Zofingia: Federal Supreme Court decides against a student connection
Equality
Finished: Swiss universities can now banish male associations from the campus
The time of the Zofingia student connection expires 206 years after it was founded: the Federal Supreme Court classifies the club as discriminatory. The most important thing in five points.
Men among themselves: On April 27, Zofingia celebrated her “Centralfest” in Zofingen.
A woman in a red suit lifted her beer glass and gave a speech: National Council President Maja Riniker (FDP). She said: « Patriae, Amicitiae, Litteris – for fatherland, friendship, science – you can be proud of that. » A week later, the Federal Supreme Court now publishes a judgment that questions this pride.
What is Zofingia anyway?
A cadre. The association has 3000 members throughout Switzerland and enables contacts between students and older members, which are already in working life. According to the Federal Court, such a national network is « very valuable and can be an advantage for the future professional network ».
Students of Zofingia distribute gifts with children and a Christmas tray in December 1937 in Bern.
However, it is a symbolic problem. The Vaud section has only about 40 members. In the specific case, the recognition of the association meant that he was using the university’s rooms and was allowed to present himself on the school’s website.
Are women’s associations now also discriminatory?
No. Because it depends on how the exclusion of the opposite sex is justified. The Zofingia had no clever explanation for this. It was often said that women could affect the interior because the men could no longer have the same conversations.
According to the Federal Supreme Court, the statutes of a student association would have to contain an « objective justification for an unequal treatment of gender ». A women’s association can therefore exclude men, even if, like Zofingia, it is a career network. But if you justify this by the fact that women are still underverting in pot functions, the unequal treatment should be justified.
