NOT true Tom. Many, if not most, operate as unincorporated associations.

Brad

Re: Expelling law breakers
 

Imsohappy,

Good thougts here. Lemme see if I can give you the flip side.

We are NOT talking about (if you read my earlier posts) asking chapter members to "snitch" on one another. If they drink at a bar, the liklihood that we will suffer a legal loss is small (unless we're hosting an event at that bar).

We ARE talking about when we have a chapter whose members are caught violating our policies, expelling members who are responsible for the violations. This may not be a first step, but certainly for repeat offenders.

Currently, chapters that have alcohol violations, with no previous history of offenses, are often led down the educational path, with various forms of discipline as well. Our history with that is not impressive.

The speeding ticket thing really doesn't hold water for one reason, we don't have a policy against speeding AND we/our insurers have not experienced any losses associated with one of our members speeding.

The DRY thing: We DO have expoerience with dry housing. We have numerous chapters that have been forced to go dry by host institutions. We have also experienced violations of policy AND major losses at some of those same campuses. It works for the women at wet campuses because the fraternity chapters are still stupid enough to assume the vast majority of the host liability by having wet mixers and parties at our houses. Of course, despite their policies against such, the ladies are happy to oblige us.

<<Fraternities, if your underage members want to drink themselves silly at a venue that you have not sponsored and at a site you do not own, that is their prerogative. If they do it on your property or at one of your functions, they should be reprimanded severely and/or expelled.>>

That's about as close to where we're headed as anyone has gotten. I might take issue (as I'm sure many of the sorority members would) with the "prerogative" thing. Would you say the same thing about cocaine? Many groups monitor and hold members accountable for their actions off-site. We should be no different.....but I digress.

<<(And I don't mean to be a pest, but most sororities pay double the insurance premiums they should have to pay--not because the majority of lawsuits and insurance settlements have been caused by sororities, but because they have been incurred by fraternities). We carry your burden, too, and so we have as much stake in trying to help fraternities out of their mess.>>

And we carry your burden, and have for years. Until the passage of the NPC groups rules re: prohibition of sorority participation in alcohol related social functions, I couldn't say this. But the women ASK us to help them circumvent their own policies! When juries get instructed on how a sorority chapter works with a fraternity chapter to pad the guest list, arrange for alcohol to be brought for the ladies, TRUST ME, the sororities will start getting sued too!I would suggest that we pay more of your freight than you pay ours.

It's not a guys vs. girls thing, though. We are all guilty of violating policies and the oaths we took to uphold those same policies. In the end, without dramatic change, we will all suffer the same fate.

I appreciate everyone's input - but would appreciate more, instead of bashing my ideas, give some of your own. And be specific!
Brad

more from me
 

Brad:

Thanks for the thoughtful post. You make a lot of good points that I agree with, and others I disagree with...but at the same time, you've got us all THINKING and that is a first step.

I hope you don't see our posts (or at least mine) as "bashing your ideas"! I admire the courage it took to bring such ideas to light, and if our exploration of these difficult (to the point of madness) issues has begun to sound like bashing, let me be the first to apologize.

Whatever remedy is prescribed, in the end, however, will have to be one that has been picked over and bashed from every angle--and survives nonetheless.

You asked for our ideas. Mine is simple. The greek system (fraternities and sororites in tandem) MUST agree to keep (1) ALL fraternity and sorority-sponsored housing SUBSTANCE FREE, and (2) ALL fraternity and sorority-sponsored events monitored by law enforcement and intermediated by third party vendors.

This won't work until EVERYONE agrees to it, thereby holding each other accountable.

I am well-versed in the history of so-called "DRY" fraternity housing. In my opinion and in my experience, the reason it does not work is because a single dry chapter is holding itself to a standard (or being forced to hold itself to a standard) that its greater support community does not espouse. It's like a recovering alcoholic having a peer group made up entirely of alcoholics--at some point, recovery will fall by the wayside.

The same holds true for the recently insituted sorority "dry-mixing" policy. Until ALL NPC sororities are held to this standard AND (this is key) ALL IFC organizations pledge themselves to a dry-mixing policy, fiascoes like those Brad describes (padding guest lists, coersion, etc.) will continue (to my great dismay).

Here is the rub of all of this: to my mind, it's much less complicated than it seems. Granted, this "plan" would require widespread, unified action on the part of IFC and NPC, two organizations that don't always see eye to eye. There could be no "rolling" this plan out piece by piece. It can only work if IFC and NPC agree that beginning at the start of school year 20XX, ALL fraternity and sorority housing will be Subtance-free, and ALL fraternity and sorority-sponsored events will be third-party vended...OR ELSE.

