College Judicial Consultants

Information on college, conduct, Greek life, advocacy, and fairness-published every Tuesday and Friday morning.

Archive for the category “hearings”

An Easy Solution to the Innocence Problem

quote-it-is-better-that-ten-guilty-persons-escape-than-that-one-innocent-suffer-william-blackstone-211382College Judicial Consultants I wrote a piece about the problem with proving your innocence in college judicial hearings—quite simply, if you’re innocent it is very hard to be found not responsible with the preponderance of evidence standard.

I’ve recently worked with another completely innocent client, and the same problems are there. She was accused of doing something that she not only had no idea how it happened, but for which she also had evidence-supported reasons for believing didn’t happen. I won’t talk about the details, but an analogous case would be if she were accused of arson.  A house burned down because the stove was left on, and she lives alone and had nobody over. When she left the house, she turned off the stove, took a picture of it being off with a time and date stamp, and then checked it one more time before leaving. While it’s true that the house burned down and the stove being on was the reason, she had no way of knowing that it was on prior to the blaze or how it was on considering what she did.

Disciplinary boards usually use a burden-shifting approach in determining responsibility. The respondent is innocent before the hearing, but once the complainant shows that something happened and that the respondent did it, it is now up to the respondent to prove it didn’t happen or she didn’t do it. This is how it works in court (again with apologies to my law professors,) but in judicial cases it is a much heavier burden than it is in court, and almost impossible for innocent respondents to meet in most circumstances. In criminal court, all the defense has to do is show that there is a “reasonable doubt” that the defendant didn’t do something. That’s a 5-10% chance. In civil court they have to show that it is 20-30% likely that they didn’t do something. However, in judicial cases the respondent needs to show that they did not do something that happened with more than 50% certainty. Once you show that something happened and that the respondent had either control over that thing or should have had control, the noose is essentially tightened.

the-shawshank-redemption-32I know that’s confusing, but think of it this way: I show you that a house burned down, that the stove being on was the reason, and that the respondent lives alone. How can she possibly show that she didn’t do it with more than a 50% certainty? She would have to know how it actually did happen and then prove it. What this means is that if the “most likely” explanation for a violation of the conduct code on campus is that the accused person did it, there is essentially no way to prove she didn’t.

It gets worse for the innocent student during a judicial hearing.

If you actually didn’t do something and you try to show the disciplinary board that you didn’t do it, that defense can hurt you. If the board thinks that you did it and finds you responsible, it means that they do not accept your version of what happened. Since they don’t accept your version there is a good chance that they think you’re lying, or at least trying to avoid responsibility. Since the disciplinary process is supposed to be “educational,” boards are likely to sanction someone they think responsible and avoiding responsibility harsher than someone who “comes clean” and accepts responsibility. This means that if an innocent student cannot prove that she did not do something, trying to prove it can hurt her more than simply pretending she did it and accepting responsibility even though she is innocent.

The solution to this is simple-retrain the boards. Most respondents are not “innocent” or at least not completely innocent. Some may have mistakenly broken a rule and are being accused of doing it intentionally, but most actually did something wrong that brought them in front of the board. This means that the current way of doing things “works” most of the time. However, if boards are trained to analyze information from the perspective of the accused student many of these false findings of responsibility can be avoided without any impact on the current success of the boards. So if a student can come forward and show that she took reasonable steps to avoid something, that she was unaware of something, or that she actively believed something that would have prevented the violation happened it would no longer be necessary to show what “might” have happened. It is much easier to “prove” what you know to have happened or what you did, than to prove what you had no way of knowing.

Sure there may be some students who escape findings of responsibility, but as the saying goes “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

What do you think? How do you weed out “innocent” students or ensure that they don’t face an insurmountable burden? Write a comment or email me at DaveK (at) Collegejudicialconsultants (dot) com.

The Road Confusingly Travelled–how an apple can look like an orange with college student misconduct.

One of the most confusing aspects of the college judicial/disciplinary system is how a college can adjudicate something that is a “crime.” If you’ve ever wondered how a college student can be “convicted” of assault and yet not be in jail, you are not alone. Colleges use terms for policies that are the same (or really close) as the state definition for crimes, and in some instances have the exact same language. That’s inherently confusing and I have known Deans and attorneys that can’t grasp that something can be a violation of a “crime,” and yet not mean that a student broke the law.  Let’s see if I can clear it up.Choose-a-path

The venue in which a case is heard and the standard of proof applied are different determine what a person is responsible for. With apologies to my law school professors for the simplification of my explanation, think of the world as broken down into 3 “courts.”

