violation of constitutional rights?

[frangiblefacade]

I wish I could "like" the last three or so posts. Oh my goodness haha

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I think it's more important to focus on getting rid of brothel laws. This other constitutional stuff can wait.

This is comedy gold. Love it!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PetitChou

The government's take on it is that your rights are protected well enough by the fact that you can quit or leave whatever group you have associated yourself with whenever you choose, for whatever reasons you see fit.

/Law student rant over.

Actually, the government doesn't have a take on it. I think you mean the law's take on it. Not the same thing.

/practicing lawyer rant over

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by JustLily

I have a situation at my university. There is this new NPC law that says we cannot "favor" any fraternity. I feel this is a violation of the first amendment rights of freedom of speech and expression. My fiance is the president of his fraternity and I am not allowed to say "Rush ---" so basically they are limiting these rights if I cannot express my feelings. Also we were forced to remove facebook pictures that favored this fraternity. Honestly to me this whole situation is more about the principle of the matter as I feel they cannot legally tell us what to wear/say/display and it over steps their authority. Any thoughts? or please correct me if there is some reason this is legal.

Campuses all over the country are restricting free-speech rights. Have you checked with FIRE to see your campus's reputation? Just input the school name and it will tell you how well the school infringes on individual rights (whether "legal" or not).

[33girl]

That resolution is about being hostesses. I see nothing about Facebook or wearing a "I Heart XYZ" pin.

If a WHOLE CHAPTER was forced to wear shirts promoting a certain fraternity, that would not work. If pictures of only one fraternity are on a CHAPTER website, that also would not work. But if one person wants to say Rush XYZ, or put pics on her personal page? I honestly can't see where that would have anything to do with this resolution.

Sororities shouldn't favor one fraternity on their chapter FB page or website anyway, not because of any NPC resolution, but because it can turn off rushees who don't like that fraternity. "Like" everyone on your campus or don't like anyone.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Campuses all over the country are restricting free-speech rights. Have you checked with FIRE to see your campus's reputation? Just input the school name and it will tell you how well the school infringes on individual rights (whether "legal" or not).

She didn't say the university is infringing on her rights, she said "NPC" is.

The resolution that has been cited doesn't restrict free speech rights. It says no participation in fraternity rush events -- or more to the point is says that NPC member groups expect their members not to participate in men's fraternity rush events and encourages Collegiate Panhellenics to adopt policies to that effect.

The sky is not falling.

[elicampbell]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Campuses all over the country are restricting free-speech rights. Have you checked with FIRE to see your campus's reputation? Just input the school name and it will tell you how well the school infringes on individual rights (whether "legal" or not).

I looked up the campus where I work. The some of policies that are on there are old and way out of date. How do I know? I have been working on the policy manual for the past week for Res. Life.

[Always AlphaGam]

Originally Posted by elicampbell

I looked up the campus where I work. The some of policies that are on there are old and way out of date. How do I know? I have been working on the policy manual for the past week for Res. Life.

At least yours is listed. My alma mater (considered the flagship campus) isn't even there. One of the satellite campuses, is.

[PetitChou]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Actually, the government doesn't have a take on it. I think you mean the law's take on it. Not the same thing.

/practicing lawyer rant over

Ugh, I can't believe I typed that Thank you for setting it right! It seems my brain is already starting to fry, and the semester is only a few weeks underway...sigh. It's going to be a very, very long year...

[katydidKD]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The Constitution is the framework for the governmental structure of the United States. It deals with the scope of powers of the federal government, how the federal government relates to state governments, and how governments (federal and state) relate to citizens. It protects certain rights from government intrusion. With specific regard to your question, it provides that the government (federal or state) cannot infringe upon your free speech rights or free association rights.

Neither the NPC nor the local panhellenic council is the government. Therefore, the Constitution and constitutional rights are completely irrelevant to the situation you're describing.


I weep sometimes when I think just how little people seem to know about something so basic to our civic life.

YOU TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OFF MY KEYBOARD! Seriously I am a law student, but i learned this in high school government. So sad a college student thought panhellenic was governed by the US Constitution

[UGAalum94]

Is there any truth to the suggestion that women helping host male rush events compromises the single sex status of either group? If so, how? And how would that work in a way that having other events together wouldn't similarly compromise?

[33girl]

When they have other closed events (like mixers) together, there are no rushees of either sex running around. Everyone at the event is either a pledge (who's signed a bid) or initiated member of the fraternity or the sorority.