The UC-Boulder Situation

[FratAmerica]

Friends,

After having visited and contributed to this site, it seems surprising to me that there isn't more significant conversation about the CU-Boulder situation

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is one of the first salvos in a long-simmering war.

Boulder is the first [siginificant] place where fraternities have said 'enough - we're going independent'. This is historic - worthy of discussion and consideration.

Greek Life augments higer education, though we are not higher education. We teach life skills, not trivial expertise. We provide our members with leadership experience and represent the greatest collegiate youth development movement in our nation.

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by FratAmerica

Friends,

After having visited and contributed to this site, it seems surprising to me that there isn't more significant conversation about the CU-Boulder situation

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is one of the first salvos in a long-simmering war.

Boulder is the first [siginificant] place where fraternities have said 'enough - we're going independent'. This is historic - worthy of discussion and consideration.

Greek Life augments higer education, though we are not higher education. We teach life skills, not trivial expertise. We provide our members with leadership experience and represent the greatest collegiate youth development movement in our nation.

Could you explain this further? Post a site or news report about this--you will get a lot more feedback that way.

[DeltAlum]

The first comment is that UC is/are generally considered to be in California.

The one in Boulder (that's in Colorado) is known at CU -- even though the official name is the University of Colorado.

As for the Greek situation there, it's been a mess for years, and there have been several threads about it.

I suspect what the poster is talking about is the IFC's decision to stand up against the university administration's decree for deferred rush, among other rules imposed after a death on campus.

That's old news -- unless there's something recent.

The new President of the University is a Delt and former US Senator, but with concerns about financial support from the legislature and very bad publicity after the death, I question whether he will be able to change anything.

As for a first "salvo," under the circumstances, I'm not sure the IFC is doing itself, us or anyone else (except possibly the anti-Greek folks in the Colorado legislature) any favors.

[EE-BO]

I cannot find any articles about fraternities at CU-Boulder wanting to go independent, but in just 5 minutes of searching I found 4 articles (perhaps there are more out there) that might shed some light on this,

First, here is a link to an April 11, 2006 article about an 18 year old who was found dead in his dorm after staying at a fraternity party until the early hours of the morning,

http://www.kusa.com/acm_news.aspx?OS...7-c589c01ca7bf

Next, here is a quick 2-2-06 article about a major national GLO suspending 27 of its 29 active members for hazing- with no disclosure of what exactly happened. But contrary to what some might think, no GLO "likes" to basically shut down a chapter and you can bet it was not something minor that led to this,

http://www.kusa.com/acm_news.aspx?OS...7-c589c01ca7bf

This one blows me away. Not even at U. Texas have I ever seen anything like this. The article is dated 9-27-05 and reports that after 2 large fraternity parties, NINE women who attended ended up in the hospital with alcohol poisoning (yes all that same night!) All were underage. In response, CU declared there would be no more fraternity parties at any chapters for the remainder of the semester,

http://www.kusa.com/acm_news.aspx?OS...7-c589c01ca7bf

This one is older, but could hold a clue to why fraternities at CU want to go independent. From 9-16-04, a pledge dies right after school starts (during rush according to the article) after being left in the wilderness with his pledge brothers where they had to drink 4 handles (1.75L bottles) of whisky, and several bottles of wine before being retrieved and brought back to the house for a keg party. In response to this incident, CU put an end to fall rush for freshmen- now sophomores only (note- I do not know if this rule is still in place.)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._7/ai_n6367494

So my question is this, do fraternities want to go independent at UC because the University is hindering Greeks from the below quoted stated purpose that FratAmerica has posted?,

"Greek Life augments higer education, though we are not higher education. We teach life skills, not trivial expertise. We provide our members with leadership experience and represent the greatest collegiate youth development movement in our nation." [And to FratAmerica- please clarify if these are your words or a stated position of Greeks at large. I am not meaning to attack your position if this is not how you feel.]

Or do the Greeks want to go independent because rush got pushed to sophomore year after a kid died, and the University has been disrupting Greek social life when 9 women end up in the hospital in one evening?

If you read the articles, however, it becomes clear that the headquarters of the GLO's involved have also taken a stand in these matters.

So what it boils down to is that the two organizations that provide the basis for these Greek Houses to exist (the college and GLO headquarters) are cracking down. These are also the two organizations that provide the Greek Houses with a basis for recruitment (affiliation with a college and a social organization with professed ideals to build a college student into a productive man) and a lot of the funding, insurance and other support that keeps a Greek House going.

The college and the GLO are also putting their reputation on the line for these houses- and an appearance in the newspaper when bad things happen casts a shadow on hundreds of thousands of people nationwide who are students or alums of UC, and active members or alums of the GLO at all its chapters.

Frankly, if a Greek system wants to go independent so they can keep on engaging in dangerous and illegal activity- that is fine with me. This is America after all.

But give back your letters too and come up with your own. If you want to do whatever you want all the time, then you need to pay for it and not rest on the reputation of your college and your existing GLO to convince students and their parents' wallets to support you.

The few articles I found on CU in a short time do not tell the tale of isolated incidents. They tell the tale of a broken Greek system. What more is out there that I did not find in my quick search?

