kappa sigma at fgcu?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

Those "umbrellas" are a legal fallacy, and are only legal at PRIVATE institutions. FGCU can't force fraternities to be under a Greek umbrella any more than they can force a religious organization to be under a religious council umbrella. Treating Greeks differently is discrimination. And forcing all greeks through the same discriminatory process doesn't make it constitutional. some people operate under teh assumption that this "umbrella" is legal and necessary to "enforce rules." We don't, that's it.

Yes, but campus religious organizations also will not keep out people not of their faith. greek orginzations are treated differently, because they are run differently. they are exclusinary by nature. By requiring it to be part of an umbrella, they are really recognizing the umbrella organization. By doing so, they are recognizing a group that theroetically any male student can be a member of. Perfect example of the difference between IFC and individual organization is the mutually exclusive nature of them.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I won't find any support, yet schools around the country practice it. All of a sudden, a group of undergrads feels they're entitled to something, and it's dead wrong.

This would make an excellent thread.

Quite a few of us have experience with institutions that perceivably have annoying and sucky Greek Life rules and regulations. Annoying and sucky do not equal illegal. However, that's why all of our organizations have attorneys.

Good luck to the KSig attorneys who will determine whether it's worth it and able to be ironed out. However, honestly, there are plenty of ways that institutions can informally make GLOs' existences a living hell after they've essentially forced themselves on campus.

[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.

[Rambler1869]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

If the wheels are turning and you all are working toward getting this resolved, why is this being debated on a message board? Why not let this thing run its course?

Like I said (if it really matters); we didnt start this. I just jumped in, because of all the misinformation that I had read by outside individuals.

I would love to say its all getting "worked out"... but unfortunately it has taken a lot longer and more pressure from Kappa Sigma to get this far, as the school had basically tried to move on and ignore the situation. I'm hopeful that eventually these men will not only be able to use school facilities; but also be recgonized be the IFC (that part may just take the longest; but is really a seperate issue).

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Rambler1869

Like I said (if it really matters); we didnt start this. I just jumped in, because of all the misinformation that I had read by outside individuals.

I would love to say its all getting "worked out"... but unfortunately it has taken a lot longer and more pressure from Kappa Sigma to get this far, as the school had basically tried to move on and ignore the situation. I'm hopeful that eventually these men will not only be able to use school facilities; but also be recgonized be the IFC (that part may just take the longest; but is really a seperate issue).

I apologize. That part of my response was directed more to KSigAdvisor. You've done a great job attempting to clear up misconceptions. He is on a mission to prove that everyone on GC is an idiot, but is ending up looking stupid in the process.

[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?

[MysticCat]

Is there a reason you won't answer these simple questions?

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?

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).

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

See what we are dealing with MysticCat?

I see that you're reaping the attitude you sowed.

[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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

Again, thank you and sorry for my insults, I'm aggressive by nature.

Welcome to GC where you are a goldfish among sharks.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigAdvisor

MysticCat, thank you. . . .

You still didn't answer the question, so I'll take it that my assumption is correct and you don't have any legal training.

As far as I know, no effort was made to seek review of the Sigma Chi case in the Supreme Court. And yes, I think the holding is correct would likely be mirrored in most courts. Leonie Brinkema isn't a lightweight.

And apology accepted.