Student Group at Yale Wants Co-Ed Frats But Would Exempt Sororities
“logical next step”
There are times when the targets of SJW campaigns have to just say “no.” Especially when the situation is so clearly unfair.
Heat Street reports:
Yale Student Group Wants to Force Fraternities to Admit Women, Gives Sororities Free Pass
A Yale student group has waged a war on the university fraternities and will use Title IX to force them into admitting women—while letting female-only sororities off the hook.
Engender, a group led by students of Yale, claims it will lobby the university—citing Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on gender, and internal Yale policies against discrimination—to issue sanctions against male-only fraternities.
Will McGrew, a co-director of the organization, told Yale News that it’s a “logical next step” to approach the Yale administration “because all of these organizations fall under the purview of Yale legally, either because they are registered as Yale organizations or it is literally all Yale students that constitute them.”
The group’s co-directors also said that allowing only men to join fraternities is a form of sex discrimination and the university has a responsibility to address the issue as it falls under the Title IX and Yale’s policies about gender discrimination.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“…But Would Exempt Sororities”
It’s a violation if men do it but if women do it it’s okay because men did it and even though we’re not going to let them do it anymore it’s still bad that they did it so women can do it too and it’s good for them since it gives women the choice of living with or without men and men don’t have a choice because they can’t have abortions unless they identify as pregnant …
Okay. Now I understand.
Another in a seemingly endless series of embarrassing episodes at my alma mater.
“What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine”. That’s how most women think of men, in my experience. Feminists just take it to its logical conclusion.
There’s surely ample precedent here in civil rights law. How much precedent is there supporting claims that what appears on its face discriminatory is not discriminatory if the discrimination is intended to serve the interests of a protected class?
The thinking here presumably is that such measures are justified because Title IX exists to protect women (even if its actual text appears to be gender-neutral).
(“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” — Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.)
I defy a liberal/prog to define the word “fair” without invoking some form of misplaced social “justice”….