In other threads I have said Greeks often face unfair scrutiny and intervention when isolated incidents happen. And I still feel that way.

But when I see these kinds of repeated incidents that are being strongly dealt with by colleges AND GLO headquarters, that is not indicative of isolated incidents. It speaks to a larger problem.

And again- if local chapters and alumni want to support that kind of problem, fine by me. But don't do it in the name of my college or my GLO. My dues and alumni support are not here to support a club where drinking is the primary reason for being.

Personally I don't think going independent will work. Sure, some organizations with lots of local old money alum will be able to keep going, but the average college students for whom fraternity life is not a required step on the social ladder is going to be a hard sell (to say nothing of Mom and Dad) when it comes to shelling out big bucks for a social organization that offers nothing more than a place to get trashed.

[Kevin]

EE-BO:

I have no personal knowledge of the campus, but don't you think you're painting with a little to broad a brush? There are 15 different fraternities, and only a few have had serious problems. I think that the reason for IFC's decision seems to be more that the missteps of a few chapters (one of the above which seems to have handled things pretty well internally) being used to punish those who had nothing to do with the offenses.

And from the looks of things, it appears that the new IFC is not simply a shelter for organizations which don't want to be affected by the rules:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: President Ryan Lynch, (703) 568-9134, ryan.m.lynch@colorado.edu

CU Interfraternity Council Response to the Death of Jesse Gomez

BOULDER, CO --- April 12, 2006 --- The Interfraternity Council (IFC) and the Greek community at the University of Colorado-Boulder join the family and friends of CU sophomore, Jesse Gomez, in mourning his tragic and premature passing. The fraternity leadership, headed by the IFC Executive Board, considers this matter to be extremely serious and a top priority, as the IFC fraternities have long pledged to make a positive impact on the alcohol culture in Boulder.

In order to best assist the investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mr. Gomez’s death, the IFC has advised our constituent member fraternities to comply with all law enforcement agencies looking into the matter. Additionally, the IFC executive board will provide investigators with any information and/or documentation pertinent to this case.

One of the IFC member fraternities, Theta Xi, has acknowledged that Mr. Gomez indeed attended their social function in the early hours of 09 April 2006. We are awaiting the outcome of the police investigation, as well as our own inquiry, before releasing specific details regarding the event.

The IFC executive board requires that all social functions involving alcohol be registered 72 hours prior to the start of the event. The host fraternity of any event is also required to adhere to all provisions of the IFC Event Planning Policy. Said provisions specifically outline proper governance and procedure of social events in regards to security, alcohol availability/distribution, safety, transportation and advertising.

If Theta Xi or any other IFC fraternity is found to have potentially violated our Constitution or IFC Event Planning Policy, the IFC Executive Board reserves the right to file internal charges against the accused fraternity and bring them to a judicial hearing where their case will be heard by a group of their peers within the Greek system to determine responsibility and subsequent sanctions.

To further assist and facilitate our internal inquiry and the police investigation, IFC President Ryan Lynch has made an executive order suspending all fraternity social events involving the presence of alcoholic beverages. The timetable for the alcohol ban is indefinite and highly dependent on the outcome of the ongoing investigation.

The Greek system at the University of Colorado continues to be pursuant in its desire to better ourselves and University community as a whole. While we await the outcome of this investigation to determine potential shortcomings in our policies and/or operating procedure, we will continue to operate in a manner that adheres to our collective goals and values of leadership, community service, safety and academic excellence.

The Interfraternity Council at the University of Colorado-Boulder is made up by an executive board consisting of the president with seven vice presidents, as well as the presidents of each of our 14 member fraternities. In 2004, CU administrative officials announced they would not recognize the IFC as a registered student group, thereby making it a private entity outside of University jurisdiction. The IFC is also a registered Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) in the State of Colorado. For more information, please refer to http://www.coloradoifc.com

Ryan Lynch, the President is actually a member of the organization which booted 22 of its 24 actives in response to hazing allegations.

[EE-BO]

Thank you for posting this article. It seems to indicate that CU is the one who initiated the split. Either way, I presume not recognizing the IFC means they will not recognize any fraternities under the IFC umbrella.

Been there, done that. It doesn't work. Texas tried this in the late 1980s and early 1990s. What you ended up with was an IFC that engaged in blatantly selective enforcement based on which chapters had officers on the IFC council.

Isolated incidents happened before and during this time- and continue to this day. That is not something that University recognition or lack thereof can change.

However, when the University took a hands-off approach and the IFC took over, a very few houses were able to continue in very serious patterns unchecked. All of those houses have been slammed hard since the University reasserted its recognition/authority over the IFC, and things have improved dramatically. And it has not "ruined" Greek life here either.

And to say it again- what about recruitment? How are parents going to feel about fraternities that are not recognized by their son's college? Would you allow your son to join a fraternity not recognized by the college he was attending? Would that not concern you?

I am not saying it means the chapters are all bad- I am sure many good houses will continue on as such under this new rule. But just consider how this looks to students and parents considering the Greek life.

