STOP BEING SO STUPID!
 

I couldn't think of another way to title this thread.

Alpha Delta Pi at California State University-Fullerton is being sanctioned for holding a "Taco Tuesday" recruiting event.

Now, it sounds all nice and innocent (and delicious), except when members carry the idea too far. Like showing up wearing sarapes or sombreros and, in some cases, dressing like gang members.

http://www.dailytitan.com/2014/09/so...nsitive-event/

I actually can understand a serape (not a sarape, as in the article), or other tasteful traditional dress - it's the gang references that were simply wrong.

Question for those who have a Green Book: I thought that, no matter the infraction, not allowing recruitment could not be used as a punishment. Is that still true?

From Section 5A, page 37 of the 2014 NPC MOI:

"Sanctions shall not:
• Forbid formal or informal recruitment activities or the observance of an inter/national
fraternity event such as an educational program, ritual ceremony or historical celebration.
• Affect a fraternity chapter’s quota or total.
• Affect the time of new member acceptance and/or initiation.
• Forbid the right of an NPC fraternity to vote in College Panhellenic meetings.
• Include removal from the College Panhellenic. "

These sanctions are not legal, then, according to the MOI. If they want the chapter to not take new members, the chapter should be suspended from all activities.

Not being argumentative here, but selling tacos isn't honoring Mexican heritage -- why is it necessary for them to dress up for it?

I would kind of understand traditional dress if they were hosting some sort of educational program, but a taco sale? Nah.

Yikes...that's embarrassing.

I'm never surprised at the whole "race/ethnicity as a costume" issue. Nothing wrong with a Taco Night, or even showing/discussing some items of cultural significance, but if it is just an excuse to dress like (what they thought) a Mexican person, they needed to stop right there.

Well then it's going to go one of two ways. Either the college will suspend the chapter from all activities, or they will permit the chapter to participate in recruitment.

Where the HELL were the advisors? And as for no one speaking up, well, that's endemic. You can train people all you want in bystander behavior. Still going to have these situations.

I was intrigued to see that sanction being included as I had never seen it before. Usually, the campus "just" makes the chapter take cultural awareness training, but not bystander intervention training.

Depending on how it's presented, I feel that bystander intervention training can have a much better impact than cultural diversity training in this particular circumstance. Here's why I say that: if you don't know that dressing in offensive costumes is offensive, then yeah, it's hard to fix stupid and cultural diversity training will probably go in one ear and out the other. On the other hand, bystander intervention presupposes that you know that something is wrong, but you struggle with how to speak up or communicate your concern. In my opinion, that dilemma can be more readily fixed with training.

A few years ago, I sat for training called "Group Dynamics for High Risk Teams" (such as military, firefighting, police, nuclear plant employees, airline employees, medical/surgical staff, etc). A good portion of the training involved what you would know as bystander training - members of the group speaking up before something goes wrong, even if it means speaking up against your supervisor. I can't tell you how many times in my personal and professional life I have used the skills I was taught in that class to intervene when my supervisor or the group wanted to do something unwise or unsafe.

With the article reporting that 93% of the chapter participated in the taco sale, I have to believe that at least one of the members felt uncomfortable with the idea of costumes and knew it was a bad idea. Had she spoken up, she might have rallied another handful of members who were thinking the same thing and they could have redirected the idea before the incident occurred.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/i...CGDg11LQnr5lw0
Somebody should warn them.

Just love the title of this thread. Would like to make a t-shirt that says this for some (certainly not all) of the college students I encounter.

It's a university sanction
 

The MOI guides and binds the NPC member groups and the Panhellenic councils they form. As I understand it, these sanctions are coming straight from the University, and forbidding recruitment is something they can do and certainly DO do from time to time.

While this one crossed a line, it's getting hard to provide chapters with concrete guidance more nuanced than "Stay away from any theme or location that could possibly be construed as, or [as this situation shows] evolve into, anything disrespectful of a culture, ethnicity, or race."

