Dartmouth sororities announce new policy

[LocalLove9]

So basically: Brother is at bar, yells something incredibly hurtful and offensive at girl talking to another brother. Girl throws her drink on him. He throws a blender (or bottle, accounts differ) at her head, then shoves her up against a wall, at which point his brothers have to drag him off. Should she have thrown her drink? no. Was what he said bad? yeah, it was.

Knight_Shadow, I get what you're saying about bylaws, but keep in mind the strong local culture at Dartmouth....very few of the fraternities in question are national, and the ones that are still answer to chapter alumni boards to a far greater degree than national orgs.

It's not about fraternities policing themselves as sororities see fit, its about them policing themselves. period. Holding your members accountable for their actions is not an unreasonable request. No one is asking their members not to go to the fraternity in question; its actually a house that generally has a reputation for being nice guys, in general. But what happened wasn't okay, and a lot of things that happen on this campus aren't okay. And when we as houses schedule events despite really not okay things getting shoved under the rug, we're kinda complicit in their continuing to happen. So when something isn't okay, we're going to let the organization know that, by canceling social events until it is addressed.

[KSig RC]

There are potential downsides to this sort of "self-policing" though - in the example used as catalyst here, for instance, if the events unfolded in such a way that it became a criminal matter, police should have been involved instead of Panhel. There exists the potential for Panhel Policing to take precedence in the minds of some over good old fashioned police, which is a dangerous place to exist. If a violent event doesn't rise to a criminal level, now you've allowed a sort of pseudo-law to intervene - one that is poorly framed, and potentially administered by the victims themselves. That's a week's worth of red flags, isn't it?

Second, saying "if sororities want to mix with XYZ, they still can" is a bit short-sighted - this creates an official (and hard to fight) method to put pressure on other sororities to NOT mix with the fraternity, and it will be VERY hard for one chapter to fight the rest.

Third, the policy has no teeth, and does nothing to address the fundamental (or underlying) problem of gender violence.

I guess this just seems like a poor way to fight the real problem - if we're promoting accountability, then promote accountability, because enforcing accountability is a contradiction in terms.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

There are potential downsides to this sort of "self-policing" though - in the example used as catalyst here, for instance, if the events unfolded in such a way that it became a criminal matter, police should have been involved instead of Panhel.

I definitely agree with this.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by agzg

I definitely agree with this.

Ditto, however I disagree with his point that 'peer pressure' shouldn't also be used here. If the chapters aren't taking accountability, then yeah pushing them to is a GOOD thing. If there comes a point where the fraternities are doing everything or even are all putting in a good faith effort, and feel like they're being punished unfairly they can make their case.

If the options are 'encouraging accountability' resulting in none, and quasi-enforcing it with social and public pressure... then yeah I'll take the latter. And that goes for any situation, not just this one. Our orgs have certainly made stands against changes in the past, and are capable of doing so again if the bridge is worth dying on. But this isn't that bridge.


Re: Chapter Bylaws - aren't chapter bylaws usually varied by campus anyway? If only for minimum campus GPAs, but I'd think for an assortment of other things. Whether or not adding something like this into their bylaws would be an option or not depends on the org, but it's not necessarily a strange concept.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Ditto, however I disagree with his point that 'peer pressure' shouldn't also be used here. If the chapters aren't taking accountability, then yeah pushing them to is a GOOD thing.

I don't disagree with the concept, I was simply noting that group pressure used for good also comes with concomitant downsides.

If the options are 'encouraging accountability' resulting in none, and quasi-enforcing it with social and public pressure... then yeah I'll take the latter. And that goes for any situation, not just this one.

If this dilemma were true, I'd agree. I'm certain it's false, though - I applaud the sororities for taking action, which is generally better than inaction, and I hope it has the desired effect. I just think there is an unfortunate non-zero chance it will have unintended effects.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't disagree with the concept, I was simply noting that group pressure used for good also comes with concomitant downsides.



If this dilemma were true, I'd agree. I'm certain it's false, though - I applaud the sororities for taking action, which is generally better than inaction, and I hope it has the desired effect. I just think there is an unfortunate non-zero chance it will have unintended effects.

Probably so, but it's far better than nothing. And while it's not a true dichotomy, there are other options, I don't know a better solution when the schools themselves are not exactly champions of the victims' rights. Also it came from the women themselves, which says a lot. It wasn't imposed from above and won't be pressure from the institution, but will be peer pressure.

