But recognized by who? IFC or the university? That's what we're trying to figure out here.

We probably need to wait for him to clarify instead of speculating.

Any PRIVATE school administration can regulate fraternity expansion, NIC rules prohibit IFCs from doing so. At public schools, Constitutional rights of free association trump everything.

Actually, one member of NIC can demand sanctions against another member org if that fraternity does not take action against a chapter that votes against open campus in IFC.

Creating a fraternity does not mean that fraternity will be recognized by the school, even a public one.

In my post that you quoted, I was making a point that NIC has no authority over what a school can do. NIC only has power over local IFCs.

That's true. Public schools are allowed to have standards and requirements for access to benefits/recognition.

NIC members can be sanctioned, including being kicked out of NIC, for the actions of individual chapters on this issue. If fraternity ABC has a chapter at State U that votes against expansion, fraternity ABC could demand (and NIC could enforce) that State U chapter lose their charter. That is extreme of course, but possible. I know it has been discussed before. If a private school has no expansion policy, and IFC prohibits expansion, the same scenario would apply. I know I've been approached, and have approached other fraternities on this subject.

A public school can have standards for recognizing student organizations, but if they recognize one fraternity, they can't ban others, EXCEPT for cause, ie, ABC could be banned for five years because of repeated hazing violations, but not because an administrator (or IFC) decided that there were "too many fraternities"

From the NIC website:


Will the NIC have authority to discipline chapters or individual members?

Simply stated, no. The NIC is completely focused on its member fraternities, not their chapters or members.

Why is there a Campus Expectation included in the Standards and how will compliance be achieved?

The NIC has no power to mandate changes at any host institution. However, many campus presidents have indicated that they are willing to bring resources and reform to the table to assist member fraternities in improving chapters. The Campus Expectations assist our chapters in being highly functional organizations that bring pride to the campus.

Compliance with the Standards will be achieved through extended dialogue and negotiation.


http://www.nicindy.org/standards/faq/

How are NPC sororities able to expand in the way that they do? If the campus or local panhellenic doesn't feel that a new sorority is needed, they can pass up on a new NPC.

No disrespect intended but this is just wrong. The chances of any good national allowing the NIC to discipline or supend one of its chapters for virtually any reason is less than the chance of me being elected homecoming queen. Nationals DO try to influence their chapters regarding free expansion, and the NIC does play a positive role in this, but the NIC has no enforcement power of any kind. I suppose they could always kic out a national, but there are always Nationals who threaten to drop out - I think Phi Delt, SAE, Pike and maybe others did drop out at various times becasue they were unhappy with the NIC's weak stance on various issues.
That said, I do strongly support the idea of free expansion and I'm glad the various Nationals and the NIC are aggressive in support of that policy. But...I saw recently our own IFC vote down a fraternity that had come off suspension. The small fraternities voted against them becasue they either wanted their land or becasue they didn't wnat increased competition. My chapter and other large fraternities voted to reinstate them but couldn't get enough votes. The applying fraternity appealed to the university and the administrators reinstated them on appeal.

NIC could sanction the national, not the individual chapter or IFC.
From the NIC Bylaws

Section 3 . Followup of Standards. The Board of Directors, by a two-thirds vote of all its members, may expel, or impose lesser disciplinary action which the Board may determine to be appropriate under the circumstances, against the offender for conduct or activity found by the Board to be in violation of Article X Section 1. Lesser Disciplinary action may include, but is not limited to; fines, public censure, or a period of suspension of voting rights.