Sorority dreamcatchers are popping up lately, and "senioritas" shirts, and Aztec prints/fonts. What to do?

Send in Stacey and Clinton. You have no idea how much I want to kiss the Pitt AEPhis over in the rush forum for just having plain old classic white t-shirts on bid day. Some of this stuff isn't just questionable re ethnic issues, it's plain old ghastly fashion-wise.

The worst fashion crimes we committed were the Coca-Cola clothing knockoffs.

I am not agreeing with what the chapter did, but not allowing them to participate in formal recruitment while allowing them to hold COB events in the spring, but limiting the number of new members to no more than 30, is encroachment on membership matters by the university. That is worrisome.

I think it would be more appropriate for the chapter to have social sanctions, the exception being events that support their philanthropy, as well as sensitivity/diversity training.

Those sanctions could mean the death of that chapter. When their probation ends, they will be far behind the other groups who will get far more than the usual number of NMs during fall recruitment because the PNMs will be divided by fewer groups.

That's the point. Although, they should be allowed to bid up to total, whatever total is, instead of being limited to 30 people.

As with most things, if the student body at large finds these actions repugnant, it will show in their recruiting. If the student body doesn't give a crap or approves, it might actually up their numbers after they get off probation by giving them an "outlaw" reputation. In other words, these sanctions don't always work the way the university or GLO thinks they will.

To piggy back on this, don't most universities have some sort of oversight on recruitment events and or general social events?

This may have changed, but at Kentucky (for example), any campus wide social event or recruitment event – both formal and informal - was to be registered ** with and receive approval from Fraternity and Soririty Affairs (i.e. Greek Life office). The official event notice would include any “theme”, who were to be the guests ("open" event versus invite/guest list), location, etc. Thus “in theory”, anything that was considered “questionable” would not be approved. Also, a chapter could get into trouble if they varied from their official notice. In other words, no bait and switch.

As such, any recruitment event would have to be approved. Since formal recruitment was run by the Campus Panhellenic, the CPC would have the responsibility for oversight (approval of recruitment events) of formal recruitment with the Fraternity and Soririty Affairs office having oversight of the CPC. I'm not sure how this works with COR, but if it was an "event", then it was to be registered. Also, I don’t think this applies to mixers or formals since they are not “open” per say.

** I want to point out that another good benefit of registering events is that there is little to no conflict between GLO’s philanthropy events.

I think a lot of that depends on the popularity of the chapter. Traditionally strong chapters have a better chance of exiting the situation in a good position. I agree, though, that students are not always deterred by these sanctions. A weaker chapter would likely not benefit from an outlaw reputation. I don't know this chapter's situation, but it will be tough to exit probation gracefully.

Yep. There are chapters who can fall in a pile of poo and come out smelling like roses. (Much like people in general, of course)

Except we all know that social sanctions are easily skirted and that sensitivity/diversity training is rarely taken seriously.

The article isn't 100% clear, but I get the impression that the event was not a a recruitment event- in the sense of meeting PNMs, but more a pre-recruitment workshop for the current members- skit rehearsal, conversation practice, etc. and dinner would be served (in this case, tacos) which sort of took off on a life of its own.

"On Aug. 19, the sorority held the event as part of its recruitment week training, according to the university’s administrative review. Ninety-three percent of the sorority members attended the event, and of those, 90 percent came in costume."

since cal state fullerton is a school of 40,000 students and a commuter school, i feel like it's going just to be a slap on the wrist. i attended cal state fullerton and sorority recruitment isn't that big of a deal. but when i did see the csuf panhellenic instagram, alpha delta pi wasn't included on the list of chapters being included in formal recruitment. also, this was probably in polish week, because recruitment starts this weekend. WOW, perfect timing for this to come out...

I didn't know that. Where have you heard about social sanctions being ignored?

If they disobey, then there should be a more severe penalty. I hope that the point would be for the members to learn from their collective mistake, not to prevent the chapter from being viable. If the point was to make it difficult for chapter viabilitym then they should just shut the chapter down.

