Universities in Reviewing the Actions

¶ … universities in reviewing the actions of fraternities and sororities?

Students have a legal right to organize into groups including sororities and fraternities, and schools have a legal obligation to allow them to do so. The First Amendment clauses of freedom of expression and freedom of association protect those rights. Therefore, public campus administrators must officially recognize student groups under most but the most extreme circumstances.

When reviewing the actions of fraternities and sororities, public university administrators are obliged to recognize the First Amendment rights of students: rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and freedom of press. In order to deny recognition to a campus group, the institution must demonstrate that a group would be disruptive to the educational mission of the school (Kaplan & Lee p. 514). Similarly, a group that does not comply with campus rules and regulations may be barred, but only if those rules and regulations are themselves constitutionally legitimate. Private campuses are not bound by the same legal obligations but in many cases do recognize student rights to organize and form sororities and fraternities. In both public and private settings, student organizations must comply with local, state, and federal laws.

However, a public institution cannot withhold recognition or funding from student organizations on the grounds that administrators do not agree with "the views its members espouse," (Kaplan & Lee p. 516). If funds are withheld from all organization, then the institution can claim equal application of a clear campus rule not to subsidize any student group. If, however, funds are offered to some but not other student groups then the campus administration is violating student rights. Private universities are not bound by the same legal obligations to protect students' First Amendment rights to free speech, free association, and freedom of religious expression.

2.What rights and nondiscrimination principles must a university protect in regards to student organizations?

The First Amendment freedom of association clause also "carries with it a corresponding right to not associate," (cited by Kaplan & Lee, p. 519). At the same time, public universities are permitted to collect mandatory monetary support from students if such support itself facilitates freedom of expression for all students: the creation of an open forum on campus (Kaplan & Lee p. 520). Thus, students may be required to support organizations with political, religious, or ideological views they disagree with while not being obliged to attend meetings or become a member of that group. The Supreme Court determined that public institutions can mandate fees for groups for facilitating a "free and open exchange of ideas," so long as the university maintains "viewpoint neutrality" with regards to how the funds are allocated (Kaplan & Lee p. 520). Viewpoint neutrality ensures that funding is equally allocated to all registered student groups, and that registered student groups use their allocated funds in neutral ways.

For instance, public funds collected by students can be used to support campus facilities and meeting halls but not donations to political action groups. Student funds must be designated in ways that maintain institutional neutrality: meaning that student-funded groups cannot use student monies to support a political candidate. Moreover, student organizations "with a primary political mission" are not viewpoint neutral and are thus not entitled to student money (Kaplan & Lee p. 520). Universities are also not permitted to allow funding allocation decisions to be made by student referendum: "because there were no safeguards in the referendum process for treating minority views with the same respect as majority views, a fundamental principle of viewpoint neutrality," (Kaplan & Lee p. 521). Public universities are permitted to instate an opt-out policy for the collection of student funds, but are not obliged to do so. Courts have determined that obliging a university to permit opting out would be seriously disruptive to achieving First Amendment objectives.