And if this pressures the fraternity guys to pressure those among them NOT to be rapists... and to deal with the ones who do it anyway.. well good.

The benefits could be far greater than any negative side effects. Putting it into practice will make the difference.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Also it came from the women themselves, which says a lot.

Agreed, and it's pretty cool in that way.

The benefits could be far greater than any negative side effects. Putting it into practice will make the difference.

Also agreed - I hope there is some follow-up in that regard.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by LocalLove9

Knight_Shadow, I get what you're saying about bylaws, but keep in mind the strong local culture at Dartmouth....very few of the fraternities in question are national, and the ones that are still answer to chapter alumni boards to a far greater degree than national orgs.

Local or not, they answer to their own boards, not to Panhellenic.

Holding your members accountable for their actions is not an unreasonable request.

Again, this is true, but I read this as Panhellic saying "Please do a better job of holding your members accountable. If we don't like the way you're holding them accountable, we're not going to mix with you. Change your bylaws until we like them." That's none of their business. If my organization feels that the proper steps are A, B, and C, Panhellenic (or MGC or whatever) shouldn't be able to tell us to do D, E, and F instead.

Although, as agzg said, at the end of the day it's only "mixer probation," but that may be OMG THE WORST to 18-21 year old fraternity guys.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

if the events unfolded in such a way that it became a criminal matter, police should have been involved instead of Panhel.

Agreed x100

[exlurker]

Friday May 13, 2011 editorial in the College's student paper addresses the issue(s), or at least some of the issues:

http://thedartmouth.com/2011/05/13/opinion/verbum

Excerpt:

. . . It has been exciting and empowering to see female leaders finally coming together to take decisive action in hopes of protecting other female students. Sorority leaders have taken the grave matter of assault into their own hands, rather than relegating their complaints to discussion forums and demanding that the administration create and police anti-assault initiatives. Their policy is a much-needed, meaningful attempt to exert female agency over the Greek system and acknowledge that female students can combat the abuses that go on within campus social spaces.

While we applaud the courage and conviction of the women who are finally demanding accountability from fraternity members, we have serious reservations about the policy’s implementation.

Using a specific event as the catalyst for the policy has forced Panhellenic presidents to act hastily, leaving many logistical questions unanswered and many students confused about the decision’s broader implications. Perhaps most troublesome is the lack of clarity about what standard of proof will be used to determine when a house should be sanctioned. So far, no guidelines have been finalized or released to explain how sororities will deal with he-said she-said accusations that often cannot be corroborated by eyewitnesses. We are also concerned that an internal adjudication board composed of fraternity members does not have the resources and training to deal with an assault committed by one of the fraternity’s own. Finally, it is important to establish how internal fraternity disciplinary action will interact with College or police action. . . . .

Please note the paper's disclosure: "Opinion editor and Inter-Fraternity Council president Kevin Niparko recused himself from participating in the composition of this Verbum Ultimum. The remaining five members of The Dartmouth Editorial Board are members of sororities."

[33girl]

I think it would be funny if fraternities didn't like the way that girls were running rush - specifically, they were upset that XYZ Chapter President's baby sister got cut from the group she wanted - and they decided to stop having mixers with the sororities until they got their heads straight.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I think it would be funny if fraternities didn't like the way that girls were running rush - specifically, they were upset that XYZ Chapter President's baby sister got cut from the group she wanted - and they decided to stop having mixers with the sororities until they got their heads straight.

*thumbs up*

That's why I think this is too much of a slippery slope.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I think it would be funny if fraternities didn't like the way that girls were running rush - specifically, they were upset that XYZ Chapter President's baby sister got cut from the group she wanted - and they decided to stop having mixers with the sororities until they got their heads straight.

I think this absolutely happens. The difference is that you wouldn't see all of the other fraternities jump on board. I have definitely seen relations between one sorority and one fraternity sour over less.

[katydidKD]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I think this absolutely happens. The difference is that you wouldn't see all of the other fraternities jump on board. I have definitely seen relations between one sorority and one fraternity sour over less.

I've also heard of this happening (on a less scale) Literally, XYZ Fraternity President's little sister was cut from BBB sorority, and XYZ and BBB were super close. No boycott, but sour feelings.