University fo Okahoma-Sigma Alpha Epsilon-Racial Chant

[exlurker]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

"A racist organization doesn’t elect a Jewish immigrant from South Africa as its national President. " So wrote Brad Cohen.

Excuse me, sir, ever hear of tokenism? And, FYI: you're Caucasian, aka WHITE. Yes, you're Jewish, but you're WHITE/Caucasian. That's your RACE. Judaism is a religion, not a race. Maybe you meant to write "bigoted" or "prejudiced" or "discriminatory"? I dunno.

This is just getting worse and worse. Cohen didn't help by posting on FB, not at all. The editorial made some valid points, I agree.

SAE president Cohen has apologized to OU's president for what was written on Facebook:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/educa...698546a8d.html

[DubaiSis]

Thank you for the thorough (and cited) essay on the issue. If I may boil this down, you think SAE didn't handle the situation correctly according to your bylaws but the excuses given at the collegiate level are a load of hooey.

But I have a question. You can't possibly wait 2 years between conventions to pull charters but it sounds like this is only the fully legitimate way to get it done. Do I have that right?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

But I have a question. You can't possibly wait 2 years between conventions to pull charters but it sounds like this is only the fully legitimate way to get it done. Do I have that right?

I assume that this is how the situation can be handled between conventions, though obviously SAEalumnus can correct me if I'm wrong:

Originally Posted by SAEalumnus

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.

Or perhaps it's that the Supreme Council can suspend but only the Convention every two years can revoke?

I'd say that SAE is in for a very interesting convention this summer.

[SAEalumnus]

The chapter at OU is (was) among the largest in the country at something on the order of 160 members. Let's suppose for a moment that this chant was accepted by essentially all of their members as a part of their chapter's "culture." In such a case, the charter should be revoked and all 160 members expelled, which is precisely what the national officers are currently attempting to do. I believe those involved knew exactly what they were doing, no matter whether they were bigots spewing hatred or douchebags pursuing shock value, so I don't believe for a minute any comments aimed at blame shifting or trying to mitigate their responsibility for their own actions. If a member's conduct is such that he disgraces himself and his character to the point that the Fraternity is nothing more than a name to him, our Ritual mandates that he be expelled. No exceptions, no questions asked. What we don't know is what proportion of those 160 members were actually responsible for this. It may well have been damned near 100%, but it may also have been a relatively small fraction or anywhere in between. Until it is established by a trial that a member is, in fact, guilty, and then by a separate vote as to what penalty should be imposed, he is still a Brother in SAE and is still entitled to due process.

If some portion of those 160-odd members were opposed to / didn't support this chant and constitute enough of a group of guys to keep a chapter running, then the Convention might consider expelling the members who caused the problem, but restoring the charter for the benefit of those who were found fit to wear our badge, if any. In other words, those responsible should in every case be expelled, but if the problem could be remediated to the point of allowing the upstanding remainder of the chapter's members to function as a chapter, perhaps under the temporary guardianship of an alumni commission, then an option like that is possible. Having said that, if OU has revoked their local recognition and banned SAE from ever returning during the current campus president's tenure (nevermind Brad Cohen's personal comments about OU's president), the odds of the Convention defying the university and supporting a chapter otherwise fall somewhere between slim and none without a seriously compelling and nationally defensible reason. SAE's current national leadership has demonstrated a particular sensitivity to PR and headlines, even when published by sources hardly worthy of being considered legitimate "news," so the Convention and national leadership would have to be willing to fight a PR battle on behalf of OU's members if they were ever to entertain restoring their charter. As a practical matter, I have zero expectation of that happening.

The Fraternity Convention, and only the Fraternity Convention, possesses the authority to grant or to revoke a charter. Period.

This is, in fact, common practice as far as I am aware. For example, within the Masonic Grand Lodge of California (formally, the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of California), the Grand Lodge and only the Grand Lodge has the authority to issue (Section 801.010, et seq. of the California Masonic Code ["CMC"]) or to revoke (813.030 CMC, et seq.) a charter. The Grand Master has the authority to grant a Dispensation, under which a local group must function for a time as a prerequisite to obtaining a charter (analogous to Colony recognition), but even the substantial authority and autonomy enjoyed by the Grand Master does not extend to granting or revoking a charter. The most recent charter to be revoked occurred just this past October at our Annual Communication of Grand Lodge and followed an original suspension of the charter in December 2011 and an investigation and demands for corrective action by no fewer than four Past Grand Masters before ultimately being revoked almost four years later by a vote of 89.8% of the members of Grand Lodge. The then-current (now Past) Grand Master was able to recommend the revocation of the charter in question, but could not unilaterally take that action himself. As a matter of fact, IIRC two different Past Grand Masters involved in the situation participated in the discussion while the motion was on the floor, but even then it required a vote of the Grand Lodge, over 70% of the members of which are the Master and Wardens [president and vice presidents] of the various constituent Lodges and only about 5% of whom are current or past Grand Lodge Officers combined. The supreme governing authority is vested in the constituent members collectively, not in the handful of Grand Lodge officers individually, or even in the Grand Master himself. The same is true of SAE and its Eminent Supreme Archon ("ESA" or national president) and its Supreme Council vs. the constituent, and most importantly undergraduate, membership.

