Yale suspends Bushes' fraternity for sexist chants

[exlurker]

From the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/education/18yale.html

Similar article from the Yalie Daily:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/20...omm-sanctions/

The student paper’s article ^ includes the full text of Dean Miller’s e-mail to students, faculty, etc.

Miller cites (in general terms) Yale's own "regulations" against harassment, etc. See her email.

Excerpt:

. . . After a full hearing, the Committee found that the DKE chapter, as an organization, one comprised of Yale students, had threatened and intimidated others, in violation of the Undergraduate Regulations of Yale College as they pertain to “harassment, coercion or intimidation” and “imperiling the integrity and values of the University community.” The Executive Committee further found several fraternity members had also, as individuals, violated the same regulations. . . .

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'm going to have to disagree, at least to a degree.. The right to freely associate is, in the US, a component of the right to free speech -- a constitutional right that the government is prohibited from violating. A private entity, such as a private college, cannot be sued for violating a constitutional right because the Constitution only deals with the power (and limitations on power) of the government. It has nothing to do with the relationships between private entities (such as students and private schools).

To the extent that a private college might legally have to respect free speech/freedom of association rights, it comes through another channel, such as civil rights laws or conditions for receipt of federal funds. In the case of a private college with religious affiliation, such free speech/freedom of association rights may have to be balanced with free exercise of religion rights of the school.

While I agree, I can't think of an example where it has been tested, nor as pretty much every single school accepts federal funding in some way do I think anyone would have the standing to argue it.

I think the ban on interracial dating at one of the conservative Christian colleges was the closest thing I've seen to it, and it seemed to go away as soon as it was challenged in modern times iirc.

[Low C Sharp]

Would Yale have the right to expel anybody who still chooses to join DKE during this time period?

YES. They won't, but they could. Don't forget, Yale has freedom of association rights too. It has a great deal of leeway to build its community as it sees fit. The government can't force Yale to enroll DKEs if it doesn't want to, any more than it can force DKE to accept Yalies if it doesn't want to.

Congress has chosen to attach certain strings to federal financial aid and grant funding that goes to private colleges. For example, they can't discriminate on the basis of race without risking their fin aid eligibility. But I have never read that Congress has included the right to join a GLO in those strings. From a constitutional standpoint, private colleges absolutely can expel someone who violates a college rule. It doesn't matter whether there's a signed honor code or not. Expelling a student for a poor reason might violate the student's CONTRACT rights (under the agreement between the student and the school), but that doesn't mean it's a violation of constitutional rights. Private entities do not become government actors for constitutional purposes just by accepting public money.
________
Marijuana dispensary vermont map

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

YES. They won't, but they could. Don't forget, Yale has freedom of association rights too. It has a great deal of leeway to build its community as it sees fit. The government can't force Yale to enroll DKEs if it doesn't want to, any more than it can force DKE to accept Yalies if it doesn't want to.

Congress has chosen to attach certain strings to federal financial aid and grant funding that goes to private colleges. For example, they can't discriminate on the basis of race without risking their fin aid eligibility. But I have never read that Congress has included the right to join a GLO in those strings. From a constitutional standpoint, private colleges absolutely can expel someone who violates a college rule. It doesn't matter whether there's a signed honor code or not. Expelling a student for a poor reason might violate the student's CONTRACT rights (under the agreement between the student and the school), but that doesn't mean it's a violation of constitutional rights. Private entities do not become government actors for constitutional purposes just by accepting public money.

Do schools have rules prohibiting joining non-recognized organizations? Do those rules extend to all community organizations? Because it seems like schools are pretty much limited to removing recognition and the ability to hold events on campus. Anything beyond that is typically at the organization's HQ level, isn't it?

I'd be surprised if you could legitimately expel someone for belonging to PEO or the KKK or anything in between. I'd have to see the school's code of conduct itself though.

[wyldrose]

Alexandra Robbins was on CNN talking about this yesterday saying that Yale was setting an example for other schools. I think she was just pimping her new book though.