    • Criminal court—This is what most people think of when they think “crime.” In this court there are strict rules of evidence, extensive civil liberties, and the “state” brings the case against an individual. The prosecution (the “district attorney” or “DA”) must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused (“defendant”) committed the crime with the necessary intent. This is an incredibly high standard of proof because if the DA is successful the defendant will be denied his or her liberty and will face incarceration. Think of this standard as >95% likely that the defendant did it.
    • Civil Court—If you sue someone for wronging you, you do it in civil court. In civil court the injured party/victim (“the plaintiff”) sues the accused person (“the defendant”) looking for a remedy for what he or she believes was damage done to him/her. The basis for this suit has to be among a group of torts (i.e. responsibilities or obligations that the defendant had to the plaintiff that were not met) and must show that the defendant did or did not do something, that action “injured” to the plaintiff, and that injury resulted in damages. The standard here is “clear and convincing” or somewhere around 80%. Once again, there are strict rules of evidence, and an attorney who speaks on their behalf almost always represents both parties. Civil courts can hear torts based on crimes with one of the most known examples being the OJ Simpson case where he was acquitted for a murder charge (i.e. he “didn’t commit” murder) but liable for a wrongful death tort (i.e. his actions lead to the death of two people.)
    • Campus judicial hearing—While schools all have a slightly different system, there are similarities that cut across them all. In general, a student (“the respondent”) is accused of violating a school policy by someone (e.g. another student, staff, or professor) called the complainant. All the complainant has to show is that there was a “preponderance of evidence” that the respondent violate a school policy. In other words, the complainant must show that it was more likely than not or >50% that a policy was violated. There are essentially no rules of evidence and in most cases the school’s only due process obligation is to have a system that is inherently fair and to do what they say they are going to do. So if $20,000 goes missing from a student club account, it is possible that the person accused of stealing it will be found not guilty in criminal court, not liable in civil court, but be responsible in a judicial case.

The “wrong” a person does can fall into one or more venues, and here is where it gets really confusing. When a student does something wrong, it is possible that that action can be against policy, a tort, and/or a crime. Without any exception I can think of, anything that would rise to the level of a prosecutable crime will also be against school policy. However, many of the things that are violations of school policy will not be prosecutable crimes even if the violation has the same name and similar elements of a crime.

A good, and fairly non-controversial, example of this is hazing. Almost every school has a “hazing” policy and many of them simply quote state law as their policy. This would imply that if you violate the hazing policy on campus that you’re violating state law, but that isn’t the case. Let’s say a fraternity has their new members (i.e. pledges) go on a scavenger hunt and while that hunt has some embarrassing elements to it, there is no theft, vandalism, forced consumption of alcohol, or injury to anyone. In fact, each pledge says it was the most fun they ever had and ask to do a similar thing again in the future. If you read the hazing law in most jurisdictions this would constitute hazing, but no DA is going to prosecute anyone for it. On campus, however, that fraternity would likely have a hearing and be found responsible for hazing. They might be sanctioned with probation or even a brief suspension for violating that policy. That would mean that they violated the school’s policy on hazing that has the same as the language of the state law, but it does not mean that they violated the law. They were not heard in criminal court, and there probably would not have been a guilty finding even if they were.

Does this make sense? On Friday, I will talk about how this works with the most controversial issue of all, campus sexual assault, and why a student who commits sexual assault on campus did not necessarily commit a crime and why a college campus may be the best place to hear these cases.

Let me know your thoughts or if you think I missed anything, and, for pete’s sake, don’t be afraid to like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.

How to Fix The College Discipline System for Sexual Assault Cases

NYT article

Click here for the NYT article on the issues at Swarthmore and Occidental.

Colleges and universities are under scrutiny their (mis)handling of sexual assault and interpersonal violence (IPV) cases. High profile schools are being investigated for violating victims’ rights, while at the same time there is a growing movement advocating for increasing the rights and protections of the accused. There have been calls from both sides to take these cases out of the college judicial process and leave it to the courts, but all that will do is take options away from the victim and result in even fewer perpetrators facing accountability.

Both sides are correct—colleges are not equipped to handle these cases. However, it is not because the judicial systems are inherent flawed or a lack of awareness by the people involved—it is because it is impossible to have a system  fair to both parties when the people responsible for the different aspects of the case have other interests and responsibilities. To ensure the disciplinary process is followed and fair, a school should hire outside entities to handle the three major components of a case, and allow the college administrators to focus on their responsibilities.

