Alpha Phi does not support Safe Campus Act
 

From the Huffington Post: Alpha Phi Becomes First Sorority To Say It Doesn't Support Safe Campus Act

The statement, obtained by The Huffington Post, was issued by Alpha Phi's national office "at the request of many of our members and chapters." It explains that "Alpha Phi has not endorsed this legislation and has not committed to any financial support" and takes issue with several aspects of the Safe Campus Act.

* * * * * * * * * *

"We believe our sisters who are survivors should have choices in how, when and to whom they go to for support or to report the crime," Alpha Phi said in the statement. "They should have their own voice and the support and encouragement they need to move forward including reporting as they choose to."

* * * * * * * * * *

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) [Kappa Kappa Gamma, Dartmouth] and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) [Kappa Alpha Theta, Missouri], both former sorority members who have proposed their own legislation to reform the way colleges handle campus sexual assault, recently criticized the NPC for backing the Safe Campus Act. Both senators had planned to reach out to national sorority representatives to discuss the problems with the bill.

The article also reports the entire the statement released by the Alpha Phi International Executive Board and Executive Office Staff.

NPC's response to Senator McCaskill and Senator Gillibrand.

No one has been able to explain to me, especially in light of cases like UVA, how college administrators are qualified to perform quasi-law-enforcement roles and why rape on a college campus should be treated different from rape anywhere else.

That's the gist of the Safe Campus Act--getting law enforcement involved where otherwise, things could be swept under the rug.

Part of the problem is that law enforcement in some college towns ranges from sketchy to nonexistent to Barney Fife. If the town/gown relationship is bad, the police aren't going to care about (in their eyes) some overprivileged sorority girl saying she was assaulted.

The intent of the SCA is good and necessary, the execution is just crummy.

The same could be said for university administrators. In fact, one thing I can say about every administrator I've ever met--not a single one is well suited to play judge, jury and executioner in a law-enforcement role. No six-hour seminar or weekend seminar or whatever is going to prepare them to be law enforcement, which is what is needed in these situations.

I agree, many cities police departments are ill-equipped to handle these cases, but when you start to branch out to county/parrish/whatever law enforcement, the options get better.

Even in Oklahoma, I can't think of a single county sheriff, outside of maybe one county (which doesn't have a university in its jurisdiction) who I would trust less to handle a rape investigation than a university administrator, much less, have the same range of punishment available.

Rapists don't need to be expelled, they need to be sent to prison.

In most cases, campus rape investigations aren't intended to punish offenders or take the place of a legal investigation. The only thing it's intended to do is to make it possible for the victim to feel like she's not in danger of being revictimized as she finishes her education. Many, many rape victims end up leaving school otherwise.

I'm kind of ambivalent on the Safe Campus Act personally (in most cases, both the school and the legal system mishandle rape cases; this isn't going to fix that), but it's pretty controversial and there's no reason Greek organizations--especially sororities--should be throwing their weight behind it. I hope other groups follow Alpha Phi's move. Sorority women already deal with even higher rates of sexual assault than the general college population, and I hope the women who run our organizations keep that fact in mind when they're deciding when to get political.

And even then, these policies are enforced by people who are not qualified to enforce them. How are these people qualified to conduct a criminal investigation, then without allowing the accused to cross examine the accuser, make the determination that the preponderance of the evidence is that someone committed a sexually violent crime against the other and to penalize the accused despite 1) the accused never had a right to a jury, 2) never had the right to cross examine the witnesses against him, 3) does not have the right to legal counsel [but if he does bring legal counsel, the school is supposed to provide the victim legal counsel free of charge], 4) and the penalties are a lot greater than a slap on the wrist.

And even still, what if that panel finds that not only did this guy do the bad thing, let's say he admits it. They are under no duty to reveal that to law enforcement, and probably won't because it will negatively impact campus crime statistics. In fact, due to campus crime statistics, a lot of these things are swept under the rug.

Again, what is bad about requiring law enforcement at least get first crack at these things? I can't imagine advising a student to do anything other than shutting the **** up if he's investigated for a sex crime when being interviewed by Title IX investigators. You know, they can listen to the alleged victim's side, the alleged perp can assert his 5th Amendment rights and it's almost a slam dunk that he'll be found responsible.

The spirit (certainly not the practice) of our legal system is that the state has the burden of proof, that the accused is innocent until proven guilty and that the state has to follow certain rules of evidence and that the rights of the accused matter. Title IX investigations throw all of that out the window in a rush to find someone responsible whether something happened or not.

