In this case, the Judiciary held that the K-Ville policy was unconstitutional because of the failure to include a disability clause. This ruling holds that, even if the rights can be inferred from other documentation, organizations under the purview of the DSG Constitution must have an explicit non-discrimination policy that provides means to seek appropriate accommodation.
On February 16, 2018, Charlie Pearlman et al. (constituting the members of tent #74) filed a petition against the Head line Monitor alleging that the members of tent #74 had been unfairly discriminated against because the K-Ville policy provided no means for students with disabilities to seek appropriate accommodation. The petitioners claim that their missed tent check on February 14 should be vacated because of this discrimination and their ability to provide proof that they had members in the tent who were asleep during the tent check.
On February 14 at approximately 2:45am, a tent check was called by line monitor Noah Davis. Tent #74 failed to report in for the tent check, earning their second missed tent check and therefore being bumped to #55 on the waitlist. The members of tent #74 appealed their missed tent check to the head line monitor on the grounds that they had evidence they were in their tent at the time of the tent check. This appeal was denied One member of tent #74 has a registered hearing disability. This member was not in the tent during the missed tent check. Another member claimed to have an unregistered hearing disability.
Was unjust harm done to the individuals with a disability on the basis of their disability? Does the lack of a disability clause in the K-Ville policy equate to unlawful discrimination? What constitutes a tent check?
Application of the powers of the Judiciary The petitioners alleged a violation of their right to equal protection under the law by discriminating against them on the basis of their disability. As this claim arises from the DSG Constitution, the Judiciary has authority to hear and decide the case pursuant to Article V, Section 5 of the DSG Constitution stating “The Judiciary shall decide all cases arising under this Constitution or By-Laws and all cases in which jurisdiction has been granted to it by the By-Laws or by the Senate.”
On unjust harm to individuals with a disability The Judiciary held that harm was done to the individuals with a disability but that this harm had no causal link to the disability. Therefore the harm done was not unjust.
On K-Ville policy The Judiciary held that the K-Ville policy was unconstitutional as it failed to meet the non-discrimination requirements set out by the DSG Constitution. This failure arose because the policy provided no means for students with disabilities to seek appropriate accommodation.
On tent checks The Judiciary held that a tent check included checking in with the line monitor in person, not just being present in the tent. Therefore proof that members were present in their tent at the time of a tent check does not remedy the group’s failure to check in with the line monitor in person.
Conclusion While no unjust harm was done to the petitioners, the K-Ville policy in question was unconstitutional and all future policies must include an explicit non-discrimination clause that provides means for seeking appropriate accommodation.