"Or Else" meaning your charter is revoked. "Or Else" meaning we can't pay for your chapter house anymore, have your belongings on the curb by midnight. "Or Else" meaning if you can't see the error of your ways, we would rather remove our organization from the host campus than cross our fingers and hope that we're not the next ones to be sued.

I honestly believe that if IFC and NPC could move together with confidence as a unified front, we could change things for the better. I'm not saying this would solve all of the issues we as actives, alumns, advisors, and national officers will have to deal with, but it would be a major new beginning for a system that I fear is in more jeopardy than it realizes.

Re: more from me
 

You are of course right about ideas needing criticism.

Thanks for the constructive input. I think your plan has great merits. Let me ask a question though. let's assume we can muster the horspower in NIC and NPC to pull this off (which I don't think is impossible); would then sorority houses be willing to open their houses to such third party events?

If not, the fraternities will continue to bear the brunt of the insurance costs, however much lower they might be.

Brad

Brad--

A third party event means that the event, should it include alcohol, would be hosted at a third party, not a sorority or fraternity house. So why would a sorority open its doors to host an event of this nature? It wouldn't go with the policies you speak of.

As for women asking them men to help them circumvent the problem, that doesn't hold true everywhere. On campuses where we've had problems with third party venues, many times the men do not want to go to the third party vendor. They want the event in their house so all brothers can partake of the fun, so to speak. And if they can't do it this way, then they won't mix with the women. Unfortunately, since mixing is part of the fun of greek life, and one of the draws of new women into sororities, the sororities will violate the policy as to not hurt their reputations.

I hope that makes sense.

Heather

Quote:

Let me ask a question though. let's assume we can muster the horspower in NIC and NPC to pull this off (which I don't think is impossible); would then sorority houses be willing to open their houses to such third party events? If not, the fraternities will continue to bear the brunt of the insurance costs, however much lower they might be.

This is a difficult question to answer, Brad. As I see it, there are two major issues.

First, from a policy standpoint, NPC would have to elect to amend its universal dry chapter house policy to allow alcohol in a sorority chapter house, so long as it is controlled by the presence of a third party vendor, (possibly) a law enforcement presence (checking IDs), and accompanied by the proper event planning forms.

Let's say we can jump the policy hurdle (eek...that would be a tough one). Now, we're faced with an infrastructure problem.

For example, the KKG chapter house at Indiana University (where I lived as a collegiate Kappa) is one of the largest (and oldest) chapter houses on campus. We've got a lot of space. But we don't have a "party room." We've got a beautiful formal dining room, a lovely solarium/breakfast room, a cozy TV room, a stately library and formal sitting room and an incredible front hall...but we don't have a "party room" or a courtyard like many of the fraternity chapter houses at IU have.

In order to hold third-party vendor functions at my chapter house (and avoid the destruction of our BEAUTIFUL and historic house), we would need to renovate the entire basement/ground floor of the chapter house to create a room that could be used for functions (room for a band, DJ, dancing, etc.)

Our chapter house actually has the luxury of having the space to do that (although actives would miss the ugly, comfy couches that fill the basement and make a very informal "smoker's lounge.") The question for us would be Where would we get the money to pay for a fairly major renovation to our ground floor? We could probably come up with the money over a period of years, as my chapter (we are very fortunate) is well-supported--both morally and financially--by alumnae.

Many sorority chapter houses, however, will not be in such a situation. They will have neither (1) the space to expand, nor (2) the money to do so.

Even if we could get through the NPC policy issue, this infrastructre problem would be a large stumbling block, but could perhaps be overcome with some creative thinking, and I am basing my thoughts solely on the chapter house lived in and the chapter house I advised at the U. of Iowa.

I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this issue--it's a great one, Brad. Even though it may blow a big hole in my plan, I'm so glad you brought it up.

Actually...
 

Actually, a third party vended event means that a third party (not affiliated with the GLO) is in charge of making sure the alcohol is served in accordance with local and state laws.

The ONLY reason that third-party vended events are always held at a location outside the chapter house is that ALL NPC chapter houses are dry without exception.

NPC could choose to amend that dry chapter house policy when alcohol is controlled by the presence of a third party vendor and (possibly) a law enforcement presence (checking IDs).

There is a difference between a thrid party vendor and a third party venue. There are groups that host the function with a hired bartending/catering third party vendor. Thus, my question.

