Harvard's Policies Toward GLOs and social clubs

[Kevin]

Students of private universities absolutely have rights as consumers to consume their education elsewhere. The school can't discriminate based upon race, sex, religion, nationality, and in most places, sexual orientation. Aside from that, those universities are only subject to whatever requirements of federal law are in place to allow said schools to be eligible to receive student loan disbursements.

Disaffiliating doesn't have to have all of the negative risk management implications and with any quality national group, disaffiliation would come with concerned and careful supervision by the HQ and local alumni. In most of the cases where you have disaffiliation it is done specifically because the organization doesn't want to follow rules imposed by the school or interfraternal community. Those rules are probably in most cases dealing with drugs, alcohol and hazing.

When the school or IFC, however, ups that ante and instead of just proscribing, hazing, drugs and underage drinking, they proscribe gatherings of three or more members, pledging and initiation activities and any kind of organized activities of any time, unless we're talking about that only being for a short period of time as it looks to be in these recent examples, we may experience a crossing of the Rubicon in that chapters aren't disaffiliating in order to engage in risky conduct, but rather they are disaffiliating to engage in some--any--kind of conduct. If the school presents the option of disaffiliation or relinquishing recognition, the later seems to be the safer bet.

And the police aren't going to start coming after you as if you are gang unless you are actually acting as a gang. Disaffiliation doesn't necessarily have to include going off the rails and in fact the same institutional safeguards which keep most chapters from hazing or having other issues can still remain in place and work well without help from the university.