[625] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Dartmouth and Zeta Psi
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SMITH)
Sat May 12 17:33:54 2001
Message-Id: <200105122133.RAA06028@m12-182-24.mit.edu>
To: Matt Craighead <craighea@MIT.EDU>
cc: "Prez H. Cannady" <revprez@MIT.EDU>, mit-talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 12 May 2001 17:09:07 EDT."
<3AFDA673.F7657253@mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:33:23 -0400
From: SMITH <cdsmith@MIT.EDU>
>Well, read the First Amendment. Note the phrasing. "Congress shall
>make no law..." This says absolutely _nothing_ about what private
>organizations may or may not do.
>
>There _are_ parts of the Constitution that do impact private
>organizations, but the First Amendment itself affects *only* Congress.
>(Does the First apply to states? This is not nearly so clear-cut, but I
>would argue that the 14th Amendment extends the 1st to also apply to
>state legislatures.)
Hmm...it would appear that a crafty lawyer could get around this by invoking
two constitutional provisions. First, article 2 of the constitution
authorizes congress to regulate commerce "among the states" (notice
that it says 'among' and not 'between'). Congress has already stated
through the 14th amendment that it is illegal for any state to deny
any person within its jurisdiction equal legal protection (ostensibly
including the constitution). Thus, if a state charters a university,
public or private, that violates parts of the constitution, is not that
state in violation of the constitution? And if a judge ruled as much,
would not that state be compelled to revoke the charter of any such
university? Secondly, it has been established through supreme court
precedent that organizations that receive federal funding must,
to some extent, comply with the laws and regulations which bind government
power.
Conceivably, one could argue that Dartmouth has more than an ethical
obligation to not violate free speech rights.
-chris