[dekeguy]

We seem to have tracked onto considering what the university can or cannot do where it might be useful to consider what the university ought or ought not do in response to certain complaints.
I do not know with any certainty what actually happened in this incident but I find it interesting that some of the the original chants referred to were performed during an earlier incident involving another fraternity. A little 'due dilligence' might seem appropriate in the reportage of this inappropriate but hardly earth shattering occurance.
What bothers me is the heavy handed response of the University Administration to what appears to be a breach of PC expectations. I think we have all seen attitudes of mandatory PC become more and more hide bound over the past few years. This bothers me far more than college pranks in poor taste.
Have we as a nation become such cry-babies that we have to run to 'big brother' and demand Draconian responses to any show of sillyness or high jinks?
Was anyone really hurt?
Was anyone really intimidated?
Was anyone really made to fear for their lives and safety?
I think not.
I think that young adults who are old enough to vote, to marry, to take up arms in defense of our country are surely old enough to discern between serious threats and sillyness in poor taste. Has anyone who is bright enough to gain admission to and pursue the rigors of one of our very best universities really not been aware of the sort of sillyness that has existed there and on nearly every other campus for generations? I am not arguing that what apparently happened was perfectly all right. I am suggesting that the response was absurdly heavy handed and pandered to the self righteous demands of those who want a perfection of behaviour in an all too imperfect world. Corrective action - yes. Thermo nuclear response - inappropriate.
Give me a break. The incident may well be very tasteless and very silly, but its hardly a serious threat. Deal with it.

[Low C Sharp]

I'd be surprised if you could legitimately expel someone for belonging to PEO or the KKK or anything in between.

Why? In my state, a private employer can fire you for virtually any reason, or no reason, as long as the reason isn't on the forbidden list (race, national origin, etc.). That's true even if the employer works on government contracts. If the parties agree to some kind of contract with rules in it, then OK, but barring that, the employer has near-perfect freedom to choose its members. Private schools have essentially the same relationship to their students. Unless they signed a contract with you agreeing only to expel you under certain circumstances, they can decide who belongs in their school.

I'd have to see the school's code of conduct itself though.

Again, why? What legal obligation do they have to be consistent and treat Group A the same as Group B?
________
Live Sex Webshows

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

Why? In my state, a private employer can fire you for virtually any reason, or no reason, as long as the reason isn't on the forbidden list (race, national origin, etc.). That's true even if the employer works on government contracts. If the parties agree to some kind of contract with rules in it, then OK, but barring that, the employer has near-perfect freedom to choose its members. Private schools have essentially the same relationship to their students. Unless they signed a contract with you agreeing only to expel you under certain circumstances, they can decide who belongs in their school.



Again, why? What legal obligation do they have to be consistent and treat Group A the same as Group B?

Schools take federal funding, including federal financial aid.

[Low C Sharp]

Schools take federal funding, including federal financial aid.

So? Congress attaches certain strings to that funding, but it doesn't make the schools government actors. The right to join a GLO is NOT one of the strings attached to funding. If you think it ought to be, write your Congressman.
________
LIVE SEX

[Senusret I]

Hm. Yeah, this wouldn't fly in DC, for example, where a university expelling a student based on fraternal affiliation would probably be a violation of the city's human rights act.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

So? Congress attaches certain strings to that funding, but it doesn't make the schools government actors. The right to join a GLO is NOT one of the strings attached to funding. If you think it ought to be, write your Congressman.

You're saying GLO membership isn't attached, I'm saying I suspect that the freedom of association would be. I cannot see a school being allowed to suspend a student for being a Tea Party member, for example. In this situation is isn't about being in a student organization, which I agree is not a 'right,' but about being a member of a non-campus affiliated group.

WTF are you talking about writing congressmen?

Anyway,
The Fire - Beta Theta Pi
In this case Wesleyan passed a rule prohibiting students from residing in property owned by non-student private organizations to try and force Beta to be recognized by the school. They backed off. FIRE may be a source for more information here but they're obviously biased FOR FoA rights. For example they were against the banning of DKE at Yale because of free speech itself.

Now on the other hand a California Lutheran high school was allowed to expell students for being gay. But that's a different scenario I think.