I have seen the resistance to third party venues from the men as well. As I said, we're all in this thing up to our ears.

Brad

Brad,

Before I comment again at length, because I need to go watch the movie Blade 2 and scout locations for an independant film I am shooting, I wanted to point out that you hadn't answered 33girl's observations about the validity of the Harvard Studies.

I too have read a lot of commentary on the studies from both points of view, as well as applying common sense and a knowledge of how social science studies are designed.

And I believe her points are valid and relevant to the discussion at hand.

I am interested to hear your viewpoints on this.

With the fraternities on my campus, I would NEVER open up our house to them. Not that they aren't nice guys, but they have very little respect for property. At least three fraternity houses on our campus have been condemned, and when that has happened, the fraternities trash the houses. One actually put an M-80 in the refridgerator and blew it up.

Personally, I don't think NPC would ever go to wet housing for sororities.

Unfortunately, what Shakokat describes, while not always the rule, is not uncommon at all.

James posted this information, and I thought it might make some sense to have it on this thread, too, since at least part of the reason for the closing is what we've been discussing here -- and, unless I'm misreding something, it is Brad's Fraternity that took the action.

As I said on the other thread -- I hate to see any chapter close because it weakens the entire system.

NEWS RELEASE
KAPPA SIGMA FRATERNITY
March 28, 2002

Mitchell B. Wilson
Executive Director
Kappa Sigma Fraternity
PO Box 5066
Charlottesville, VA 22905
434/295-3193

Charlottesville, Virginia - The Supreme Executive Committee of Kappa
Sigma Fraternity revoked the charter of the Epsilon-Iota Chapter at
San Diego State University on March 23, 2002 at the committee's
quarterly meeting in Macon, Georgia. The Fraternity's board took the
action to revoke the charter after it had been determined that the
chapter violated the Hazing Policy of Kappa Sigma Fraternity. The
violation of the Hazing Policy was the second violation within a
five-year period.

According to Executive Director Mitchell B. Wilson, the Fraternity
has taken a very strong position to eliminate all forms of hazing.
Kappa Sigma is actively engaged in educating chapters on the subject
of hazing and is also enforcing the policy by disciplining those
chapters which fail to eliminate hazing from their operations.

"Kappa Sigma Fraternity is a Fraternity that is 100% committed to a
hazing-free environment. We have spent thousands of dollars in our
resources educating chapters and undergraduate leaders on the subject
of hazing and how it conflicts with the values of our Fraternity,"
Wilson said. The Kappa Sigma Fraternity will plan to return to San
Diego State University after an absence of a minimum, of two years.
The Fraternity was founded on the San Diego State University campus
on December 9, 1947.

Kappa Sigma Fraternity is represented on 209 college and university
campuses throughout North America and has initiated over 213,000 men.
The Fraternity was founded on December 10, 1869 at the University of
Virginia.

NEWS RELEASE
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
Office of Marketing and Communications

KAPPA SIGMA FRATERNITY EXPELLED FOR HAZING

CONTACT: Jack Beresford, (619) 594-2448, jack.beresford@sdsu.edu

Consistent with SDSU and national fraternity policies, Kappa Sigma
Fraternity's SDSU Chapter has had its charter revoked and the
fraternity has been expelled from campus.

"The university has made clear to the Greek community that hazing
incidents involving alcohol will be met with penalties consistent
with our zero-tolerance policy," said SDSU President Stephen L.
Weber. "San Diego State applauds Kappa Sigma's national organization
for its decisive action and cooperation on this matter."

The action by SDSU and Kappa Sigma follows a Jan. 16 incident during
which university police found several underage Kappa Sigma pledges
and at least one executive officer of the fraternity in a university
parking garage with large amounts of alcohol intended for a
pre-initiation party. The incident was Kappa Sigma's second hazing
incident in the past five years.

The earliest Kappa Sigma could be considered by the university for
recognition and re-colonization is the 2005-06 academic year.

In addition to the fraternity's expulsion, individual students
involved have been referred to SDSU's Center for Student Rights and
Responsibilities for possible disciplinary action. Those found in
violation of the California code of regulations governing student
behavior may be expelled, suspended or placed on probation. It is
university policy that the names of students involved in judicial
procedures are not made public.
Similar to many of SDSU's Greek-letter fraternities, Kappa Sigma has
operated a local chapter on the SDSU campus since 1947 under the
direction of its national fraternity. Kappa Sigma Fraternity is
represented on 209 college and university campuses throughout North
America.