That's what this Act is supposed to prevent.

Alpha Chi Omega posted this message on their website today. The full piece is here, but here's the important stuff:

I'm a little surprised they posted this, actually, since it seems very wishy-washy. I'm definitely not going to pretend like I know every pro and con, every in and out, of the Safe Campus Act, but I don't know why the law in particular targets sexual crimes and not others. I think the fact that it is controversial at best, damaging at worst, and the fact that so many victim advocacy groups, victims, and members of our own organizations have opposed it, is concerning, and I wish more groups, including my own (and NPC) would choose to not support it.

This is a red herring floated by activist groups. A stupid one at that considering that the existing law (VAWA and Title IX) already differentiate between sex crimes and other crimes. If the current law required that a burglary be investigated and prosecuted in the same manner as a sexual assault, I might find this argument to be appealing, but that just isn't the case.

Oh, I understand. Thanks for the clarification. I really appreciate it!

As a campus rape survivor, I applaud those organizations that are not spending their time fighting for this particular law.

No individual should give up his/her right to have crimes investigated by law enforcement, and no school that attempts to take away that right is acting in the best interest of the victim.

No law proclaiming "this is how it will be done" is appropriate for every instance. This act is an attempt to "do something" even while admitting no one has one universal solution.

It IS wishy washy. It's a non-answer basically amounting to "We want to sound supportive and proactive but don't want to go against the NPC so here are some inspiration buzzwords. LITB." I'm furious.

Throwing this out there but what about in loco parentis?

Phi Mu has come out with the following statement:

"
November 13, 2015

Dear Sisters,

We are writing to clarify our stance on the proposed Safe Campus Act and Fair Campus Act legislation that were endorsed by the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC).

Phi Mu Fraternity is committed to continuing to fight against relationship violence and sexual assault. The safety and well-being of our members remains of utmost importance. Phi Mu Fraternity does not endorse the Safe Campus Act nor the Fair Campus Act legislation. While we appreciate the intent of the proposed legislation, we do not support the bills. We value the work that the NPC Campus Safety and Sexual Assault Task Force has done in providing educational materials for member organizations and providing a forum for conversations on this topic to take place.

We have resource materials available online for members who are survivors of sexual assault and those who are seeking information to help survivors. We are also in a partnership with relationship violence prevention expert Aaron Boe and are entering into an agreement with the One Love Foundation. We are continuing to develop educational programs to address these important topics.

Our National Council will carefully evaluate any other proposed legislation that may be beneficial to our members. If we endorse any legislation in the future, we will be transparent and share that information with you. We would like to thank those members, collegians and alumnae, who have reached out to us to express their thoughts on this important matter.

Yours in Our Bond,
The National Council of Phi Mu Fraternity"

Alpha Chi Omega has clarified their statement.

"For our members asking for clarification on yesterday's statement, Alpha Chi Omega has not and will not endorse the Safe Campus Act nor the Fair Campus Act without substantive victim-centered changes.
Alpha Chi Omega is looking for legislation that is victim-centered and has the support of the higher education community and victims' advocacy groups. As a leader in NPC and in the area of domestic violence awareness, we take our role very seriously and believe collaboration is the best way to advance victim-centered legislation.
We are committed to the conversation and finding solutions that will ensure our members and all collegians have the choices and resources they need as victims of sexual assault."

https://www.facebook.com/alphachiome...53717607790682

Gamma Phi Beta has released the following statement:

Dear members:

Gamma Phi Beta prides ourselves on being a member-focused organization full of confident women of character. The safety and well-being of our members has always been – and will always be – of paramount concern. Over the last several months, Gamma Phi Beta has reviewed the legislation endorsed by the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC). We have debated the merits, and we have listened to you, our members. Today, we share that Gamma Phi Beta does not support the current NPC-endorsed legislation as written. Our reason is simple: the legislation as currently written does not represent the mission, vision, values and guiding principles of our organization. As a member-focused organization 200,000 women strong, we must stand behind our values.

While we do not support the current legislation as it stands, we do support legislation and solutions that protect the safety and rights of our members – and all students. We support NPC’s participation in finding these solutions. We support all NPC member organizations in educating our members on the legislative process and the need for solutions that allow our members and students to flourish in their campus environments. We are committed to being part of this conversation and we welcome your comments at gammaphibeta [at] gammaphibeta.org.

In IIKE,
Gamma Phi Beta’s International Council 2014-16


It can be found on our website