Gay rights may have gotten an unexpected boost last week – and from an extremely unlikely place: a girl-banning fraternity.
Though federal laws protect gendered brother and sisterhoods, a New York appeals court ruled that City University of New York’s College of Staten Island can refuse a frat that bans women. The court ruled that school administrators have a “substantial interest in making sure that its resources are available to all its students.” The judge goes on, “The state’s interest in prohibiting sex discrimination is no less compelling because federal anti-discrimination statutes exempt fraternities.”
As Inside Higher Ed’s Scott Jaschik points out, this decision could set a precedent in any number of discrimination suits, including gay rights. Thus, a school which used religious leaning to justify anti-gay policy could feasibly be ordered to open their doors.
And not even the back ones.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
eireapparent
Is that what we want? To be honest, I can understand the protection of a fraternity because as the name suggests, it’s FRATERNAL. Brothers, not sisters. It’s about male-bonding. As far as this applies to GLBT issues, do we want some big “Ha ha ha! We made them tell you to let us in” victory? Like somebody who goes crying to their mother who calls the other kids mother who makes their kid let them into their club house. Yeah, because fostering resentment is always the best way to build bridges and heal wounds. We’re going to force uber-religious schools accept gays through legislation? Firstly, why the hell would you want to be there in the first place and secondly, how do you think that will make every single overly conservative, irrationally idealistic (they’re college kids, right?)individual on that campus feel? I’m sure they’re just going to open up their arms with love after you’ve just forced their hand.
Mr. B
Okay, frats and sororities not being co-ed, I can understand. I mean, it’s a social group based on pretty self-explanatory rules, and it’s not as if the equivalent isn’t provided for women as long as there’s a demand for it. Title IX forbids that. (Likewise, there isn’t some kind of quality imbalance like a men’s sports team that gets more funding than the women’s equivalent and thus violates Title IX.) However, it’s rather bothersome that this case is getting attention when Delta Lambda Phi, which bills itself as a fraternity for “gay, bisexual, and progressive men,” is perfectly allowed to ban transsexual men (that’s female-to-male, so we’re talking male-identified people here) while welcoming transsexual women (MTF–NOT male-identified at all). Seems sort of backwards in an ironic way. Progressive, schmogressive.