Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Regents of University of Colorado
Decision Date | 31 August 1966 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 9525. |
Citation | 258 F. Supp. 515 |
Parties | SIGMA CHI FRATERNITY, a voluntary association, Sigma Chi Corporation, an Illinois corporation, Beta Mu Chapter of Sigma Chi, a voluntary association, and Beta Mu House Corporation, a Colorado corporation, Plaintiffs, v. The REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, a corporation, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Winner, Berge, Martin & Camfield, Fred M. Winner, Denver, Colo., for plaintiffs.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., of State of Colorado, Raphael J. Moses, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boulder, Colo., for defendant.
Before BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge, and CHILSON and DOYLE, District Judges.
This is an action in which the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against the defendant, The Regents of the University of Colorado, primarily based on two actions of the defendant, a resolution which was passed in 1956 and an enforcement order directed to the defendant Beta Mu Chapter of Sigma Chi issued on May 29, 1965. A third but less important claim is based on a resolution adopted by the Regents in December, 1965. It is alleged that the Regents acted contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States in the actions which they took. The 1965 enforcement action gave immediate rise to the present court action. On that occasion the regents adopted a resolution placing the Beta Mu Chapter of Sigma Chi on probation with loss of rushing and pledging privileges "until it can fully comply with the University policy resolution of March 19, 1956." This came about following receipt by the Regents of information that Sigma Chi had suspended its Stanford University chapter purportedly as a result of the pledging by that chapter of a Negro student. The complaint further alleges that Beta Mu chapter is affiliated with the international fraternity Sigma Chi, hereinafter referred to as the "national" organization; that it is required to abide by the rules of the national fraternity; that as an affiliated chapter it may pledge any person it wishes but that the national fraternity must approve a pledge in order for him to be initiated. Beta Mu House Corporation, an association of alumni of Beta Mu chapter, owns the chapter house at Boulder, Colorado.
In addition to injunctive relief, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that "the actions of defendant complained of be declared to be in excess of defendant's jurisdiction, arbitrary and capricious, unconstitutional and void and of no force or effect." It is prayed that an injunction be issued prohibiting defendant from "enforcing or attempting to enforce against plaintiff(s) * * * the resolutions and threats herein complained of."
At the request of plaintiffs a three-judge court has been convened in accordance with Title 28 U.S.C. § 2281. The case has been tried to the Court, extensive briefs have been filed and the matter now stands submitted.
The March 19, 1956 resolution is the main target of the plaintiffs. It called for the University to place on probation any fraternity, social organization or other student group compelled by its constitution, rituals or government to deny membership to any person because of his race, color or religion. Such campus organizations were required to file certificates of compliance with the resolution. Beta Mu chapter filed such a certificate of compliance.
On April 17, 1965, at a meeting of the Board of Regents, one of the members of the Board stated that after reading accounts in the newspaper concerning the suspension of the Sigma Chi chapter at Stanford University he entertained serious doubts concerning the accuracy of the certificate of compliance filed by Beta Mu chapter in purported compliance with the 1956 resolution. He offered a resolution requiring Sigma Chi to produce evidence that the Stanford suspension was not connected with the pledging of a Negro student by the Stanford chapter. The full text of the remarks and resolution as reflected by the minutes reads as follows:
The resolution was adopted unanimously. A copy of the statement and resolution was forwarded to the secretary of the national Sigma Chi organization. Notice was included that the May meeting of the Regents would be held on "the 28th of the month at 2:00 p. m., in Room 302, Regent Hall, on the University of Colorado campus in Boulder." The president of Beta Mu chapter, Charles Licka, was advised that the Board "was going to hold a meeting to decide whether Beta Mu chapter of Sigma Chi would be placed on probation." It is stipulated that "Licka, at that time, was given some material relating to the Stanford situation," and that Licka was notified "as to the time of the May meeting of the Regents."
Prior to the May meeting, an inquiry by correspondence was instituted by Don Saunders, Secretary of the Board of Regents. This correspondence was with Sigma Chi national officers, with Stanford officials, and with officers of the Stanford chapter. There was also correspondence between Beta Mu chapter and its national officers. The officers of Beta Mu were instructed to remain silent at the May meeting.
At the May meeting of the Board, held on May 29th, 1965, a resolution was adopted placing Beta Mu chapter on probation. The resolution somewhat reveals the basis of the action which was taken. The text of this resolution is as follows:
At the May meeting of the Regents, the officers of Beta Mu chapter remained silent. As a result the information before the Board was limited to various correspondence, including letters written directly to it by the chief executive officer of the Sigma Chi Fraternity, Grand Counsel Wade. There were also several letters of Wade which had been written to others, and a considerable volume of correspondence with others...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cornelius v. Benevolent Protective Order of Elks
...right to associate. Cf., Note, Private Club Discrimination, 1970 Wisconsin L. Rev. 595, 601; Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Regents of the University of Colorado, 258 F.Supp. 515, 523-526 (D.Colo.1966) (three-judge court). Contrast, Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 (......
-
Elks Lodges No. 719 (Ogden) and No. 2021 (Moab) v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
...come within the core protection of the right to associate." Cornelius, 382 F.Supp. at 1195 (citing Sigma Chi Fraternity v. University of Colorado, 258 F.Supp. 515, 523-26 (D.Colo.1966)). On the basis of the foregoing, we hold that the DABC's decision to apply the UCRA to petitioners does no......
-
Familias Unidas v. Briscoe
...District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service, et al., 358 F.Supp. 1180 (S.D.N.Y.1973); Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Regents of University of Colorado, 258 F.Supp. 515 (D.C.Colo.1966). Even in injunction actions, the fact that the particular act complained of has ceased or has been com......
-
Uberoi v. University of Colorado
...of the university, is established by the constitution. Colo. Const. art. IX, § 12. See also Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Regents of University of Colorado, 258 F.Supp. 515, 528 (D.Colo.1966). The constitution provides that "[t]he governing boards of the state institutions of higher education, wh......
-
Enforcement of Law Schools' Non-academic Honor Codes: a Necessary Step Towards Professionalism?
...must be judged in the light of the parties, the subject matter, and the circumstances involved."); Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Regents, 258 F. Supp. 515 (D. Colo. 1966) (noting that the test of whether a party has been afforded procedural due process is one of fundamental fairness in light of t......
-
Rule 57 DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS.
...judgment action there is a tendency to construe the mootness doctrine more narrowly. Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., 258 F. Supp. 515 (D. Colo. 1966). Declaratory judgment proceedings may not be invoked to resolve a question which is nonexistent, even though it can be ass......
-
ARTICLE 4 RULE MAKING AND LICENSING PROCEDURES BY STATE AGENCIES
...adapted to the nature of the case, and, finally, a fair and impartial decision. Sigma Chi Fraternity v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., 258 F. Supp. 515 (D. Colo. 1966). The essence of procedural due process is fundamental fairness. Mtn. States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Dept. of Labor & Emp., 184 Colo.......