By necessity there will be oversimplification of the issues to make this piece’s length manageable, but I am operating under several assumptions:

  1. Judicial administrators (JAs) and board members want to have a fair system that reaches the right result and do not intentionally revictimize or perpetuate rape myths.
  2. The college judicial system is the lowest barrier accountability system available to victims.
  3. Colleges have dedicated professionals in place to assist victims of interpersonal violence through the process as their only or primary responsibility. (This is more rare than the assumption suggests.)

(In addition, I am only discussing student on student IPV cases and will be gender normative-using “she/her” for victims and “he/him” for perpetrators even though I recognize that these roles are not absolute.)

There are four essential components to any case: the case preparation for each side, the investigation, and the hearing. Each requires a rigid activist committed to the perfect execution of their responsibilities in order for them to be successful. However, each of those by necessity encroaches on the other components.

A victim will have to answer questions she does not want to answer to aid in an investigation, a respondent may be moved or transferred out of a class to protect the victim, the opportunity to confront the accuser by definition hurts the victim, etc.

A victim will have to answer questions she does not want to answer to aid in an investigation, a respondent may be moved or transferred out of a class to protect the victim, the opportunity to confront the accuser by definition hurts the victim, etc.

For that reason, there should be 3 professionals exclusively dedicated to these components without regard or responsibility for the other 2, but with a good relationship with each other in order to assure equal advocacy, transparency and fairness. The JA should “only” be responsible for ensuring due process is followed at a hearing, and that each of the three advocates are engaged in a timely manner. While the JA might be able to assume an additional responsibility (and currently may do all of them,) the only way the JA can be responsible for ensuring fairness and due process is if there is someone else who can fully advocate for each side without concern for the other or for the school’s liability.

Simply put, it is impossible for a school to reduce or eliminate its liability in these cases without outsourcing the advocacy and investigatory responsibilities. As long as an “agent” of the school is working with one side in preparing a case, the school remains at risk of liability from the other side. Schools know this, so even victim advocates are pressured to limit their work to connecting victims with resources and, in the best systems, advocating for “one-sided” accommodations. The advocate may also provide excellent advice in preparing the case, but he or she does so knowing that if the respondent sues that assistance may be used against the school. The victim and respondent advisora needs to be separate from the university, intimately familiar with the college judicial process, and have a good and open relationship with the support resources on campus.

Providing equal and external assistance is crucial since the basis of most claims against a college is “inequitable resources” that resulted in an outcome that breached the school’s duty of care. It is also important that the “outsourced” group not be attorneys and/or not be acting as an attorney to prevent the process from becoming de facto litigation. The judicial process is not a legal process and while these resources will help the parties prepare their cases, get ready for the hearings, and protect their rights and interests it will remain up to the students to present their cases through whatever system is in place.

The last component necessary to increase the fairness is a competent external investigator for each allegation that can interview the parties involved, meet with witnesses, ensure that all evidence is collected, and then prepare a report on those findings to help the parties prepare their statements and/or the board reach a decision. There are some schools, like Harvard, that have been doing this (or something similar) for years, but it is prohibitively expensive for most schools. I believe it is possible to have someone responsible for those investigations that can do them at a much lower cost (and have a few suggestions) but expecting students to gather all that information impartially and without exerting pressure on the people interviewed is unreasonable (and developmentally inappropriate.)

Engaging these outside entities will increase the likelihood that the parties will be able to present their positions fully and clearly, that as much information as possible will be available to get as close to truth and fairness as possible, and limit a school’s liability and giving them clean hands. It would be naïve to ignore the additional costs a school would bear to provide these resources, but compared to the positive impact for the students and the reduction in the liability, the costs would be well worth it.

What do you think? Are schools equipped to help each party prepare adequately while still protecting themselves? Are there other (and better) ways to approach this? Leave a comment or email me at (DaveK@collegejudicialconsultants.com). Be good and be safe.

A Surgeon With a Scalpel–Disciplinary Sanctions in College Judicial Cases pt. 2

 tumblr_m3cyy1gdRF1qm6sfao1_500

 

(Click here for part 1)

When you do a “small” wrong (e.g. underage drinking) or something very large (e.g. sexual assault) the system works more often than it doesn’t. It is for the cases in between that it frequently fails. The biggest reason for this failure is that while many schools put systems in place to help students when they stumble, those systems cannot or do not help students when they fall.

