Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
(2014/2015)
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.