[EE-BO]

PS- How effective do you think the below action by the new IFC President is going to be? If the Greek system was upset by CU imposing rules on rush and parties, how well will the IFC fare? Is this IFC Board composed of CU alums who have the respect and support of local chapters, or are they advisors from other places coming in and "imposing" themselves- which never works...

"To further assist and facilitate our internal inquiry and the police investigation, IFC President Ryan Lynch has made an executive order suspending all fraternity social events involving the presence of alcoholic beverages. The timetable for the alcohol ban is indefinite and highly dependent on the outcome of the ongoing investigation."

[Kevin]

EE:

I think that Colorado's actions to punish the actions of specific groups instead targeted innocent groups. Of the above problems you've cited, there were only a few of the houses out of 15 who had problems, however, all were being punished.

I don't know how effective the new IFC board will be. I have to imagine that the groups' respective IHQs are watching the situation very closely. Without any evidence to the contrary, I can't conclude (as you do) that this arrangement will ultimately be a failure. I do think that eventually, the groups, in exchange for more reasonable terms from the University will resubmit to University control. In light of some of the things the administration was doing regarding Greek Life, I can't imagine I would advise against this IFC move.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by ktsnake

I think that Colorado's actions to punish the actions of specific groups instead targeted innocent groups. Of the above problems you've cited, there were only a few of the houses out of 15 who had problems, however, all were being punished.

You and I are in 100% agreement on this point.

My concerns are that the IFC is already making similarly sweeping sanctions and that in my past observations an IFC council makes a good component of a chain of supervision, but a poor absolute authority.

I am glad FratAmerica has pointed this out and I will certainly be keeping watch as things develop. It certainly appears in recent years that Universities have opted to either walk away from Greeks or exert extreme control- and the situation at CU will be watched by many I am sure.

For any reading this, the IFC link ktsnake posted is worth a look. I was surprised to see how small the Greek Community is at UC. It makes the number of incidents look all the more troubling.

And I also noticed there was no mention (not prominent anyway- I did not dig into all the fine print) that the IFC is not a University-recognized organization, yet the association via the web-site title clearly seeks to link the IFC with the University.

Again- if the IFC and Greeks want to be totally independent, then they need to do it in word and deed and remove any implied association with CU...

[Tom Earp]

This has been a situation that has been simmering for long time.

A butting of heads as it were.

The Greeks make asses of themselves, the School doesnt want to recognize them.

When a Chapter is De Chartered, the school buys the houses and either converts them or tears them down.

Many have come and gone, come back and gone again.

So, whose fault is it?

There is no meeting of the minds just grinding each other to see who will win.

Unfortunatly, we all know who loses in the long run.

Better to work together than lose and leave. The School will be there, it is the flag ship of Colorado isnt it?

Now if they go hidden/underground as it were and not activated to a club status of some kind, the school does not recognize them and Greeks cannot use School functions or be envolved as such. It becomes a lose, lose situation.

If some stop and think, all GLO's want to be on the Flag Ship State Schools and as EE-BO said Beta is not there. I would have to check and see if LXA is there again or not.

[jon1856]

Here is an articel dated 7/14/2006 that is also an interesting read:
http://campusfundraiser.com/showuwir...71420061232960

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by EE-

I am glad FratAmerica has pointed this out and I will certainly be keeping watch as things develop. It certainly appears in recent years that Universities have opted to either walk away from Greeks or exert extreme control- and the situation at CU will be watched by many I am sure.

Let me just repeat that I think we're reading last year's stories here.

I haven't seen or heard anything in the local media about this during the just starting school year.

As a sidebar, this is the anniversary of Samatha Spady's death at Colorado State, so the anniversary of the death of Gordie Bailey at Colorado is only a week or two away.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Here is an articel dated 7/14/2006 that is also an interesting read:
http://campusfundraiser.com/showuwir...71420061232960

The '06 article is interesting. The University wants to impose restrictions on organizations it doesn't 'recognize.' Technically, as far as I know, these unrecognized organizations can do whatever the hell they want to do regardless of what the University's policy is.

The article seems to indicate compliance on the part of the IFC groups. Is there some sort of working understanding between this IFC group, the University, and the respective I/HQ's of these fraternities that the IFC will comply with reasonable terms placed upon them by the University?

[EE-BO]

I agree- good article.

Ktsnake- I would speculate the restrictions against on-campus recruitment by the University is an attempt to maintain the necessary legal separation for the University to avoid legal liability.

But I am glad they did realize it was going overboard to ban the wearing of letters on campus for move-in. That would be a scary precedent.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

I agree- good article.

Ktsnake- I would speculate the restrictions against on-campus recruitment by the University is an attempt to maintain the necessary legal separation for the University to avoid legal liability.

Ironically, by the University asking for such a prohibition, and the organizations complying, the University might be laying out a case that might end up increasing their connection to the IFC groups, and therefore, the liability.

"Unrecognized" ought to mean that either there's no dialogue whatsoever, or that negotiations are underway to return to a position where there is an officially recognized link.

I tend to think that the later of the two is the truth. I can't imagine that the University would ask for and expect compliance from groups which it plans to have nothing to do with.