I did it again. When I see "polish week", I read it as having to do with the culture relating to Poles and or Poland. So for a split second, I couldn’t figure out why they had a "Taco Tuesday" event during "Polish (the country/culture) week" amd agreed the timing was odd. :o

Yes, reading is fundamental.

Events on a registered social calendar aren't the only social events that happen. That has been true since the dawn of time.

These “forbidding recruitment” sanctions (as do most of the other sanctions) seem more in line with sanctions that may be given to an IFC chapter. The chapter is still allowed to operate, yet many of the social aspects may be limited for a certain time.

Since the chapter may be allowed to COB 30 members next spring, I wonder if any PNMs drop out of formal this fall to pursue one of the 30 spots in the spring.

Back when I worked for SDSU, I was Faculty Adviser to two sororities and a fraternity. Any event that was being held on campus, which was not already part of an Office of Greek Life program, had to be approved by me. So, while I didn't need to approve things like recruitment, Greek Week or tabling at new student orientation, the chapters did have to consult with me regarding fundraisers and other on-campus events.

For example, one sorority came to me for approval for their philanthropy which was a Cross-Fit style competition. I was concerned about the nature of the event and asked many questions about how it would be set-up, the equipment being used, the guest list, the no-alcohol policy, who would be leading the events, and what kind of first aid plan they had in place in case anyone became injured. Once I was satisfied with their answers, I signed off on it. Had they not been able to address my concerns in a satisfactory manner, or if they had come up with some inappropriate theme or activity, I would have not signed it and told them to bring the forms back once the issues were fixed.

You'd be surprised...We have some chapters here whose closest alumnae live in another state (or any who live close aren't involved). They don't have advisors, except maybe someone from their headquarters who they talk to if there's a really pressing issue.

My alma mater and organization both required a faculty/staff advisor in addition to the alumni advisor. That meant someone was around to review things even if the alumni advisor was far away.

I thought this was pretty common practice.

I think it is pretty common practice, but from what I have heard, at least 2 organizations don't have that (or haven't in the past). I know there are no faculty or staff advisors, per se. It's hard to get faculty or staff here to even admit they are/were members of Greek organizations; it's looked down upon. :(

It's unfortunate that there is any punishment being sought by the school at all. Teach these young people that their conduct is offensive to some (they probably are not aware of this) and that going through life trying to be a decent human being is the best way to do it.

Actual punishment of this sort? It's just going overboard. I really have a problem with schools disciplining groups for behavior they deem offensive. Dangerous activities? Sure. Hazing? Sure. Just offensive? I'm going to have to say no. College should be a place where you should feel free to express yourself and do a few stupid things where you can learn where these boundaries exist.

Love the thread title though, this forum could probably see every thread start with that title.

Kevin, the problem with that logic is (the sharing of differing opinions aside) it is easy for you as a white man to say that a chapter being racially derogatory is worth no more than an apology and racial sensitivity training.

"Hazing" doesn't always harm people in terms of safety and jeopardizing lives. Sometimes "hazing" only hurts feelings. Sometimes "hazing" only offends. Sometimes "hazing" does neither but the "powers that be" decide that the behavior is inappropriate despite the people undergoing the "hazing" being perfectly fine or even excited about what they are experiencing.

So, if schools and GLOs can punish chapters for "hazing" regardless of the full context, schools and GLOs should also be able to punish chapters for being racially derogatory (even if every member of that racial and ethnic group is not offended).

What the punishment should be will vary but apology and racial sensitivity training may not suffice. I refuse to believe college students with any half of a brain are unaware that a Taco Tuesday that includes stereotypical language and attire would be a good idea. White privilege and overall stupidity can be blinding but it is up to them to get their heads out of their asses. As we have seen with racially themed parties over the past 5 years, harsh penalties are required to buffer the over-and-over-again stupidity. Many of these people will still be bigoted idiots at the end of the day but some punishments have to be about retribution and not rehabilitation.

