Not so, I'm afraid. Due process is guaranteed by SAE's national Fraternity Laws (available publicly
here). Pursuant to Section 46C6 of the Fraternity Laws, the national president, with the consent of the Supreme Council, may
suspend a charter and refer the matter with his report to the next Fraternity Convention for a final determination to be made there. Nowhere in the Fraternity Laws is the national president or the Supreme Council granted the authority to
revoke a charter, such authority being reserved exclusively to the Fraternity Convention. That chant goes against everything SAE stands for, so those who participated in or otherwise supported it absolutely should be held to answer for it, but the revocation of that chapter's charter was technically illegal. Having personally attended SAE's national leadership school, I can confirm that no such chant or any other is or has ever been part of the curriculum of that program. The only songs you'll find officially sanctioned by SAE, nevermind taught at the leadership school, are
these.
The Supreme Council set a precedent for exercising authority properly reserved to the Convention just last year with the implementation of the True Gentleman Experience ("TGE" / elimination of the pledging program). At the center of both the OU issue and the previous issue with the implementation of the TGE last year is the following single sentence:
The national president and Supreme Council are hanging their collective hat on the word 'represent' and whether that means that the Supreme Council in fact possesses the full power and authority of the Fraternity Convention while the latter is not in session vs. whether they are simply stewards of that authority in the interim.
One example is sufficient to illustrate this point, which is in the context of the TGE program implemented last year.
If you consider Section 21A in the context of the entire body of the Fraternity Laws, in particular considering Sections 6, 9A, 12C, 12E, 12G, 73A, and 73B, it becomes abundantly clear that any decision to amend or repeal any portion of the Fraternity Laws or of the Ritual may only be accomplished by a supermajority vote of those entitled to a seat at the Convention, then only after prior written notice, and
then only if the undergraduates possess a majority of the votes to be cast. Quite simply, the Supreme Council does not have the authority they asserted when the TGE was announced.
What happens if the 2015 Convention repeals this new program? When asked this very question, Deran Abernathy, Associate Executive Director for the Fraternity, explicitly confirmed that in the event the next Convention rejects and repeals this new program, the Supreme Council could “re-up” the program as soon as the Convention had adjourned. This is not rumor or hearsay, I spoke on the phone personally with Deran and had this very conversation.
Let's think about this for a moment. The Fraternity Convention is supposed to be the highest authority of government within our Fraternity, explicitly superior to that of the Supreme Council (Sections 6 and 9A), and is the very body to which an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Council may be taken (Section 78B). The Fraternity Convention is only in session for three days at a time once every two years; but during the other 99% of the time the Convention does not cease to exist. Its membership may still be consulted by direct mail ballot as provided for in Section 12E, which allows for a relatively brief maximum turn around time before a decision may be made. If we are to believe the current Supreme Council's interpretation of the word 'represent,' then that renders the entire biennial Convention both moot and meaningless, as the Supreme Council would have full power and authority to entirely disregard the orders of the Fraternity Convention and do whatever the hell they want during all but three days every two years. This would also mean that an appeal to the "Fraternity Convention" of a decision of the Supreme Council would effectively mean appealing to the Supreme Council regarding a decision of the Supreme Council and all the conflict of interest and bias that implies. The notion that the Supreme Council 'representing' the Fraternity Convention necessarily means they have the full power and authority of the Convention defies logic as well as due process.
In the present case at OU, certainly a swift and decisive response was warranted, but I and others are firmly convinced that the national president and Supreme Council were more motivated by the PR value of revoking OKKA's charter than they were with the legality of doing so or of the due process owed to their members, some of whom may actually be innocent in this, nevermind the Supreme Council's current efforts to pursue expulsion proceedings against every single member of that chapter. Guilty until proven otherwise, it would seem.
The following are SAE's national president's own words as posted earlier this week on Facebook, which I will let speak for themselves:
Hybrid Mode
