GLO suspensions - what is the difference?
 

I was reading a thread about a GLO who was suspended by their national office and not by the university.

Just wondering what is the difference (or point of) being suspended by the national office and not by the university.

Does this mean they are still a functioning recognized chapter by the school, but not by the national office?

Thanks for the clarification.

Suspension by the inter/national organization might be due to different set of circumstances than a suspension by a school. Things like being behind in payments to your General fraternity for membership dues is one thing that comes to mind. Other possible things like lack of ritual competency, or maybe even lack of numbers could be reasons that a chapter would be suspended.

Obviously things like hazing, alcohol violations and risk management crises could have recognition pulled by both or only the university.

Recognition and suspension are two entirely different things to me.

As I understand it, in Beta Theta Pi, a chapter is still a functioning chapter while under suspension, but they are unable to vote during our General Convention (which is a big deal since we have annual conventions and convention is highest authority in all of Beta.) Also they will be monitored by the General convention and given guidelines that they must meet before being removed from suspended status. Such actions are taken to change the atmosphere of the chapter and improve it.

Suspension to me at the university level means more along the lines of sanctions for violations of university policy.

Recognition seems to be a greater punishment from both. At the GLO level that is basically closing the house down and that chapter becoming dormant until the General Fraternity is ready to re-colonize. University recognition to me would be more in line of not participating in the standard rush process, not recieving a voice on IFC/Pan-hell or other benefits associated with being a recognized student group (which at Nebraska means difficulty in obtaining free pepsi for meetings, use of University Facilities etc.)

Hope this seems like a good definition

The thread I was reading involved a fraternity who participated in a 'blackface' incident and was suspended by the inter/national headquarters but not by the university.

That just struck me as odd.

So in this case what would be the difference in the suspensions since they are not suspended by the school.

Sorry I'm just really confused !

The University probably figured it would have been stomping on constitutional rights had it interfered. Kappa Sigma, being a private organization probably felt compelled to step in on this.

We've had the same thing happen at my school. 2 groups were suspended by their HQ for hazing. The University never did a thing (even though they were in violation of the law in this case). They are sometimes frighteningly supportive of GLO's around here.

A similar situation has happened at USC. A certain frat, which I will not name, was given a suprise visit by their district advisors a few years ago. What the advisors found were gross amounts of alcohol use and some members using drugs. The advisors notified the fraternities alumni association, who coincidentally owned their house. The alumni association decided that they would not allow anyone to live in the frat house for 5 years or until all the current members had graduated. They are still allowed to do rush, though, and they still have exchanges and stuff. They are not formally recognized as a fraternity, but the knowledge that they will be back in 4 years kind of makes that fact ignored.

I think that in a case like this the University might feel that they cannot punish the whole chapter due to the actions of a few members...ktsnake is probably correct in thinking about first amendment rights.Since the incident probably is not in violation of the school's student code (despite violating good taste) they probably could not come up with a reason to take action along with the issues of the first amendment.

As for the suspension status: I'm willing to bet that action was taken by the inter/national GLO to deal with those members individually, as well as the chapter probably had a set of guidelines set out for them which they would have to meet in order to be end the suspension. I would think that the end goal would be to make the chapter better.