I'm glad you differentiate between the hazing where people are physically harmed and hazing where the only harm is mental. Both can be unlawful in many states. I can tell you that in at least my state, I think we have a decent statute:

https://studentconduct.okstate.edu/hazing

It doe specify mental health, but I have only heard of very harsh physical abuse ever being prosecuted. Hazing is already a crime, let the criminal justice system work it out. As for just being offensive, the criminal justice system can't always work it out because we have a First Amendment right to be offensive and insensitive.

I grew up a white kid with two professional parents in an affluent suburb attending mostly private school. I will not have you lecture me about how oblivious people with a privileged background can be to things you label as common sense. :D

You talk about "harsh penalties," but harsh penalties for crimes which only result in someone being offended should not exist. You cannot use harsh penalties to stamp out a culture of racial obliviousness.

Education is what is needed, not retribution.

You missed the point. If "hazing" can include "hurt feelings" or "you enjoyed this experience but it is still technically 'hazing'" then it isn't a huge leap for chapters to be punished for demographic insensitivity.

You come from a particular type of environment therefore you know that diversity training and racial sensitivity training mean nothing. If these white people cared enough they would educate themselves.

What is the goal of punishment? Deterrance?

Well it's worked nicely so far, right?

No, the goal of punishment has transitioned to retribution. Most research on crime and overall human behavior has found a weak or statistically insignificant deterrent effect of punishment. The average person doesn't believe she/he will get caught therefore the quickness or harshness of the punishment means little to nothing.

Just like many hazing punishments have transitioned to being more about retribution than about deterrence. Many schools and GLOs across councils and conferences have learned that the punishments often teach chapters how to better hide the behavior rather than abstain from the behavior altogether. Even putting people's names and chapter's names on websites has not stopped many people and chapters from engaging in the behavior.

Attempting to use the threat of punishment or actual punishment to deter white people from hosting these parties is as silly and pointless as diversity/racial sensitivity training.

Surely a lawyer knows that punishment can have purposes other than deterrence. In this case, it's important to signal to people of color that they are valued on the campus and that the institution will stand up for them against acts of racial aggression.

In this case, I think the retribution is doing the educating. This chapter and everyone who has heard about their situation just learned that this type of event is a bad idea for reasons X, Y, and Z. Whether they will use that knowledge going forward is anybody's guess.

Wearing sombreros without the intent to offend is "racial aggression"? That sure is a moving target. I'd call blowing up churches and burning crosses and lynching racial aggression. Having a Taco Tuesday and donning a sombrero and maybe a fake mustache? I'd say not so much.

The government (public universities) shouldn't be in the business of restricting expression to protect anyone's feelings. If this group nationally wants to police itself or offended groups want to make it known during recruitment time that here's a group which does these offensive things, fine. Getting the government involved, even if that's just the Greek Life Adviser or Dean of Students is absurd.

These ladies are facing pretty extreme possibly fatal sanctions for what can only be described as offending a racial minority. I'd almost label what is happening here as PC terrorism.

If this was a private university? Fine.
If the school newspaper wants to run an editorial condemning the group? Fine.
If the ADPI HQ wants to shut down or sanction the chapter? Fine.
If the Dean of Students is going to use the college's resources and authority to penalize the offensive conduct? No.

The ACLU lays it out better than I ever could.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus

^^^ That logic is why we can look forward to racially themed parties sponsored by GLO chapters. Halloween is an especially fun time.

But don't mind me. I'm just a PC Terrorist who believes in some form of sanction for "nothing more than" offending a minority group.

Actually, I think it's worked extremely well. How common was this type of party in the 80s? In the 60s? How much does it happen now? It hasn't been eradicated, but there's probably been a 95% drop -- maybe even 99%*. So it seems to me that campaigns and rules barring ethnic themes/costumes do work.

*And there were far worse party themes back in the day. One of the SEC NPC chapters posted a retro picture from the 50s or early 60s of a rush party, and you could just barely see the sign welcoming freshmen to the "XYZ Plantation."