Is there a reason you won't answer these simple questions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
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?
|
I'm assuming from the way you don't answer that you don't want to say that you don't have any legal training? Am I wrong in making that assumption?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor
You don't find the case law persuasive? How about Title 9? Our stance is that FGCU, as a public university, has to treat everyone equally. This means that they can't discriminate against the undergraduates who want to form their own fraternity, aka Kappa Sigma. The specific discrimination is the denial of public facilities for meetings and other legal purposes, as described in Heely v. James (I know the case was about political speech, but the holding was not limited to political speech, so it's binding for the fact that universities can't deny meeting space). I have cited the 1st and 14th amendments, as well as Title 9. What exactly is so unpersuasive then?
|
Here's the thing, the fundamental disagreement I have with your arguments. I'm familiar with the constitutional provisions you cite and with the case law growing out of them. I'm familiar with Title IX. I'm familiar with the cases you cite -- I've even gone back and reread some of them. It seems to me that you're taking bits and pieces of what the cases say and putting them together in ways that the cases simply will not support. In some instances, frankly, the way you talk about cases (
Brown v Bd of Education) leads to me believe you really don't understand what you're talking about.
I'm fully aware that expressive associational rights may be involved. I'm also aware that many of us on a message board may have a
very incomplete understanding of what has actually happened at FGCU, and that a better understanding may change our thinking (including possibly my "similarly situated" argument).
But here's my bottom line: if this were to go to court, I'd be very comfortable betting that the court if it came to the issue would hold what was held by the court in what is likely the most on-point case legally (I understand there are factual distinctions):
The Chapter must next show a deprivation of the right of its members to freely associate. In this vein, the University argues that its withdrawal of official recognition did not in anyway harm the right of Chapter members to associate with each other.
The University's position is correct. The withdrawal of recognition did not in and of itself deprive Chapter members of their First Amendment rights. Nothing in the University's sanction prevents the Chapter from continuing to exist. It may recruit current George Mason students as members, schedule meetings, and host social events. n11 The withdrawal of official recognition simply removes the imprimatur of the University from the Chapter's activities and denies the Chapter use of the University's name, resources, and property. Although the Chapter may become a less attractive organization as a result of losing official recognition, the University's action does not deprive Chapter members of their constitutional right to associate with each other.
n.11. Indeed, the Chapter still recruits members, holds regular meetings, and hosts parties.
Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Patterson, 538 F. Supp. 2d 915, 923-924 (E.D. Va. 2008), aff'd 566 F.3d 138 (2009).
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor
See what we are dealing with MysticCat?
|
I see that you're reaping the attitude you sowed.
Threaded Mode
