1 DSG-BS-2010-090801

1 A BUDGETARY STATUTE OF THE DUKE

2 STUDENT GOVERNMENT
3 Dechartering the Duke College Republicans (“DCR”)
4
5Policy Statement:
6
7A budgetary statute to decharter the Duke College Republicans (hereafter “DCR”), a chartered
8student organization in Duke Student Government’s student-organization program, for a
9duration of one academic year (SOFC-bylaw Chapter IV, Part E).
10
11Costs:
12
13There are no costs associated with this budgetary statute, and only revenue, as DSG, SOFC, and
14the Student Activity Fee fund will be reimbursed by the total amount of the DCR’s 2010-2011
15SOFC budget allotment.
16
17Rationale:
18
19The DCR violated without cause or authority and with actual knowledge of the violations:
20
21 STUDENT ORGANIZATION FINANCE COMMITTEE (“SOFC”) BY-LAW TITLE IV, CHAPTER II (PART D)
22 — “Responsibilities of Chartered Organizations: In addition to the responsibilities of
23 recognized organizations in Title IV, Chapter I, Part D of this By-Law, chartered
24 groups are required to…”

25
26 SOFC TITLE IV, CHAPTER I, PART D, SECTION 1, SUBSECTION A—“All recognized
27 organizations are required to: keep membership without prejudice toward race, gender,
28 religion, sexual orientation, or country of origin.”
29
30 SOFC TITLE IV, CHAPTER II (A)—Membership selectivity, a violation of Duke Student
31 Government’s (DSG’s) all-comers policy.
32
 2 DSG-BS-2010-090801

33 “Definition: An Officially Chartered organization is an organization that is dependent on

34 DSG funding and is not selective in its membership” (SOFC-bylaw Title IV, Chapter II,
35 section A, subsection 1).
36
37 THE DUKE COMMUNITY STANDARD
38
39 DUKE COMMUNITY STANDARD APPENDIX E: “STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS”
40
41 “Alignment with the Duke University equal opportunity (non-discrimination)
42 statement: Duke University prohibits discrimination and harassment, and
43 provides equal membership opportunity without regard to race, color,
44 religion, national origin, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender
45 identity, sex, or age.”
46
47 THE DUKE UNIVERSITY NON-DISCRIMINATION (EQUAL OPPORTUNITY) POLICY
48
49 THE DUKE UNIVERSITY HARASSMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES
50 THE DUKE STUDENT GOVERNMENT RESOLUTIONS OF UNIVERSITY RIGHTS:
51
52 All students have “the right to be treated as equal, not inferior” and “the right to
53 fully participate in the Duke community”
54
55 A DUKE STUDENT GOVERNMENT NON-BINDING RESOLUTION CONDEMNING HATE SPEECH, PASSED
56 APRIL 21, 2010.
57
58
59Materials comprehensively explaining rationale can be found in the Senate’s September 8, 2010
60materials, “In the Matter of the Duke College Republicans.”
61
62DCR is a student organization chartered under Duke University’s student-organization program.
63DCR is a “chartered” student organization provided DSG and SOFC funding (“funding”).
64
65Funding is a carrot of subsidy offered to groups of students who form student organizations and
66who conform to all University Rules and Regulations.1 To retain this subsidy for organization
67programs, student organizations must not violate their club by-laws, any student government by-
68laws, and any school Rules and Regulations. Student organizations affiliated with Duke
69University’s student-organization program must have a “chartered” status to retain and use
70funding.
71
72Violations of the above Rules and Regulations of Duke University and Duke Student
73Government warrant de-chartering and de-funding. All budgetary statutes represent
74discretionary appropriations of Student Activity Fee money, making this money valuable. The
31 United States Supreme Court. Hastings v. Christian Legal Society of Univ. of California—Hastings (CLS). Argued
4April 16, 2010. Decided June 2010.
 5 DSG-BS-2010-090801

75infractions above, and the continued infractions after this Senate’s last consideration of the DCR
76on April 21, 2010, warrant a de-chartering in order to protect the integrity of Duke Student
77Government’s student-organization program and the confidence of all undergraduate students
78whose Student Activity Fees directly subsidize the DCR. DSG, and the student body it
79represents, as a community, are currently in the position of silently condoning the above
80violations by continuing to charter and fund the DCR. This represents a tacit approval and
81acceptance of the DCR and the actions of its Executive Board leaders. DSG should not continue
82to condone the above infractions by allowing the DCR to continue to receive the student fees of
83every undergraduate student, including those who are African-America, gay, lesbian, bisexual,
84transgender, female or Jewish.
85
86 As a result of the words and deeds of the DCR’s Executive Board, African-American, LGBT,
87female and/or Jewish undergraduate students can no longer feel comfortable participating in the
88DCR. This de facto discrimination resulted in five executive officers’ resignations, multiple
89members’ resignations, and a purging of the organization so that only the Executive Officers
90who committed the above violations are in the leadership of the Executive Board.
91
92Therefore, as the current leadership of the DCR, they represent both Duke University and the
93Republican Party on campus and have defamed those they represent. As a result, campus culture
94has been irreparably harmed by the lack of a credible Republican presence on campus, and the
95rampant discriminatory actions that have continued unabated by the DCR Executive Board.
96
97These words and deeds constitute discrimination, as multiple members and officers testify to
98having been made to feel inferior and having been unable to fully participate in the student
99organization, a direct violation of University Rules and Regulations.
100
101Retaliation in this matter has resulted, silencing many students from being more public on this
102issue and making it all the more relevant for discussion in the student body’s forum for student
103self-governance, i.e. the DSG Senate. This has occurred via blackmail, direct and in-person
104harassment, and other documented cyber-stalking incidents.
105
106Furthermore, Duke University and DSG have suffered undue reputational damage by the actions
107of the DCR Executive Board. Published in the largest student newspaper in the nation, The
108Daily Tar Heel, this editorial summarizes the damage to Duke and DSG that these actions have
109caused:
110 “Someone, be it the student judiciary, Duke University itself, or both, needs to step up
111 and take control of the College Republicans situation at Duke University,” writes The
112 Daily Tar Heel’s Editorial Board. “[Some] of these events came after the student
113 government ruled that the College Republicans did not discriminate when impeaching
114 Robinette[.] This is a chance for the University to set things straight. The issue has
115 become highly polarized among both the UNC and Duke student communities. Claims of
 6 DSG-BS-2010-090801