"San Diego State University takes the issue of alcohol abuse
seriously and has a comprehensive set of measures in place to address
underage drinking, binge drinking and other alcohol-related problems
among its campus population," said James Kitchen, vice president,
Division of Student Affairs. "These programs are working, as
evidenced by a 2001 study that showed the binge-drinking rate of SDSU
students is 43 percent below the national average. However, for
those individuals and student organizations found in violation of our
polices there will be clear consequences."

SDSU has received national recognition from the U.S. Department of
Education as a national leader for its alcohol education and
enforcement programs. The university supports these programs through
the SDSU Police, Student Health Services, Housing and Residential
Life, Counseling and Psychological Services and the Center for
Fraternity and Sorority Life.

All,

I just got back from a monthly lunch with a group of Delt alumni. One of the other Division VP's who is currently sitting on an Alumni Supervisory Committee for one of our chapters was told recently that liability insurance for ALL Delt Chapters will increase by 50% this year.

One half of the chapter's total budget will go to National dues and insurance.

That can only be covered by cutting other things out of the budget or raising overall dues to the members.

How long can this go on?

I'm not about to defend the conclusions of a scientist one way or another. I've read the study, I'm not a staticstician, but the study's general conculsions are completely in line with my first hand experience. There are other study that DO use a time frame (the NIC's) that reach similar conculsions. I'll let those that do the study's defend them.

I KNOW this. The increasing costs will kill us if we do nothing.

Brad

Our undergraduates will see similarly sized increases. At what point will it keep members from joining? $250/man, $500/man? That's definately the direction things are heading.

The SDSU case IS from James' and my beloved Kappa Sigma. Our SEC (volunteer governing board) has just announced changes to try to curb these incidents and catching HELL from some, and being loudly applauded by others. It reminds me of when we first enacted a Hazing Policy.

It's unfortunate, but we ALL pay for each others mistakes - especially in the insurance market. I'm quite certain we will face undergraduate dissatisfaction with the new hazing directives. Much like some of the undergraduate response to dry housing in other fraternities. It takes courage to take an unpopular stand.

We must take these actions though. If you haven't seen them yet, get ready, they're coming!

Brad

hmmm . . .

Actually, the Harvard Study gets in the way of good debate because it confuses the issue.

The only real issue is liability and avoiding it.

In terms of this thread, that point is well taken and correct.

However the topic the study (whether the research is valid or not) addresses -- binge drinking -- is one of the issues which cause the problem (liability) in the first place.

If James is suggesting that the study would be better discussed elsewhere, I agree. I think it distracts from the discussion of the core problem.

Having said that, I don't think that the Harvard studies are the only ones to reach basically the same conclusions.

I'm tired this evening, and hope this post makes some sense.

Just in case anyone doesn't believe what we've been saying about liability, please read the story below from Fraternal News.

Texas Tech University Fraternity, 11 members named in lawsuit

by April Tamplen
April 08, 2002


The family of Siera Hanson is filing a lawsuit against John
Steinmetz, Texas Tech Student Government Association president, and
10 other Phi Delta Theta fraternity members. Also named in the
lawsuit is the Phi Delta Theta national fraternity.

Hanson was injured last year when a pickup driven by then-Phi Delta
Theta member Travis Gilpin plowed into her bedroom while she was
sleeping. She was 10 years old at the time.


Gilpin allegedly had just left a Phi Delta Theta fraternity party
when he failed to control his speed and struck a wooden utility pole
on Slide Road. According to court records, Gilpin overcorrected his
vehicle, jumping over a curb and into the residence.


According to court records, Gilpin's blood alcohol level was .193,
which is more than twice the legal limit of .08. Gilpin was 20 years
old at the time.


Hanson suffered injuries including broken ribs, a collapsed lung and
injury to her spleen.


Hanson's parents, Michael and Julie McCarty, originally filed the
lawsuit against Gilpin for reimbursement for housing repairs and
Hanson's medical bills.


Court records state Hanson's medical bills from Feb. 11, 2001 and Feb
21, 2001 were about $59,300.


In March, Steinmetz, along with Trent Booher, Justin Combs, John
Doriff, Ryan Heddleston, Scott Herman, Braden Hood, Jonathan Landin,
Tyler Nobles and a "John Doe" were added to the lawsuit.


At the time of the accident, Steinmetz was social chairman, Herman
was president, Nobles was vice president, Doriff was risk management
and Booher was pledge review of the Phi Delta Thetas. The rest of
those named in the lawsuit were representatives of the fraternity.


