IFC recognition would be the ideal; but we also acknowledge their right to grant or deny membership. However, we do not believe that the school has any grounds to deny any organization to register and use facilities, that is peaceful and does not disrupt the education of another student.

You acknowledge that IFC has the right to approve/deny membership.

However, in order to be recognized as a GLO, it sounds like you need to have membership in a governing council.

The fact that your group was even allowed to present to IFC shows that FGCU is not discriminating -- IFC doesn't want you at this time.

IIRC, if you want to be JUST a RSO, your single-sex status might be challenged.

[Rambler1869]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

IIRC, if you want to be JUST a RSO, your single-sex status might be challenged.

There is a section on the RSO application for Fraternities/Sororities. The single-sex status is protected by Title 9; regardless of the governing body.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

This is the argument right here Knight Rider, and I'm being serious.

Hey, KSigAdvil, his username is knight_shadow.

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

This is the precise rule we think is unconstitutional. FGCU is basically inventing a rule that in order to be a registered student organization that we have to "have membership in a governing council" aka "we have to be recognized by the IFC." Such a rule puts our civil liberties in the hands of our fellow students, which is unconstitutional. Neither you nor I have the right to tel any other student he can't be recognized by the university unless we, as a "governing council" recognizes him first. Post Brown v. Board of Education, the gov't (FGCU) can't deny us right simply because our fellow citizens (IFC, Greeks, students) don't want us around. We all have rights regardless of what others want!! This is America, we are all equal!!!! That is our entire point.

This is so hilarious.

This is one of the worst and most circular threads ever.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

However, in order to be recognized as a GLO, it sounds like you need to have membership in a governing council.

There we go!! This is the argument right here Knight Rider, and I'm being serious. This is the precise rule we think is unconstitutional. FGCU is basically inventing a rule that in order to be a registered student organization that we have to "have membership in a governing council" aka "we have to be recognized by the IFC." Such a rule puts our civil liberties in the hands of our fellow students, which is unconstitutional. Neither you nor I have the right to tel any other student he can't be recognized by the university unless we, as a "governing council" recognizes him first. Post Brown v. Board of Education, the gov't (FGCU) can't deny us right simply because our fellow citizens (IFC, Greeks, students) don't want us around. We all have rights regardless of what others want!! This is America, we are all equal!!!! That is our entire point.

FGCU did not invent this rule. Many schools require council membership for liability purposes.

So it sounds like your issue is not with FGCU, but with IFC, an entity that does not want you at this time.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

Knight Shadow- so you think it is okay for FGCU, as a public institution, to deny groups from being officially recognized, but allow the fraternities already on campus to operate and enjoy all the freedoms that come with official recognition? I just want to make sure I have that straight. It's a slippery slope my fraternal friend, because where does it end? And why exactly do you think it's okay for FGCU, a public institution, to recognize certain fraternities but deny recognition to others?? I'l' take the questions one step further so we avoid the answer" "because its the rule." Knight Shadow, please analyze the rule. What is constitutional about FGCU, a publicly funded university, granting official recognition to certain groups and denying other groups that same recognition.

Please see my post above.

ETA: At some point, are you going to answer the questions asked of you?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

Ok Knight Shadow, please, as Scrambler asked, point to ONE rule we have broken. One.

Have you answered any of the questions asked of you?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

Knight Shadow, I'll say it again. Once we were "formed" which only means we had a group on campus who wanted to be in kappa Sigma, FGCU gave us NO RULES TO FOLLOW! Rules would be a checklist for recognition. We were told, flat out, that we wouldn't be recognized by FGCU without IFC (students) first recognizing us. That is discrimination, as we see it. Again, we were not given rules to follow to be recognized, we were told we can't be recognized.

What happened to the "we don't want to colonize right now, you'll need to wait 5 years" argument?