When you take a class, if you do the work to the best of your ability and attend class they do not kick you out for failing a quiz. The professor (hopefully) will talk to you about office hours, the TA, academic support centers, and other resources that can help you because the fact that you’re willing to work matters. Even if those support systems do not work and you fail the class, chances are that work ethic will mean that you do well in enough of your other classes to stay off academic probation or fail out. Most schools even allow you to take the class you fail over again and have that grade either substitute for or counterbalance the initial failure.

While I believe student affairs is an academic discipline, the systems are not as forgiving for developmental and behavioral failures. Judicial administrators may (correctly) claim that their system “works” because it does in most cases, but I believe it fails in roughly 5% of the cases. While a school may argue that a 95% success rate is good (and organizationally it might be) if you’re those 5 students in 100 who are affected by the flaws, the system is unfair. There are several reasons the systems fall short:

  • All judicial systems are complaint based, and as a result you are punished for being caught and who caught you at least as much as for what you did.
  • The actions that bring a student in front of a judicial board are viewed as negative and against community values in a way that academic failure is not. If you get caught smoking marijuana and playing Call of Duty in the residence hall on a Thursday afternoon, the school responds as you have betrayed all values and community expectations. The idea that you can be a leader, do well academically, and still choose to violate certain rules is not one that’s embraced or even discussed.So no matter what else you do, you will be held accountable for that singular act of misconduct the same way the kid who only plays call of duty and smokes weed will be.

Developmentally, these three do not need the same sanction.

  • Colleges do not have the resources to provide the educational response necessary to correct a student’s behavior. Even at schools with large mental health departments, doing the type of work necessary to help a student through an alcohol or drug addiction is often impossible. Many schools refer students to outside resources to address this, but many more simply do not have those community resources available and thus send the student “home” to have the work done.
  • Many schools have mandatory sanctions. There is absolutely nothing educational about mandatory sanctions, and if someone tries to pretend there is they’re wrong. Sometimes these “mandatory” sanctions mean that each violation (no matter the circumstances) results in a more severe penalty–essentially creating a “three strikes” policy. Again, this problem does not make a system inefficient or mean that it can’t reach the right result, but even when it succeeds, that success is more luck than pedagogy.
  • Judicial boards are  trained to be effective, not to find people not responsible. Most judicial board training is on the types of questions to ask, getting them to accept the responsibilities of the position, and helping them understand the more liberal evidentiary policies. I fully believe in the preponderance of evidence standard, but it is not a forgiving standard if the person applying it is looking to answer “is it more likely than not the respondent did it” rather than “is it more likely than not the respondent did NOT do it.”
  • It is developmentally inappropriate to expect students to be able to articulate their response in high stress situations. I tell my clients not to lie, but when the truth will definitively be held against them it is hard for many students to understand how honesty is rewarded. If a respondent cannot or does not feel he or she can accept responsibility and explain the reasons, a board will not have the information it needs to sanction in a way that educates and rehabilitates.

Doing programs and talking to students without addiction issues about moderation is easy. Punishing students overwhelmed by their lives who feel trapped and take academic shortcuts is easy.  The hard part, and the part that separates educators from enforcers, is in being able to do the easy work consistently and well while also being able to do the hard stuff. 99% of the student affairs professionals I know could do that work and want to do it, but they need the resources and support to do so. If a school will not provide those resources then it needs to be straightforward and tell their prospective students that no matter who they are and what their reasons, if certain mistakes are made they will be abandoned and cut off from the community.

Are you a judicial administrator with a different opinion? Are you a student who felt unheard through the judicial process? Let me know either in the comments or email me at davek@collegejudicialconsultants.com.

Have a great weekend, and be good.

A Surgeon With a Scalpel–Disciplinary Sanctions in College Judicial Cases pt. 1

When there is a judicial hearing, the judicial body performs a two-step process. First, they must determine whether the respondent (i.e. person or group accused) is responsible (i.e. “guilty.”) Then, if the respondent is responsible, the second step is deciding what sanction (i.e. punishment) should be given. I spend most of my time working with clients on the second step since if the respondent has actually done something “wrong” it is almost not worth the time to try and prove that he/she/they are not “responsible” since the standard of proof is almost always “preponderance of the evidence” (i.e. more likely than not.) As long as there is a negligible enough amount “evidence” more than a coin toss to show that the respondent is responsible (and there usually is) then the real goal is to provide the hearing body with the information it needs to justify the lowest sanction possible considering the violation. While this is neat in theory, it becomes much trickier to do in practice because the systems are not set up to be nuanced in the way they would need to be to truly be educational. While the judicial body and judicial administrators take the heat for this, it is not (usually) their fault. It is because in most cases they do not have the tools, systems, or support to sanction effectively.

