The University has engaged in two intertwined legal battles to maneuver out from under a Board of Zoning Adjustment mandate to house a majority of students on campus. Students should have keen knowledge of these confusing proceedings, considering the repercussions the final decision could have on housing and student life.

As The Hatchet reported Thursday, GW took a two-pronged approach to fighting the BZA restrictions – through federal and D.C. courts.

GW has argued federally that the BZA restricted the University’s constitutional right of academic freedom to operate. GW successfully struck down the BZA ruling in U.S. District Court last year, but that ruling was overturned in March by a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The federal appeals court has now declined to review this decision before a full nine-member court.

The order will not go into effect unless two stays GW has requested are denied. One is from the U.S. Court of Appeals so the University can seek Supreme Court review and one is from the BZA to await a D.C. appeals court ruling on the order’s legality by District law. If these are denied, GW must make arrangements to house 70 percent of students and all freshmen and sophomores within campus boundaries or outside of Foggy Bottom as soon as next year. It explains why the University continues to arrange additional housing options and why they will probably be in Virginia.

Though GW continues to fight the mandate in court, the University is beginning to make concessions in line with the order, such as purchasing residence facilities outside of Foggy Bottom. However, the BZA is acting as if the order is now in effect. City zoning officials declined new business school building permits and later Health and Wellness center hours because GW is not in line with the mandate, which University lawyers say technically should not be enforced yet.

Completely separate from the federal court case, GW filed a suit in D.C. court on the grounds the order violates D.C. human rights laws. This case is just getting underway; University lawyers have recently filed opening briefs. There is some reason to believe GW will be more successful in this route.

The Student Association has filed an amicus brief in this case along with the ACLU supporting the position of the University, stating that the BZA order unlawfully discriminates against students, which is prohibited by the D.C. Human Rights Act.

We agree with the case for legal action and applaud the SA’s amicus brief. It is in the best interest of students for the University to win this case.

Some, like GW law professor John Banzhaf, have questioned the legitimacy of the applying human rights laws to a zoning order, which has never been done before. Banzhaf said because the BZA discriminates against “GW students” and not students in general, it is not necessarily applicable. He said, for example, GW discriminates against Catholic University students by charging them at GW basketball games, which GW students get into for free – that is not illegal.

It remains to be seen how the University’s argument will hold up in D.C. court, but it will be a precedent-setting case that has a wide-range of implications for GW students.

If GW loses the case in D.C. court and is denied Supreme Court review, GW will be forced to house 70 percent of all undergraduate students within campus boundaries and one bed for every student over 8,000 by 2006. At an expected student population of at least 10,000 students, this is 7,600 on-campus beds. Even after the planned 700-bed Ivory Towers is completed, there will only be 6,085 beds – GW would need to come up with 1,600 additional beds by 2006, which is highly unlikely.

Some of the ramifications of such a decision are already being felt, with the recent change in upper- and underclassmen halls and GW’s pursuit of housing in Virginia. A GW loss in court would have a substantial impact in campus housing and student life.