Constitution requirements and deploring them

Seth David Schoen (schoen@uclink4.Berkeley.EDU)
4 Feb 1998 02:41:28 GMT 

I went to SAS today for another reason and picked up their sheet on how to
write a Constitution for a recognized group.

Some apparent answers:

The SAS requires that certain items be covered by articles of a Constitution,
but they don't necessarily have to be based on the SAS model Constitution,
which is a "Sample Constitution" apparently intended to show what one
particular Constitution meeting their requirements would look like.

It should be clear from several other examples that where particular items
are required, the substance and not the wording is what's called for.
For instance, it's required that "All remaining privately obtained funds
shall be donated to another nonprofit organization", but they don't state
which organization, so all existing recognized Constitutions don't incorporate
that text literally.

Similarly, it's required that we "Include a statement about non-active members
if the organization will be recognizing off-campus participants", but obviously
that text needn't (and can't) be used verbatim.

We're then instructed that "Constitutions must also affirm the following
statements: We will not haze according to California State Law; we will not
restrict memership based upon race, color, national orgin, sex, sexual
orientation, age or handicap."

In general, the sheet says that various specified "[i]nformation ... is
required", but it doesn't say that the given "text" is required.

The interpretation of the word "affirm" is relevant.  My reading of it
would permit a logically equivalent statement with the same text.  For
instance, I think that someone who affirms the principles of libertarianism
is affirming libertarianism; presumably someone affirming points of law is
also affirming the law.  But in both cases, one needn't be affirming something
_as such_ -- someone might not like the label "libertarianism", or someone
might not like the entity called "California State Law", but still affirm
their content.

In the worst case, we could almost certainly, according to any logical
reading of the requirements, use a paragraph like this:

We affirm, as mandated by the Office of Student Activities and Services and
by the Associated Students of the University of California, that "We will
not haze according to California State Law", and that "we will not restrict
membership based upon race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation,
age or handicap".

In the best case, we could take the actual provision of California State
Law, Education Code, Part 19, Chap. 1, Art. 5 (Sec. 32050), and write a
Constitutional article which includes the paragraph

We affirm that we will not engage in any method of initiation or preinitiation
into this organization, nor in any pastime or amusement engaged in with respect
to such organization which causes, or is likely to cause, bodily danger,
physical harm, or personal degradation or disgrace resulting in physical or
mental harm, to any student or other person attending any school, community
college, college, university or other educational institution in this state;
but this prohibition does not include customary athletic events or other
similar contests or competitions.  We further affirm that we will not in
the determination of membership discriminate against any person on the
basis of age, color, handicap, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, or veteran status.

Including this paragraph would logically _certainly_ have the effect of
affirming that we will not haze in accordance with California State Law,
without giving California State Law any undue credit for our unwillingness
to haze, and without using the ASUC's canned antidiscrimination wording,
because it includes the categories in alphabetic order, and a few they
didn't think to put in*.

Since I personally like to argue, I propose to submit this latter variant,
along with a suitable explanation of our principled objection to the
requirement.  If people don't want to risk getting into an actual argument
with ASUC over it, I think the version with the quotation marks is more
reliable.

* I just thought of sticking in at the end "or previous condition of
servitude", but I think that would adversely change the tone of the
provisions.

-- 
   Seth David Schoen L&S '01 (undeclared) / schoen@uclink4.berkeley.edu
Magna dis immortalibus habenda est atque huic ipsi Iovi Statori, antiquissimo
custodi huius urbis, gratia, quod hanc tam taetram, tam horribilem tamque
infestam rei publicae pestem totiens iam effugimus.  -- Cicero, in Catilinam I