CSUN bans all fraternity/sorority recruitment activities
 

A 2nd CSUN fraternity is being investigated for hazing, following the death of a Pi Kappa Phi pledge this summer. Cal State Northridge has banned all 54 fraternities & sororities from recruiting, but allowing them to initiate fall new members.

http://abc7.com/news/csun-pledge-act...ations/364469/

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/...zing-incident/

http://laist.com/2014/10/24/csun_shu...dge_activi.php

1 organization hazes, so let's punish them all?

Seems rational.

^

Reactions like that are why I'm more and more an advocate for Greek organizations to formally separate themselves from universities which respond to crises with the "burn them all and let God sort them out" tactic. I'll bet if NPC and NIC did that at just one school, it'd send a message to school administrators that they either need to play ball and let us take care of things internally (we are usually harder on our own members than the school ever is) or we are fully capable of ignoring these schools' supposed authority.

You first.

Sigma Nu has done exactly that with chapters we felt were being unjustly prosecuted by the University. In all cases, the school eventually folded and the chapter returned to the fold. Where we have real RM issues, HQ does not hesitate to act appropriately.

I advise my sorority's chapter at CSUN and thus have been closely involved with this issue.

Recruitment (with the exception of perhaps a couple of chapters participating in COB) has largely ended for the semester. What was actually communicated is that all pledging/pledge education/membership intake activities were to cease and desist. Chapters were given the option to initiate their pledges/new members immediately or not at all--in the latter case hoping, I suppose, that the never-initiated pledges would return in a future recruitment? It seems like most chapters would probably choose to initiate sooner rather than lose their newest members.

Recruitment for the spring semester has not yet been canceled, but the official statement said that it would be unlikely. I think this is a real blow for the smaller organizations (especially those chapters that are senior-heavy) that rely on 2 recruitment periods per year to grow their membership.

Isn't this exactly what happened at Santa Clara?

Thanks for the additional info. The reports on the news have said no pledging activities and I've been wondering to what extent. Like could a chapter still have separate new member meetings or would the NMs only be allowed to go to regular chapter meetings. With your info, seems like the NMs get initiated ASAP.

CSUNs on semesters, right? Wouldn't they be close to initiation time anyhow? If Chi O was on campus, I could see this being a big problem since they are the only ones who still hold over NMs for grade reports.


I find it naïve of the school to think that a chapter that hazes pledges/NMs would not do the same to new initiates.

The chapter I advise chose to initiate their pledges today--we left it up to them. The chapters either had to initiate right away or end the relationship/association with the pledges.

It seems like meetings with pledgemaster/mom/NM educator and pledges only would not be allowed. My ladies are taking the opportunity to do some review for all sisters while making sure the newest members are up to speed on the information they need to know :)

CSUN is on semesters, and I think the initiation date really depends on the length of the pledge/NM program. My ladies weren't going to initiate for another few weeks and that seems on par with other chapters. The semester ends before the December holidays (mid-Dec).

I'm with you on the bolded.

I'm talking about the impact of this happening at a major school with a major Greek Life system.

Um wow, nice insult.

Is Princeton major enough of a school?

Tabling Santa Clara, Princeton and Harvard for the moment. Kevin's proposal may work for fraternities at some schools, but it doesn't work well for Panhellenic member organizations.

The NPC made an informed and intentional decision to follow rules that determine how its member groups may establish collegiate chapters. Unlike fraternities, NPC groups cannot colonize at will (exceptions for interest groups that petition). Each step of the process (voting to open for expansion, requests for packets, presentations and selection) are designed to help ensure that each member organization can evaluate growth opportunities and that the new group has bandwidth for success. If an NPC group departs campus (absent an agreement to return, which would not happen under Kevin's proposal), it must wait for an opening and then risk not being selected. An NPC group with a healthy, well-performing chapter is not going to depart that campus to make a point.

Probably not really. Princeton is free to do what the hell they want to do because they are private. I'm talking about PUBLIC schools, i.e. schools where your Constitutional rights apply.

GLOs should certainly have different approaches to private vs. public schools. At public schools, we should have no problem demanding and insisting that the schools respect our organizations' and members' rights.;

And Santa Clara's Greek Life system is tiny. Not an insult. That's just what they are.

I'm sorry I'd be pissed as a member of a chapter there and would be fighting the ruling. Everyone shouldn't be punished because of what one chapter did, THAT chapter needs to be punished.

Do we really think it was just one chapter? Generally, when campus admins punish an entire campus, it's not because there's one problem chapter in the news and the rest are fine. It's because there are many other chapters getting in trouble behind the scenes, and a campus culture of issues that the admin is well aware of--but the university doesn't want the P.R. firestorm that admitting that would create.

