<p>The article from 1984 says that they were non-selective at the time, with applicants submitting their ranked choices and a computer program making the assignments based on those ranked choices. It does say that that method was implemented recently (i.e. not too long before 1984). So perhaps they were selective in the usual sense of fraternity rushing and pledging before that.</p>
<p>^^ Interesting use of the word non-selective then because the frats were still selective in 1983-84, still had a rush system, and many students still got rejected from frats they wanted to be in. The computer only matched student ranking and a frat’s selection ranking. A frat told the students it wanted to rank it first; and the frats did the same for the student, they ranked those students first. And walla, the computer matched them up - nothing random going on there. Result, the frats got 95%+ of the specific members each frat wanted. There was nothing non-selective about it.</p>
<p>If that is the case, then it looks like bad journalism (in terms of fact checking) was just as prevalent in 1984 as it is now.</p>
<p>Yes, it is bad journalism - I bet you $1 that it was not from a student newspaper. The dates are off also. The last rush season was Fall 1983 and the last school year frats existed was 1983-84. There was no rush or frats in the Fall 1984 or for the entire 84-85 school year. Well, there were, but they were underground and no official rush or anything like that took place that was visible. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This would only come into play if the bans violate discriminatory or EEOC laws against certain protected groups and organizations. </p>
<p>Fraternities/sororities or other organizations not covered under that figurative umbrella are out of luck as despite accepting Federal aid, private universities are allowed much more leeway in practice than their public counterparts. This includes the private university’s right of free association. </p>
<p>Incidentally, my LAC has banned fraternities under rules which prohibit student organizations which practiced selective memberships on criteria other than academic merit and/or were considered “secret societies”* since the 1870’s. </p>
<p>Seems like the campus administration and many students of the period felt fraternities and other socially exclusive and/or highly secretive student organizations were very detrimental to maintaining a vibrant healthy campus community. Consequently, they passed a ban on fraternities and any student organizations which excluded students from being members on basis other than academic merit and enrolled students from maintaining memberships in such organizations as a condition of matriculation & continuing enrollment. </p>
<p>Thus, while Phi Beta Kappa is allowed as its exclusive membership practices are on the basis of academic merit, student organizations must otherwise be open to all students interested in joining and transparent in its activities and procedures. </p>
<ul>
<li>Yes kids, that means a student at my LAC can’t even join fine organizations like the Stonecutters even with exhalted personalities like Steve Guttenberg and Homer Simpson. However, they can always do so after graduating. :)</li>
</ul>
<p>“as soon as they accepted federal aid (such as Pell grants), they had to start playing by federal rules. That opens them up to federal lawsuits. based on freedom of association.”</p>
<p>Sure, they have to play by federal rules, but there is no federal rule mandating that students be allowed to join Greek organizations. It doesn’t exist. If you’re thinking of rules like Title IX non-discrimination laws, those are federal statutes. The federal aid is conditioned on following those rules. There’s no rule on this topic.</p>
<p>Sure, someone could file a lawsuit arguing that the private school is violating the constitutional rights of the students, but no one has ever won a lawsuit like that, and I don’t think they’d get anywhere if they tried. As I said above, private schools that get federal money are allowed to police the religious and sexual behavior of students, and there’s no constitutional problem there. Banning fraternities is a much smaller imposition on students’ fundamental rights than telling them they have to attend church. Many schools have done what Amherst is doing with no legal repercussions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is interesting from a legal perspective.</p>
<p>I don’t disagree with you, but I wonder how that would work with other private entities such as a business. Not including protected classes, could a business bar employees from what they do outside of the business? “You can’t join the YMCA social clubs” for instance? Or you can’t be active in your college fraternity? </p>
<p>^^ Yes, businesses can bar employees for the actions by a club or even the person, which goes against the company’s moral clause or declared public and private standings. If something is opposite what a company “preaches” or “sells,” the company can deem you incompatible with the corporate mission. No company is obligated to hire people who are against the corporate mission, especially since the employee would have read and signed on and agreed to the corporate mission statement.</p>
