Zofingia: Federal Supreme Court decides against a student connection

A week ago, the world of the Zofingia student association was okay. In Zofingen she celebrated her “Centralfest”. Men in plate hats marched through the city, some ran out and jaws in a fountain in underpants.

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”.

The student association is older than Switzerland and was founded in Zofingen in 1819. The association shaped the foundation of the state of 1848. At that time, every fourth federal parliamentarian was a member. There were also two out of seven federal councils, one of them was the first Federal President of Switzerland. The first ETH President Alfred Escher was also Zofinger. To this day it says in the statutes that only men can become a member.

What is the legal dispute about?

The University of Lausanne and the ETH Lausanne (EPFL) want to refuse to recognize Zofingia as a university association. The universities see a risk of reputation in their efforts in their efforts for equality in the men’s association. However, the previous instances rejected this procedure and weighted the freedom of assembly higher.

What did the Federal Supreme Court decide?

The highest Swiss court is called the complaints of the universities well. As autonomous institutions under public law, they “not only have the right, but the obligation to contribute to the realization of gender equality in the context of education”.

Belonging to a university association could bring advantages for the professional career, which is relevant for the question of equality. “This applies all the more than the goal of equality between men and women in the world of work in Switzerland has not yet been achieved,” emphasizes the Federal Supreme Court.

If students are denied access to this network solely due to their gender, they would not have the same opportunities as male students. Therefore, the universities had the task of taking measures.

What are the consequences of the judgment?

All universities now have to think about how to deal with Zofingia. The student association no longer has the same meaning as 200 years ago, but is still part of Swiss university life.

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.