Gay Lib v. University of Missouri
Citation | 416 F. Supp. 1350 |
Decision Date | 29 June 1976 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 74 CV 53 C. |
Parties | GAY LIB et al., Plaintiffs, v. The UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Lawrence P. Kaplan, Clayton, Mo., for plaintiffs.
James S. Newberry, Columbia, Mo., for defendants.
FINDINGS AND OPINION
Presented to the Court in the context of this case is the question of the legal right of homosexuals to form a student organization and obtain University recognition of it as a campus organization.
February 25, 1971, marks the beginning of an attempt on the part of a small group calling itself Gay Lib to gain formal recognition as a student organization at the University of Missouri at Columbia, Missouri. On that date, Gay Lib submitted three documents to the Missouri Students Association (hereinafter referred to as the MSA): (1) a petition for recognition on the forms provided for that purpose by the MSA, (2) a proposed constitution and by-laws, and (3) a statement of the purposes of the proposed organization.1 Gay Lib's application for recognition was given initial consideration by the Rules Committee of the MSA Senate, which approved it and recommended that the MSA Senate also grant approval. The MSA Senate did so and forwarded the petition and accompanying documents to the Committee on Student Organizations, Government and Activities (hereinafter referred to as SOGA), made up of both faculty members of the University and students.
For reasons not pertinent to this litigation SOGA did not take immediate action on the Gay Lib petition. On November 22, 1971, during the period that its petition was before SOGA but not yet under active consideration, Gay Lib submitted a revised statement of purposes2 which added detail to the initial brief statement.
On December 22, 1971, SOGA voted 8-5 in favor of recommending approval of Gay Lib as a recognized student organization.3 A subcommittee of SOGA members was appointed to assist the Dean of Student Affairs, who was responsible for the next step in the recognition procedure, in implementing the SOGA recommendation.
Edwin Hutchins, then Dean of Student Affairs, vetoed SOGA's recommendation of approval on February 1, 1972, in a letter to Dr. Ray Lansford, SOGA Chairman. Dean Hutchins' letter was the initial step in what became a continuing refusal by the University to recognize Gay Lib as a student organization. Subsequent decisions at higher levels in the University not to recognize Gay Lib were based largely on Dean Hutchins' veto and its reasoning. The clear significance of this letter, therefore, requires that its lengthy text be fully set forth.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boddorff v. Publicker Industries, Inc.
...478 F.Supp. 434 (D.N.Dak.1979), Fantroy, v. Greater St. Louis Council, 478 F.Supp. 355 (E.D.Mo.1979), Gay Lib v. University of Missouri, 416 F.Supp. 1350 (W.D.Mo.1976), rev'd on other grounds, 558 F.2d 848 (8th Cir. 1977), cert. denied sub nom. Ratchford v. Gay Lib, 434 U.S. 1080, 98 S.Ct. ......
-
Gay Lib v. University of Missouri
...of the State, has no right to restrict speech or association "simply because it finds the views expressed to be abhorrent." 416 F.Supp. at 1370, quoting Healy, supra 408 U.S. at 187, 92 S.Ct. 2338. Since the Supreme Court's decision in Healy, the First and Fourth Circuits have sustained the......
-
Shapiro v. Columbia Union Nat. Bank and Trust Co.
...56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Thonen v. Jenkins, 517 F.2d 3, 5 (4th Cir. 1975); for the issue of immunity see: Gay Lib v. The University of Missouri, 416 F.Supp. 1350, 1365 (W.D.Mo.1976), rev'd. on other grounds, 558 F.2d 848 (8th Cir. 1977); Cf. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv. of City of N.Y., supr......
-
Uberoi v. University of Colorado
...Westbury, 427 F.Supp. 850 (D.N.Y.1977); Wade v. Mississippi Co-op. Extension Serv., 424 F.Supp. 1242 (D.Miss.1976); Gay Lib. v. Univ. of Missouri, 416 F.Supp. 1350 (1976), rev'd on other grounds, 558 F.2d 848 (8th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1080, 98 S.Ct. 1276, 55 L.Ed.2d 789 (1978);......