<p>Now, the person can fight it. It came up years ago when a single teacher at a Catholic school got fired for becoming pregnant. It was deemed against the morals the school was trying to teach young girls. Do not know what happened, as the teacher sued the school. But the school had grounds to fire her, it determined. This is slightly different, as no group was involved, but the issue is the same - the employee engaged in outside activity (premarital sex) that the school deemed incompatible with school mission.</p>
<p>Again, the attorneys on here can weigh in, as I am not one. But, I am an employer and have done exactly what you outlined and it was never an issue, as it was clear the actions were against the image of the company. And it was with outside groups that promoted the taking if action. Well, a president took action, and I backed the president fully. I could have not signed off on it, but I did. </p>
<p>^ <a href=“http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/06/03/jury-finds-for-cincinnati-teacher-fired-while-pregnant.html”>http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/06/03/jury-finds-for-cincinnati-teacher-fired-while-pregnant.html</a></p>
<p>^^ Thanks for the link. </p>
<p>It would interesting to see what the actual details of the decision were. </p>
<p>I do know much of any such case has to do with how you fire, and it is possible the school mishandled that part. It also has to do with how clear the contract she signed was. A general contract is definitely problematic. The tough part of these articles though is the newspaper writes in big sweeping statements and conclusions, but decisions are taken on specifics. </p>
<p>The question is does the reasoning in this case translate beyond this case. Without the specifics, I have not a clue. One thing I can guarantee is the employment contract of that school has since been rewritten. </p>
<p>@fluffy2017 - It was not sex, per say; it was artificial insemination. I got that fact wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/23/amherst-college-students-decry-ban-underground-frats/SZg2XUTZrmBe46d8dDb85L/story.html”>http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/23/amherst-college-students-decry-ban-underground-frats/SZg2XUTZrmBe46d8dDb85L/story.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A lot more pushback than I expected. I have to admit, when I read the last name of the Amherst spokeswoman, I had to laugh. 
</p>
<p>“We respect the views of those who disagree with the board’s decision,” said Amherst spokeswoman Caroline Hanna. “The board and administration have also heard from many students and alumni who support the decision.” </p>
<p>^^ I mentioned in a post a bit back that it seemed a bit strange for a school to try and dictate private actions off campus on private property. I would venture even if the students do not break it down that way that is the main thing, which instinctively rubs them (and many parents) the wrong way. </p>
<p>My oldest DS asked some interesting questions, “How far does this extend? Can someone be sanctioned for being part of a frat in his hometown other than Amherst? What if his hometown is Amherst because he now votes there? Can the school even tell people what they can and cannot do in their own towns when off campus?” </p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how this shakes out because the ruling seems really like trying to control group gatherings, not frats, since the school gets to determine what they think is a frat. Kind of 1984-ish, if you ask me.</p>
<p>I think the key part is “pledging and rushing” - organizations that accept members based on other criteria, or accept all interested people, wouldn’t be subject to the ruling.</p>
<p>I’m not sure about that…</p>
<p>“relating to rushing, pledging, initiating or otherwise admitting to or maintaining membership by any student of the College in any fraternity, sorority or other social club, society or organization (however denominated),” </p>
<p>I read it as being fairly vague. The “or otherwise admitting” part as well as the “or organization (however denominated)” part can cover any organization that admits members. It’s likely written this way to avoid loopholes.</p>
<p>^^ Yeah, that’s how I read it.</p>
<p>^^ Yes, that is how I read it too. Any organization or group of students can be subject to the college control. No kidding. As far as I can tell, no provision is made for private behavior not related to the school or not made public or causing any harm to anyone. The school just has to not like the group. </p>
<p>With all that being said, Hanna already made the point that private colleges can be very restrictive. If this policy does gets modified, it will likely be due to student/alumni pushback and not something done via the courts.</p>
<p>^^ Yes, but I do not agree it extends to student private behavior when not even on campus and not interfering with campus activities. Restrictive as to on campus behavior, yes, but this goes far beyond that and far beyond the campus - overreach. </p>
<p>Of course, anything will be done by pushback of students and alumni for the college will let it get as far as the courts. There are many a Amherst grads from HLS, who were members of frats, who would take this case on free. The college would not want that fight in public. </p>
<p>^^ I meant to say, “…the college will NOT let it get as far as the courts.”</p>
<p>I agree with Hanna that Amherst can almost certainly do this legally. Whether they will successfully impose and then enforce this policy is a different question. I’d like to know if they plan to prohibit Catholic students from joining the Knights of Columbus.</p>