So besides just telling me they CAN do it, and that I need to write my congresscritter, hows about you tell me WHY they can do it, or show an example of it, and/or explain why we don't see student expulsion as the typical consequence of de-recognization?

[Low C Sharp]

I'm saying I suspect that the freedom of association would be.

You can suspect all you want about what would be included, in theory -- go and read the law, and you will see that it is not. Schools that get the money are required to allow military recruiters on campus. They're required to abide by Title IX and other anti-discrimination laws. But they aren't required to retain students who join off-campus GLOs.

Writing your congressman is the way that you would change the law from what it is to what you want it to be (you apparently believe that private schools that get government funding should be forced to allow students to join GLOs. The many private schools that forbid membership, even off-campus, prove that that is not currently the case.)

Just as an example, here's a post where a leading conservative law professor discusses a policy at Wesleyan barring students from even attending parties at off-campus private clubs. He thinks the policy is stupid and over-broad, but acknowledges that it is legal due to the university's freedom-of-association powers:

http://volokh.com/2011/02/18/wesleya...he-university/
________
Vaporizer Television

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

You can suspect all you want about what would be included, in theory -- go and read the law, and you will see that it is not. Schools that get the money are required to allow military recruiters on campus. They're required to abide by Title IX and other anti-discrimination laws. But they aren't required to retain students who join off-campus GLOs.

Actually it seems like there's very little in case law ABOUT the issue, so what law am I supposed to read? You say a lot but cite little.

Writing your congressman is the way that you would change the law from what it is to what you want it to be (you apparently believe that private schools that get government funding should be forced to allow students to join GLOs.

You're assuming that I believe that.

The many private schools that forbid membership, even off-campus, prove that that is not currently the case.)

Which schools? Ones that require a separate agreement like an honor code? Do any schools actually expel students that do that?

Just as an example, here's a post where a leading conservative law professor discusses a policy at Wesleyan barring students from even attending parties at off-campus private clubs. He thinks the policy is stupid and over-broad, but acknowledges that it is legal due to the university's freedom-of-association powers:

http://volokh.com/2011/02/18/wesleya...he-university/

So you referenced the same case I did? Why do I think you didn't read my post...

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You're saying GLO membership isn't attached, I'm saying I suspect that the freedom of association would be. I cannot see a school being allowed to suspend a student for being a Tea Party member, for example.

No, it wouldn't be. As I said earlier, freedom of association is a component of freedom of speech. (For that reason, all other issues aside, the Tea Party example isn't really analogous, because there you're talking about true political speech/association, which goes to the heart of the First Amendment.)

Bottom line, acceptance of federal funds does not turn a private institution into a government actor, so constitutional rights in the context of private institutions are inapplicable. Even if receipt of federal funding might require a private institution to honor some kind of freedom of association rights among students, that doesn't mean that students have any private cause of action against the private institution for violation of that right. It more likely means that the federal government can withhold future funds for violating a condition of receipt of funds.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, it wouldn't be. As I said earlier, freedom of association is a component of freedom of speech. (For that reason, all other issues aside, the Tea Party example isn't really analogous, because there you're talking about true political speech/association, which goes to the heart of the First Amendment.)

Bottom line, acceptance of federal funds does not turn a private institution into a government actor, so constitutional rights in the context of private institutions are inapplicable. Even if receipt of federal funding might require a private institution to honor some kind of freedom of association rights among students, that doesn't mean that students have any private cause of action against the private institution for violation of that right. It more likely means that the federal government can withhold future funds for violating a condition of receipt of funds.

In reading around this issue I found some suggesting that the language of constitutional rights has made its way into the usage even among non-government actors despite the fact that the law hasn't necessarily been taken that far.

So perhaps it comes down to, even though legally schools could expel a student for membership and perhaps only face consequences of potential loss of funds or a lawsuit from a student, in reality, schools don't seem to have any interest in doing so. If it is their privilege but one that is never exercised, does it matter?

I don't know enough about FIRE to speak to their reliability but they have pretty strong opinions on the matter even for non-public institutions. And Wesleyan did back down on their previous rule following pressure.