OCR Text |
Show Student Code of Conduct. With more people aware of its operation, substantive due process and protection of individual right may become a reality on the campus. However, this will never become a reality if our judicial bodies interpret the discrimination provision in the absurd manner you displayed in your editorials of January 4 and 5. It is patently absurd to suggest any student organization associated with the University may discriminate on the basis of race, religion or ethnic or national origin. The code allows sex discrimination by purely social and fraternal organizations. This was permitted as the committee felt there was a valid rationale for the existence of fraternities and sororities on a university campus. This provision also allows fraternal honorary organizations, such as Mortar Board, Cwean, Owl and Key, Skull and Bones, etc. to function in their honorary capacity. This rationale being deemed valid, these Bag Ute Editor: Poet, Litmus editor publisher, Charles Potts has proposed changing the U's racist oriented Runnin' Redskin of cliche shouts and fame to the Runnin' Dorm Dwellers, or the Profits or at least the Elders." (issue 12) I would like to add some suggestions in the name of positive action: Jead om tje Sand Ostrich, Effeminate Eggheads. Also, I am sure that out there in readership-land there are many who would like to add their suggestions in order to start an awareness campaign to rid our super-star University of this racist blanket, i.e., change the mascot! mas-cot! Karl Kempton Objections Editor: Apparently Mr. William Maiben doesn't "even have an intelligent mind" judging by his remarks in the Chronicle. The point of most objections to women being used as sex objects is that we do not want to be used in this way, but the pressures of modern society force it upon us. We are not considered even worth dating unless we have the looks and figure deemed "desirable" by such men as Mr. Maiben. I for one do not wish to be used as a sex object, not even once, let alone "hundreds of times" and certainly not by William Maiben. Piret Reilian No conflict Editor: You are to be congratulated for finally publicizing the existence of the new organizations are protected by tttiei and may discriminate by limited bership to one sex. Please note tLe provision is the only ground upo'ne these organizations may discrimir on )u The second area where the code Sy controlled discrimination pert;;a groups formed "for the bona fide p- y purpose of examing and express t culture and heritage, and promo: ti; interests of that race, religion, na: d ethnic group or sex." If yourKec suggest fraternities, sororities an: Jr It social organizations are protected Wf provision, you are dead wrong j. suggest that they are not proteff are institutionally discriminating these grounds, take the initial Ct prosecute them to ascertain the w u your claim and quit complaining a: j ( code. te: This provision allows format. tl-organizations tl-organizations such as the Black'! Union, Association of Indian Stude -uc Their protection provided by the P' disappears when they no longer t operate) for the bona f . purpose of examining and exP,E" w culture and heritage, etc. of w bers. Hence, if an organization e seeking d iscri m instion pro ..nil Sec. 2.01 of the code and ope!s(. manner inconsistent with tne t0, (e language of Sec. 2.01, their pro' -e be and should be revoked. a Id The Sec. 2.01 code provision is enforceable. The light yourj. placed it in were inaccurate a Hopefully, the judiciary will 'n' provision with more intelligf"' .g' have. t j, Alan E. Walcher |