The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student-run nonprofit.

Please support us by disabling your ad blocker on our site.

Psi Upsilon lawyers told the court the University policy under which the fraternity has been punished is too vague and asked the court to block the University's attempt to remove the fraternity's brothers from the house. To do so, the court would have to overturn a Common Pleas court decision made in June denying the fraternity an injunction to stop the sanctions. Lawyers for the fraternity and the University said they did not expect the court to reach a decision for several months. Attorneys for both the University and Psi U argued their cases before three Pennsylvania Superior Court judges last Thursday for a total of 30 minutes. Psi U attorney John Ledwith argued that the University's fraternity recognition policy was too vague in the usage of the term "collective responsibility." He criticized last summer's original ruling by the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court and argued in the appeal that the University denied the Psi U brothers' first amendment rights to gather freely by kicking them out of the Castle. University staff lawyer Frank Roth responded by saying that Ledwith's argument is meaningless because the fraternity had signed the recognition agreement and was legally bound to obey it. Roth also said Ledwith's argument that the University was violating the Castle brothers' constitutional rights was "stretching it," adding that the University can create rules without taking away human rights. The 99-year-old fraternity filed for the injunction against the University in May after Vice Provost for University Life Kim Morrisson kicked the fraternity out of its Locust Walk house and withdrew its recognition for at least three years. The chapter was punished for planning and executing the January kidnapping of Delta Psi fraternity brother William O'Flanagan. The Superior Court will announce their decision in Psi U's appeal in about four months, attorneys said. In reaching a decision, the judges will review the testimony given in last summer's original trial and last week's statements. The Superior Court has three main options, the attorneys said. It can either deny the fraternity's call for an injunction again, grant the injunction or call for another trial. Roth said he felt his arguments in last week's hearings were successful, adding that, "It was clear through judges' questioning [of Ledwith] that the judges weren't looking favorably on [Psi U's] arguments."

Comments powered by Disqus

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.