16 C.C.

(2014/2015)

ASUO Constitution Court

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF ARTICLE
24 OF THE ASUO CONSTITUTION
[Decided April 16, 2015]
PER CURIAM.
I
On April 13, 2015, ASUO member Elle Mallon
(Petitioner) submitted a motion for clarification to this
Court. The question presented for review in this motion
is whether one of the purposes of Article 2.4 of the
ASUO Constitution is to require that organizers of
incidental
fee-funded
events
provide
equitable
accommodations for trans people, specifically, by
ensuring equitable access to bathrooms at said events.
II
Pursuant to Article 11.2 of the ASUO Constitution,
which states that, The Constitution Court shall have
supreme and final authority on all questions of
interpretation of this Constitution and any rules
promulgated under it, this Court has jurisdiction to
rule on this matter.
III
Article 2.4 of the ASUO Constitution states that,
[a]ccess to activities supported in whole or in part
through mandatory student incidental fees shall not be
denied for reasons of sex... From the suggested
interpretation included in this motion, it is clear that
Petitioner equates access to gender-inclusive bathrooms
at specific events with access to those activities, in
general. Because so much of the University of Oregon

16 C.C. (2014/2015)
campus does not have gender-inclusive bathrooms,
however, such an interpretation would prohibit
incidental fee-funded organizations from hosting events
in a sizeable amount of the facilities currently available
to them. The Court does not find this interpretation
reasonable. While Article 2.4 of the ASUO Constitution
shall be interpreted to mean that admittance to
incidental fee-funded events may not be denied for
reasons of sex, race, religion, etc., it shall not be
interpreted to mandate that incidental fee-funded
organizations are not allowed to host events in facilities
that lack gender-inclusive bathrooms. In other words,
access to equitable bathrooms shall not be equated with
[a]ccess to activities, as is stated in Article 2.4.
Additionally, the Court would like to note that what
constitutes equitable access to incidental fee-funded
organization events is a political question better suited
for the political branches of the ASUO and the
University Administration. In other words, laying out
the steps requiring student groups to ensure equitable
accommodation at all incidental fee-funded events,
including bathroom access, is better accomplished
through legislative avenues, including but not limited
to, amendments to the ASUO Constitution or
amendments
to
the
ASUO
Programs
Rules
administered by the ASUO Executive, rather than
through the judicial process.
Lastly, the Court would like to note the distinction
between this ruling and the ruling it made in 14 C.C.
(2014/2015). The interpretation in the aforementioned
opinion relating to access to campaign events is
different than access to incidental fee-funded
organization events, as campaign events are not funded
by the incidental fee. Thus, these opinions should be
viewed as addressing separate issues.
It is so ordered.