116 discrimination have been made along with claims Robinette was impeached for
117 justifiable reasons. Clearly, this is a very emotionally charged issue and rational
118 discourse is being lost in back-and-forth accusations. Statements by both sides have
119 confused the whole situation. At a time when a third party is needed to adjudicate the
120 dispute, both Duke and its student government cannot afford to be silent. Without
121 attention, Duke’s problem could grow if the case moves to a non-student court or gains
122 national negative media[.] The student government should live up to its ideals and
123 represent the interests of the students. Refusing to hear Robinette’s newest case would
124 not be settling the issue, it would be merely abdicating responsibility. Duke must be
125 proactive in addressing this divisive issue[.]” [emphasis added]2
126
127Pursuant to the violations above, in the interest of the Duke community, and resulting from a
128petition for DSG to act in accordance with these rules and regulations (336 members, “mostly
129Duke students”), DSG de-charters DCR for one academic year.
130
131The DCR may reapply for funding in the Fall of 2011 given there are no continued violations of
132these policies.
133
134DCR Chairman Carter H. Boyle, Chief of Staff Rachel L. Provost, and the DCR Executive Board
135have violated these policies before April 21, 2010, and after April 21, 2010 (the last meeting of
136the DSG Senate in which the DCR was addressed as a chartered student organization), with
137actual knowledge of the violations, and with the intention to inflict emotional distress on their
138member-victims as a result of these violations in a manner that was “nasty, deliberately
139provocative, [and] designed to hurt.”3 E-mails were sent to Justin Robinette in his official
140capacity as Chairman of the DCR, and discussed DCR issues such as registration, club
141resolutions, club elections and other club business.
142
143This action will only affect the funding status of the DCR. This action will not affect the
144“recognized” status of the DCR at this time, or the Republican presence on campus. The DCR
145may still use campus space, advertise and flyer, and recruit members. In this budgetary statute,
146Duke would be “dangling the carrot of subsidy, not wielding the stick of prohibition.”4
147
148Additionally, the Duke Conservative Union is a chartered student organization in good standing
149with DSG. The Duke Libertarians are also a visible campus presence.
150

72 Editorial Board, Daily Tar Heel. Editorial, 27 August 2010.

83 Duke Fact Checker. “Inside the Republican Club. With Malice Toward All: Queers, N’s and Jews alike.”
9DukeFactChecker Blog, August 1, 2010. <http://dukefactchecker.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html>.
104 Hastings v. CLS, United States Supreme Court 2010.
 11 DSG-BS-2010-090801

151Regarding Chairman Boyle, Chief of Staff Provost, and Executive Director Samuel Tasher’s
152cyber conduct:
153
154The DCR Executive Board, Chairman, Chief of Staff, and Executive Director perpetrated
155traceable cyber conduct which was lewd, unwelcome, sexually perverse, depraved, prejudicial,
156and discriminatory. This cyber-conduct was perpetrated by the DCR Executive Board,
157exclusively toward DCR victim-petitioners.
158The atmosphere in the DCR Executive Board evidenced in e-mails from the Chairman, Chief of
159Staff, and Executive Director of the organization, was anti-gay, racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic to
160the point that students who identify with any of these groups can no longer be comfortable
161participating in the DCR. Robinette was often the target of these e-mails or humiliating
162episodes, as the gay Chairman, before his removal by the Executive Board, Chairman Boyle,
163Chief of Staff Provost, and Executive Director Samuel Tasher. However, multiple other victims
164have spoken publically and still more privately. They have been forced to remain silent because
165of at least five separate death threats were sent to Robinette and others who supported him.
166Member-petitioners present e-mails, witness testimony and photographs in order to establish this
167hostile environment.
168
169The DCR perpetrated this action in its Executive Board, by its Chairman, Chief of Staff,
170Executive Director, and Executive Board. Same changed their constitution to disallow the
171membership of the DCR to impeach or otherwise have a voice in the make-up of the DCR
172Executive Board, who perpetrated such actions. Members of the club who have felt
173discriminated against or who have been forced to participate less or not at all have no recourse
174within the club since the Executive Board unjustly and improperly amended its Constitution on
175April 14, 2010 so that only the Executive Board itself could initiate or execute an impeachment
176proceeding. The Executive Board “ha[s] twisted the by-laws behind their backs to make [a
177change in leadership] unlikely.”5
178
179
180 Respectfully Submitted,
181
182 Senator Ashley Baker
183 Senator Cary Politzer
184 Senator Justin Robinette

125 Duke Fact Checker. “Justin Robinette: Justice Denied.” DukeFactChecker Blog, August 30, 2010.
13<http://dukefactchecker.blogspot.com/2010/08/justin-robinette-justice-denied.html>.