Court records state they were added to the lawsuit for contributing
alcohol to a minor.


Court records state that about a week before the party, the
fraternity members met at their chapter meeting and planned the Feb.
11, 2001 party. All members were required to attend. According to
court records, to get into the party, fraternity members either had
to pay $20 or bring a 30-pack of beer. After all the alcohol had been
collected, the fraternity believed they did not have enough alcohol
to throw a party.


According to court records, Heddleston, who was an employee at a beer
store, purchased about $1,000 worth of additional alcohol.


The McCarty family filed the lawsuit against the fraternity for being
aware of Gilpin's age and allowing him to drink.


The amended lawsuit states Steinmetz and the other 10 acted on behalf
of the fraternity, which is why they are being sued.


Court records state the fraternity was negligent by furnishing and
permitting the consumption of alcohol by minors, failing to provide
adequate security at a fraternity event, allowing intoxicated people
to consume alcohol and selling and serving alcohol to intoxicated
people.


Steinmetz said he could not comment at the current time due to legal
reasons.


Mother's Against Drunk Driving spokesperson, Shannon Schaff, said she
has heard past complaints about alcohol in relation to fraternities
and sororities.


"Texas Tech preaches to drink responsibly if you are under 21; not to
not drink at all, which goes against what MADD believes," she
said. "Sure, the individual needs to be held account able for
drinking and driving, but a majority of the blame goes on those who
contribute to the minor."


Schaff said the McCarty family has been in touch with MADD.


Courtney Turner, Panhellenic president for Tech, said fraternities
and sororities abide by Texas Tech's no-tolerance alcohol policy.


She said the social chairman of a fraternity, which is the position
Steinmetz held, usually plans parties and provides the list of people
allowed.


"For example, they decide if every member needs to bring beer, so to
say," she said.


Turner said risk management officers of fraternities are supposed to
provide transportation and designated drivers at parties. They also
are supposed to make sure no one under the age of 21 is drinking.


"As far as sororities go, under-aged drinking (prevention) is pretty
much enforced in our own parties, but it is hard to control the girls
if they go to other parties," she said. "If they get caught they have
to face the penalties and follow up in their punishments."

The Representative from mothers against drunk driving needs to spend more time with her kids. . . maybe if more of these concerned mamas spent more time working out proactive contingency plans with their children instead of scaring them with their "zero tolerance" philosophy against driniking, their kids wouldn't be in graves right now. Instead I have to feel guilty because they feel guilty and have decided to make their kids death into a crusade to give it meaning . . . How fricking boring can you get?

Oh and that Courtney Chick , the panhell president sooooooo needs to lsoe her position for two reasons. One she was stupid enough to comment. And two, her comments were moronic.. . Obvsiously there is no IQ requirement for panhell president down there!

OK, I've never been a fan of MADD, but interviewing bad spokespersons doesn't change the fact that an underage drinker had an accident and he and ten other guys and his national fraternity are being sued and will probably lose. That's the point of this thread.

By the way, on a lighter note, a friend of mine once wanted to start a counter group to MADD, called DAMM -- Drunks Against Mad Mothers.

I love all of the studies that are put out by people who get Grants!

They nothing better to do except study the mating of a TSETSE fly or Why The Sun Comes up in the East and Goes Down In the West!

Hell I have read some of thse studies capsual form and wonder where this people got their questions and their subjects from!

Maybe they come from Jerry Springer!

Just because some Egg Head (?) who got a grant and was from Harvard does not mean He and his group of intervieweenies are infallable!

You can still find people who profess that the world is really flat!

Give me a grant and I will prove drinking , sex, and smoking is good for you!

There are more Dead people in the Cemetary that did not drink or smoke than do!

The following was taken from an article about the suspension of yet another San Diego area fraternity. This is something that I don't believe most people realize. In this era of huge legal actions and big rewards to "victims," this kind of liability can ruin your financial lives or that of your family -- as well as the GLO, the university and your advisors.

"Craig Melancon, executive director of Phi Kappa Theta's national
office in Indianapolis, said that because the fraternity had agreed
it would accept only 15 members with a certain GPA, the 18 pledges
who did not meet the criteria would not have been covered by the
fraternity's insurance."

"As 18-to 22-year-olds, you think you are bulletproof," Melancon
said. "You don't realize their parents' homeowners policies could
have been in jeopardy and that it could affect their parents' lives."