Since this is going to be a busy time for judicial offices (and thus students) I thought it was worth explaining the sanctioning process to help people understand what may be happening, why they may seem more punitive than educational, and finally what can be done to fix it. Since that would be a super long blog I’m going to do the first part today and the rest on Friday. If you have any thoughts/questions before that post let me know and I’ll try to incorporate them.

Almost all judicial systems have (at most) 4 categories of sanctions-warning, probation, suspension, and expulsion.

  • Warning (a.k.a. disciplinary warning, disciplinary notice, informal probation, etc.)—This level usually means “you did something small you shouldn’t have, and don’t do it again.” It puts you on the radar, but should have essentially no impact on you.
  •  Probation (a.k.a. disciplinary probation, formal probation, change of student standing, etc.)—This is a more formal sanction that usually makes a notation on your record to put others who access that record on notice, usually a notation on your internal and/or external transcripts. This may stop you from being able to obtain certain positions on campus (resident assistant, orientation leader, student government office, etc.), but it is not meant to severely interfere with your ability to successfully continue with the complete student experience. If you stay out of trouble, the probation will go away eventually, the notation is usually removed, and you can move on with your life.
  • Suspension (a.k.a. holy crap, what am I going to tell my parents!)—This is a non-voluntary separation from the college or university for a defined period of time, usually between one semester and two years. While schools may say that returning is “conditional” they usually allow a person back after the suspension period is over. Some students decide to transfer, but being on suspension may limit the schools to which they can be admitted.
  • Expulsion (a.k.a. “this is probably the least of my worries.”)—This is forced permanent separation from the college or university with no possibility of return for that degree or any degree in the future (usually.)

In addition, there are “educational” sanctions that can be included as part of any decision. These include reflective essays, mandated counseling (although most counselors I know hate this,) community service hours, and other activities meant to inform a student about the impact of a violation, give him/her the tools to make better decisions in the future, and/or “restore” the larger community.

In theory these levels make sense—smoking cigarettes in a stairwell should not be treated the same as habitual plagiarism. I have already talked about how I think suspension is antithetical to the judicial process as an educational tool, since taking a respondent out of the campus community limits the type of education and oversight you can provide. However, the judicial administrators and hearing bodies did not cause this problem. Most judicial administrators I know really want the process to rehabilitate and enable the respondent to have success in the future. The problem is that with the more serious violations, the judicial administrator (who I would like to call “judicial educator”) needs a scalpel to carefully cut away a respondent’s developmental and personal failings that lead to the more serious violations, but all they have are the awkward clubs—suspension and expulsion.

If you have any questions or suggestions you possibly want considered in Friday’s conclusion, leave a comment or email me at DaveK@CollegeJudicialConsultants.com. Be good.

 

Getting Better Advisors–Why Administrators Are Wrong About Us, And Why That Mistake May Hurt You

At College Judicial Consultants we have tremendous respect for judicial officers, Greek advisors, and other administrators, but believe they should be less mistrustful of outside help during the campus judicial process. When that help is an attorney for the non-legal judicial process, that help can indeed hurt a student and cost the student thousands of dollars. While we understand that mistrust, we believe that when you look at the support offered on campus, we are not truly outside.

Fact 1: Every student discipline system allows a student or organization (“respondent”) to have an advisor, with most limiting that advisor to a non-attorney from the campus community.

Fact 2: Only a handful of schools have an organized advisor program where they train a few faculty and staff in how the system works and make those people available for students going through the process. These advisors are well intended and may help a few students each year. However, their job is to make sure the student understands the process and is connected to campus resources; not to “help” the student minimize the consequence or negate false accusations. In other words, they are there for emotional and psychological support only. That support is REALLY important (in fact we encourage every client to take advantage of it) but that type of advising is less than a respondent needs when they are innocent or the stakes are high.

When a respondent goes through the disciplinary process there are two essential parts of that process the respondent needs to understand—the procedure and the content. Judicial officers often say that their system is “different” and thus requires someone with specific training to understand it. While this is technically correct, ask your judicial officer if he or she can understand other systems and I’ll bet you $5 they won’t have a problem doing so. Judicial systems have slight differences, but they are similar enough that there are best practices, model codes, community assessment models, and uniform standards. More importantly, any system they have must be explainable AND in writing in a way to make it understandable. When you meet with the judicial officer he or she will explain it to you and that explanation is essentially the same “training” the advisors from the school receive.

