Freedom of Association for College Fraternities after Christian Legal Society and Citizens United

Mark D. Bauer
{"title":"Freedom of Association for College Fraternities after Christian Legal Society and Citizens United","authors":"Mark D. Bauer","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2132801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The First Amendment and its associational rights and freedoms are not tested by popular groups or causes. Only controversy can help establish the limits of constitutional rights. Fraternities and sororities (“fraternities”) have certainly been controversial during their 236 years of existence.Colleges often regulate fraternities more strictly than any other organization. Fraternity members may be barred from wearing their letters or mentioning their affinity during certain times of the year. Recruitment of new members is generally permitted only at certain times and in certain ways. Fraternity members may be required to engage in philanthropy or maintain a specific grade point average, where unaffiliated students have no such requirement. And many colleges have banned entire fraternity systems, while encouraging substantially similar themed dormitory housing, or fraternity-like living arrangement controlled by the school. At some point these restrictions certainly must violate the associational freedoms in the First Amendment.Two recent Supreme Court cases suggest that there is a greater freedom of association for college fraternities than has been previously recognized by lower courts. This article discusses in great detail the history of fraternities and the freedom of association. The article discusses and critiques every relevant case and analyzes existing case law in light of Christian Legal Society and Citizens United. The article concludes by suggesting that these two Supreme Court cases may have opened a new path for fraternities to assert their associational freedoms under the First Amendment.","PeriodicalId":83091,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of college and university law","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of college and university law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2132801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The First Amendment and its associational rights and freedoms are not tested by popular groups or causes. Only controversy can help establish the limits of constitutional rights. Fraternities and sororities (“fraternities”) have certainly been controversial during their 236 years of existence.Colleges often regulate fraternities more strictly than any other organization. Fraternity members may be barred from wearing their letters or mentioning their affinity during certain times of the year. Recruitment of new members is generally permitted only at certain times and in certain ways. Fraternity members may be required to engage in philanthropy or maintain a specific grade point average, where unaffiliated students have no such requirement. And many colleges have banned entire fraternity systems, while encouraging substantially similar themed dormitory housing, or fraternity-like living arrangement controlled by the school. At some point these restrictions certainly must violate the associational freedoms in the First Amendment.Two recent Supreme Court cases suggest that there is a greater freedom of association for college fraternities than has been previously recognized by lower courts. This article discusses in great detail the history of fraternities and the freedom of association. The article discusses and critiques every relevant case and analyzes existing case law in light of Christian Legal Society and Citizens United. The article concludes by suggesting that these two Supreme Court cases may have opened a new path for fraternities to assert their associational freedoms under the First Amendment.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
继基督教法律协会和公民联盟之后的大学兄弟会结社自由
第一修正案及其结社权利和自由不受大众团体或事业的检验。只有争议才能帮助确立宪法权利的界限。兄弟会和姐妹会(简称“兄弟会”)在其236年的历史中一直备受争议。大学对兄弟会的管理往往比其他任何组织都要严格。兄弟会成员可能会被禁止在一年中的某些时候佩戴他们的字母或提及他们的亲密关系。一般只允许在某些时间和以某些方式征聘新成员。兄弟会成员可能被要求从事慈善事业或保持特定的平均成绩,而非兄弟会成员则没有这样的要求。许多大学已经禁止了整个兄弟会体系,而鼓励由学校控制的类似主题的宿舍或类似兄弟会的生活安排。在某种程度上,这些限制肯定会违反《第一修正案》中的结社自由。最高法院最近的两起案件表明,大学兄弟会的结社自由比以前下级法院所承认的要大。这篇文章非常详细地讨论了兄弟会的历史和结社自由。文章对每一个相关案例进行了讨论和批判,并结合基督教法学会和公民联合会对现有判例法进行了分析。文章的结论是,这两个最高法院的案件可能为兄弟会根据第一修正案维护其结社自由开辟了一条新的道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Freedom of Association for College Fraternities after Christian Legal Society and Citizens United Bakke, With Teeth?: The Implications of Grutter v. Bollinger in an Outcomes-Based World Institutional review boards, research on children, and informed consent of parents: walking the tightrope between encouraging vital experimentation and protecting subjects' rights. University Research and the Wages of Commerce. Health-care professionals with AIDS: the risk of transmission balanced against the interests of professionals and institutions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1