I'm sure that the CSUN administration is more aware about what kind of problems their Greek system is facing than we are.

I don't see independent Greek systems as a solution that fraternities are going to initiate anymore except in very, very rare cases. Insurance costs are just too high, and rising every year--HQs know that they need adult supervision on the ground at every chapter to prevent those risk management problems that will lead to them getting sued out of existence. Since HQs obviously can't afford to provide that themselves, they're dependent on the schools to do it for them. They're much more dependent on the schools than the schools are on them. This isn't the '70s or '80s, when you could afford not to worry about those lawsuits. (Fraternity HQs are also dependent on those schools to provide them with a sense of legitimacy--after all, a fraternity that's unaffiliated with a university and operates the way CSUN's Pi Kappa Phi did has little to differentiate it from a gang.)

The fear of lawsuits is somewhat overblown. While lawsuits get a lot of attention, actually winning these lawsuits, at least against the national fraternity or individual chapter isn't easy to do. Courts are more often than not in these cases finding that the national organization and chapter cannot be held responsible for the illegal acts of individuals who happen to be members.

Culturally, we have a tendency to worry a little too much about hypotheticals.

At any rate, CSUN needs to name and investigate the suspected organizations. I find it unlikely that ALL groups on that campus have this issue.

^I agree. I doubt this was all chapters on campus. Sometimes, media exposure on certain events can cause a knee-jerk reaction. This whole situation is just unfortunate. I thought I read somewhere that the campus decided to just punish the organization in question later on down the road. This may be at another school, though.

True but . . .

The lawsuits still have to be defended, and the GLOs have to deal with the publicity attendant to them. As you said, lawsuits get lots of attention; the fact that plaintiffs lost often doesn't get as much attention. Settlement, even if it's a wise move from a (litigation) risk-management standpoint, can carry the perception of admitting some responsibility. And the risk of litigation can carry consequences insurance-wise for everyone.

So, while the fear of a bad verdict may be somewhat overblown—though juries are unpredictable creatures—fear of the tangible and intangible costs of lawsuits isn't as overblown.

A recent slight update about CSUN administrators meeting with Greek representatives. Also mentioned is an ongoing investigation.

http://sundial.csun.edu/2014/10/admi...arding-hazing/

It's not really the lawsuits in and of themselves that are the problem. It's the fact that even just getting sued--not being found guilty--will raise their insurance rates drastically. We're already at the point where some of the major groups have insurance costs that are prohibitively high for smaller chapters. (I can't remember what organization it is, but there's at least one NIC fraternity where insurance costs alone are $300+/per year per member, mostly due to the number of lawsuits they're on the receiving end of. That's fine at major state Us, but it's clearly unsustainable at smaller, unhoused campuses where there will be other groups whose total dues may not be much more than that.) Those costs are quickly rising--and with the recent refocus on sexual assault on campus and subsequent rise in women actually filing charges and those charges being treated seriously, fraternities will likely be facing an uptick in sexual assault-related lawsuits as well. Fraternities need to reverse that trend to remain viable. Being in cooperation with the local university admin and the Greek life office is a necessary part of that for almost every group. The only ones who will be exempt are the ones who already have a long history of being able to handle themselves without it.

Not all insurance is created equal. I doubt very much that what you said is the case with FIPG insured chapters and organizations. I would expect rates to be more dependent upon the degree of HQ oversight that is exercised and the individual chapters' requirements for compliance, e.g., risk management workshops, annual reporting on risk situations, etc. Remember that most of us are insured through a cooperative not-for-profit company.

I doubt "due to the number of lawsuits" tells an accurate story.

There is only one against an actual chapter that I've heard of. It is very difficult to hold an organization liable for the intentional torts of its members. I think in the incident I've heard of, the plaintiff is trying to use some offensive email to demonstrate that the group had a policy of rape and that was a group concern, but it's going to be hard to sell that. The email is clearly some idiot's idea of something funny rather than an official bro's guide to rape.

I question the existence of a "trend." The new Title IX investigations and prosecutions have yet to work their way through the courts and I can't see a system which can impose severe, life changing penalties upon someone who was found by some questionably trained faculty member, by a preponderance of the evidence to have perpetrated a crime which they very well may not be charged with criminally and very well may have not been able to participate much in their defense because they were advised of their 5th Amendment right to say nothing (which counts as an admission of guilt in a Title IX investigation). Somehow, I don't see the status quo as much of an answer to this "trend."

In these times when universities are imposing system wide sanctions when they don't have evidence that there's any system-wide problem is a huge problem. If it continues, you may very well see many of us opting out of the system and out of university oversight.

Third fraternity at Cal State Northridge suspended.
TKE for hazing and sexual allegations.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/third-fr...RBVVMwOTdfMQ--