The Supreme Council has three options with which to legally dispose of OKKA's charter:
1) Section 12A -- At a regular biennial session of the Fraternity Convention, a vote can be taken as to revocation per Section 46C7; or
2) Section 12B -- A special session of the Fraternity Convention can be called to attend to this specific purpose, though this is likely the least practical option; or
3) Section 12E -- A direct mail ballot is sent out to those entitled to a seat at the Convention and any votes not returned within 21 days are assumed to be affirmative.

As it happens, the next Fraternity Convention will take place the third weekend of June this year, which is not all that long from now. Nevertheless, a direct mail ballot sent out on the question of whether or not to revoke OKKA's charter would reach a decision upon the sooner of 1) at least 2/3rds of the mailed ballots coming back in favor of revocation, or 2) 21 days having elapsed since the ballot was mailed. Three weeks or less, that's it. If the Supreme Council, or the ESA on the SC's behalf, had mailed out such a ballot the same night they held their conference call to "revoke" OKKA's charter, the 21-day window would have expired this past weekend and a decision would already have been made. The ESA would just not have been able to claim he acted before OU did, thus sacrificing the PR advantage for the sake of following our own governing code.

In any event, no matter what the disciplinary situation, no matter how repugnant the behavior, no matter how much the national organization gets hammered in the press, neither the ESA, nor the Supreme Council possesses the authority to either grant or to revoke a chapter's charter. The Fraternity Convention and only the Fraternity Convention has that authority. This coming Convention will definitely be interesting. I know for a fact that a package of 20 proposed resolutions was submitted for consideration at this Convention, for all of which I was among the co-signers and on one of which, directly relevant to this subject matter, I was a principal author. I'm not personally aware of any other submissions as the usual pre-Convention publication used for providing that notice has not yet been published, but it would not surprise me to find that others were also sent in sounding off on the Supreme Council's recent power grabs. The fact of the matter is our five elected national officers (excluding our Eminent Supreme Recorder / executive director, who is technically not a member of the Supreme Council) constitute a progressive line -- just like the Masons, actually. You tend to get elected first to the lowest ranking position, then to each succeeding position at two-year intervals until you're finally elected national president. Accordingly, a national officer remains a member of the Supreme Council for 10 consecutive years from the start of his term as Eminent Supreme Chronicler to the end of his term as Eminent Supreme Archon. The only time that changes is if those positions are contested and other member(s) get elected in lieu of the presumptive candidate(s). In my personal opinion, the entire Supreme Council should be voted out of office and an entirely new group of five officers, willing to strictly adhere to our Laws and Ritual, elected in their place. Playing fast and loose with either the Laws or the Ritual, or both as the current Supreme Council has done, is a recipe for disaster.

[SOM]

Sorry-President Boren is the one who is deflecting and slitting hairs. In fact IMVHO he is making a part. “I received a letter of apology from him (Thursday),” Boren told Matthews. “He had made a Facebook post and then immediately or very quickly took it down. He’s trying to draw a distinction between hearing a chant at the national convention and learning a chant, and I said ‘No, don’t waste your time splitting hairs, let’s talk about moral issues.’” The moral issue starts at his campus. His campus population. And this was very wrong as posting was NEVER taken down-Posting is STILL up on Facebook. So one really should start to wonder just what else he is not saying correctly.

[SOM]

Fraternity president discusses OU bus video, Boren http://okne.ws/1CWLQCW?utm_source=Ne...areBar-Twitter

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by lake

I'm glad there are going to be consequences for these students. I was embarrassed to hear Tri Delta(s) were involved. I do have a question though: It was mentioned above about how free speech is all about the government not limiting your speech, blah blah blah. But in this case, the president of this university is acting on behalf of a state university, so isn't that, in essence, the government interfering with these students' right to free speech?

Possibly.

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

I'm surprised that I don't see anyone claiming that the actions by President Boren are a violation of the two expelled students Constitutional right to free speech under The First Amendment to the US Constitution.

I think that's the case here, even though I agree with Boren and SAE Nationals actions. Entirely.

I think Kevin hits it right. They know there's a chance a court would say they violated his First Amendment rights, which is why they've attempted to predicate their decision on things other than the speech itself, but they think action now is worth the risk.

I will now go quietly back into Greek Chat hibernation for another few years.

Please don't!

Originally Posted by Kevin

There are good arguments on both sides... and I don't think the school cares whether they have to pay a settlement. They just want to get rid of this.

Yep.

[exlurker]

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...o_bucknel.html

Bucknell reportedly (above) is talking with SAE about delaying the fraternity’s return to the school. The concern that a Bucknell administrator expresses is that it might be difficult or "impossible" for SAE to get a good (re-) start while the Oklahoma chant controversy is going on.

Whether that concern is reasonable or not, I don’t know. When I recall the aftermath of the DZ-DePauw debacle, though, I can well imagine something similar -- a period of perhaps several years where SAE might find it tough to colonize at a lot of places. A big difference of course could be in the differences in the NPC and fraternity processes for extension.