Drexel Delta Sigma Phi: Alumni Close Chapter for Website Pics, etc.

exlurker · #1 06-29-2007, 05:10 PM

Excerpt from article in the June 29 '07 online edition of the Drexel paper:

. . . alumni of Delta Sigma Phi fraternity decided to suspend the Gamma Chi chapter at Drexel University June 13 amid allegations of X-rated pictures of female Drexel students being posted on the group's internal Web site.

The current undergraduate members have been removed from the fraternity house, located at 214 N. 34th Street. The chapter will be reorganized in fall. . . .

See entire article at:

http://media.www.thetriangle.org/med...-2919832.shtml

SWTXBelle · #2 06-30-2007, 07:33 AM

Once again - do NOT post anything on any site related to your GLO that you would not be proud for your Headquarters to see!

jon1856 · #3 06-30-2007, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Once again - do NOT post anything on any site related to your GLO that you would not be proud for your Headquarters to see!

HQ was not the party involved, at least the way I read the story.
Not sure how the chapters Alumin groups had/has so much power.

Either way, seems to be doing to right thing.

SWTXBelle · #4 06-30-2007, 12:21 PM

I didn't mean to imply that headquarters was involved - what I was trying to convey is the idea that anything you post should be able to be shown to headquarters - in other words, that it would pass inspection from HQ. If you live by that rule, you don't have to worry about what actives, alumni, fellow greeks, or college administrators might see.
I've known of several incidents where pictures posted of things the GLO should not have been doing have jumped up to bite them on the butt.
I do think the Delta Sigma Phis seem to be handling this in a really pro-active, concerned way, and I hope they come back stronger than ever.

Tom Earp · #5 07-01-2007, 10:43 AM

OOPs!

Many times, depending on the situation, the Alumni can have the power after working with their IHQ to have the chapter removed or suspended.

If it is a strong Alumni Association and they own the Chapter house, it is hard to refuse them.

Of course, it was a silly thing of them to psot something like this openly as it will get out someway somehow.

TSteven · #6 07-01-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1856

HQ was not the party involved, at least the way I read the story.

Not sure how the chapters Alumni groups had/has so much power.

Either way, seems to be doing to right thing.

As Tom noted, this may be a situation where HQ officially closes the chapter based on alumni input. Or maybe where HQ "gives" the authority to close the chapter to the alumni. Either way, the "power" to close the chapter may lie with the chapter alumni because of their (alumni) input.

Bottom line is that with many fraternities, when the chapter alumni are asking for *their* chapter to be closed or suspended, HQ listens - and acts.

And as Tom pointed out, if the alumni association is strong, then HQ is often more confident that they - the alumni - will help with the re-charting (or supervising a suspension as the case may be) of the chapter.

UGAalum94 · #7 07-01-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSteven

Bottom line is that with many fraternities, when the chapter alumni are asking for *their* chapter to be closed or suspended, HQ listens - and acts.

I know I generally would if it were up to me.

Although I've read about at least one occasion where fraternity alumni have dragged the chapter into their own little turf war (or at least that was the allegation of some active members), most of the time, I think you could expect the alumni chapter to be very interested in the success and existence of the chapter. If they are the ones most interested in pulling the plug, you probably have a big problem on your hands.

And if the allegations here are true, yuck. I know you can't always depend on college guys to have good judgment, but if you're using you chapter website for that you probably have some really creepy guys.

(Anyone else troubled by the "delete first, sort out the punishment later" aspect of how it was handled though?
If there's a discrepancy between what was alleged to have been linked and what the guys confessed too, shouldn't
they on some level have the right to clear their names? Not that you couldn't close the chapter just for linking to bad facebook pictures rather than porn, but it seems a little wrong to me to not allow them the opportunity of clearing up the worst allegations. Removing any outside links is certainly in the interest of any women pictured, but truly deleting the site deprives the guys of any defense. )