The much more important part is developing the content where the respondent gets the chance to tell their side of the story and present evidence to show how their version is correct and the accusations are inaccurate. It is during this part of the process where respondents make mistakes that can get them found responsible when they are not, and make their sanction worse than it needed to be. It is in this arena that our consultants are miles ahead of any other “advisor” you will get from the school for two very important reasons:

  1. The least experienced of our consultants has seen at least 10 times the number of cases as the most experienced advisor from your school (with that number closer to 50 times more.) This means that your consultant has seen literally hundreds more responses than anyone you will find on campus, and are much more likely to have seen a case with similar facts to yours.
  2. Our consultants’ only goal is to make sure you are not found responsible for something you did not do and have the smallest consequence possible for what you did. We are not faculty who have opinions about plagiarism at your school. We are not administrators who have had to deal with “problem” students. In other words, we do not have any reason to protect the school, the community, or the system.

In other words, we are like the best advisor you might find on campus but with vastly more experience, and without any agenda other than giving a respondent the best chance for the best result. Why would anyone on your campus not want you to take advantage of that?

 Contact us for a free and completely confidential consultation to go over your case and see what we can do for you.

The Guidelined Dead—Chico State and the Greek system.

I’ve written before about Chico State and the “nuclear option” they used in response to repeated misconduct in the Greek community. Their rebuilding plan following this was released on Valentine’s Day and outlines guidelines that “must be agreed to” by the end of February in order to grant the Greek chapters recognition. In doing so, Chico State attempts to present a reasonable response to both protect itself and also allow the Greek tradition to continue. In actuality, what they do with rigid definitions and intractable minimum responses, is demonstrate a hostility to Greek life. What this does is diffuse the potential student and alumni response to shutting down the chapters while setting the stage to do just that- a practice becoming more common across the country.

I am in no way saying that fraternities and sororities that engage in severe hazing or other serious violations should be protected or immune from consequence. On the contrary, in presentations on next step risk management I talk about how certain activities are never worth the risk and will and should result in a chapter being shut down by the school or national organization. My issue is not that Chico felt the need to respond to what they believed was unacceptable conduct. The issue is that these conditions essentially ensure the end of Greek life, and will allow them to blame the students for that end.

In Chico’s plan, they essentially make anything that happens where 2 or more Greeks live together a chapter event, and any violations that happen at that “event” have a mandatory minimum consequence of a one-semester suspension. This means 2 sophomore roommates in a dorm that have friends from home over are now automatically a fraternity event. No other evidence or intention to do so is needed. This may not be and uncommon “standard,” but where it exists there is some allowances for reasonableness in both determination and response. Here there is neither.

The agreement uses all the language that a Greek community would want like “self-governance” and “student development” while paying lip service to the “rich and significant contributions to the quality of its student life.” However, when you look at the expectations you will see that those articulated principles are made meaningless with the way they define chapter activity and mandate the school’s response. They use the ideals of most chapters-that they are leaders living to higher standards-as an excuse to set unreasonable standards ensuring non-compliance in the future. Greek membership is treated as little more than an interest group (like chess club or Chinese dance) with no real regard for the fact that the lifetime commitment of being Greek means meaningful personal dedication to ideas that both support and surpass those of the university.

Do not be surprised when this draconian “agreement” eliminates cooperation between chapters and the school administration in an attempt to actually improve their chapter. Why would chapter leadership admit any problem when doing so appears to mean that they will be suspended for at least one semester? I am sure the response from Chico State would be “we wouldn’t do that, and of course we’re going to be reasonable” but there is nothing in the new provisions that suggests that anything other than 100% compliant behavior of 100% of the members will allow a chapter to continue to exist. While I think it would be a mistake, I firmly believe that each college and university has the absolute right to abolish Greek life. If they have reached a point where they believe the risks of having a Greek presence is not worth the reward (student retention, academic achievement, alumni donations, etc.) then they should shut it down. However, they should have the courage in their convictions to do so cleanly and openly.

Instead we are seeing campuses across the country doing what they can to make Greek life so untenable that students will either choose not to join or will invariably be the architects of their own demise. One need look no further to Trinity college forcing all Greek organizations to be co-educational, or the University of Central Florida beginning down this same road to get a glimpse of what’s ahead. I hope that students remember that leadership means both demanding good behavior from the people you lead, and also standing up against injustice when it surfaces.

Good luck to the chapters at Chico State. They’re going to need it.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: