kappa sigma at fgcu?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Rambler1869

That being said, what (at the least) these men are currently fighting for is simply the right to use meeting rooms on campus.

Have you heard of these things called "apartments" or "dorms"? Seriously, if your biggest gripe is that you can't use meeting rooms and you're being this unpleasant about it, you all really need to rethink your priorities.

[Rambler1869]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Have you heard of these things called "apartments" or "dorms"? Seriously, if your biggest gripe is that you can't use meeting rooms and you're being this unpleasant about it, you all really need to rethink your priorities.

They have been in apartments this entire time. But they shouldnt have to be, thats the most basic of this whole problem. It is discriminatory to say one group can use facilities, when a group of the same type cannot.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Rambler1869

They have been in apartments this entire time. But they shouldnt have to be, thats the most basic of this whole problem. It is discriminatory to say one group can use facilities, when a group of the same type cannot.

No, it's not. The group has not been approved by the school, therefore why should it be allowed to use school facilities?

And also, reread LaneSig's post. You can't flip people off with one hand and expect them to shake the other.

[Rambler1869]

Originally Posted by 33girl

No, it's not. The group has not been approved by the school, therefore why should it be allowed to use school facilities?
.

What I'm not sure you realize (not an attack, just not sure), is that until recently the school has refused to even give them the application to become an RSO (you cant be approved if you arent allowed to apply). Every organization must be an RSO (even members of IFC are RSO's). They have been trying to do this since 2008; to at least be an RSO.

As for flipping off and asking for help... Yes, there was an early encouter which left a bad taste in the mouth of the administration (not the IFC, as the men were not permitted to meet with them). That happened in 2008; since that time those men are no longer members of Kappa Sigma and the remaining men have actually tried diligently to work with the school to overcome that feeling (sending them updates of their activities such as their philanthropic work, asking for meetings, trying to work with the school on a positive level). The administration continued their stance, regardless. Something we do hope and believe in time will be resolved.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

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.

Seriously?! You think we're the ones who haven't been moving the discussion along?

You talk to us like we're children:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

. . . and since none of you have any real life experience, please listen for a moment before you form your retorts.

When informed that we actually do have some real life experience -- more than you, perhaps -- you throw out perjoratives at anyone who does anything other than accept every single thing you say. Just a few examples:

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

Lastly, before I forget, I don't expect any of the sorority members on here to really understand this argument.

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

I'm embarrassed by the example you set for the undergraduates.

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

Contrary to Princess' statements, you wouldn't make anyone I know proud. . . . You should be ashamed of yourself as a United States American.

If you go back and read my original post, yes I did challenge what you said and noted that "From what I can see, you are grossly overstating an equal protection analysis." I asked questions to understand your position further.

But your responses to everyone have been so loaded with your attitude that any actual points you may have had in there that were worth considering were completely lost. Like I've said before, I don't have a dog in this fight, except that I have a thing about wanting to see some accuracy in legal arguments. I didn't have a bias until gave me reason to have one.

And yet we're the ones who won't move the discussion forward? Unbelievable.

But since you asked:

My cronies here at GC, everyone has a right to convey whatever message he or she wants, and we must all respect that. I think we typically do respect that.

But that right does not mean we have to agree with the message. I, for example, have tried to parse through the legal arguments presented, and I don't find them persuasive at all. Others' mileage may vary.

KSigAdvisor, it's been asked a number of times in this thread: Are you an undergrad? I'll add to the question: Do you have a legal education?

[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.

[UofM-TKE]

I cringe whenever this thread is bumped, but this quote in just too much.

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

Separate but equal huh 33 girl? Real classy. Should we have to eat in different restaurants as well? Should we have to sit on the back on the bus too? Should we be denied the same drinking fountains until the government "approves" us while the rest of the (ahem) white citizens fight to keep us from being equal? We have just regressed 70 years in the course of one blog. "Throw those idiots in the dorms and apartments, they aren't getting the nice school facility meeting rooms like we get!!" Real. Classy.

Comparing 30 or so students at FGCU who are having problems forming a fraternity, to millions of people who had to endure slavery, segregation and the lingering effects of these is frightening in its insensitivity.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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?