The Greek System at Santa Clara University
Contents
Greek System UPCSA Recommendations Decision
Santa Clara University
Office of the President
500 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, California 95035-0015
408-554-4100
www.scu.edu
March 21, 2001
TO: Members of the University Policy Committee on Student Affairs
FROM: Paul L. Locatelli, S.J.
In October, Provost Denise Carmody charged the University Policy Committee on Student Affairs (UPCSA) with a review of fraternities and sororities at Santa Clara University. The purpose of the review was to determine if the presence of fraternities and sororities contribute positively to building a vital community of scholars whose members collaborate as partners in learning and scholarship. The UPCSA issued their recommendations and substantial documentation to Dr. Carmody on February 28. After considering the materials that were presented and meeting with various campus constituencies, Dr. Carmody submitted her recommendation to me on March 16.
Both the Committee's report and Dr. Carmody have emphasized the need to make significant improvements in the student life environment at Santa Clara. I fully agree with their observations. To this end, we will take several steps in the next few months to enhance student life on campus:
We will depend heavily on students to help us to design and implement these changes.
Some efforts are already underway. A group of students, staff, and faculty are working collaboratively on expanding social programming and developing necessary changes to the Benson Memorial Center. Among the specific options under review are transforming California Fresh into a food and programming venue primarily for students, recapturing more informal lounge space throughout the building, and providing student access to the Internet. While the Benson Memorial Center will continue to serve multiple users by day, the building needs to take on a "hang-out" feel for students by night. I have asked for both a short term and long range plan to refocus the Benson Memorial Center as a student center that can serve as a place for vibrant social interaction and community building among students.
To achieve the community we envision, the University must aggressively support priorities that will benefit the greatest number of students, encourage friendships and understanding among individuals and groups, and align finite resources strategically to promote these goals. We, however, have limited financial and human resources to accomplish these much needed changes. The University must support those areas of student life that reach the greatest number of our students.
As we move forward with these enhancements to student life, I do not believe the best interest of the University is served by continuing to support sororities and fraternities. I have asked Jeanne Rosenberger, Dean of Student Life and Leadership, and her staff to work with the current members of sororities and fraternities, their advisors, and their national offices to recommend a sensitive and orderly transition to closure of the chapters by June 2003. Many exceptional individuals who embody all that is good about Santa Clara have been members during the years that we have had fraternities and sororities on campus, and we honor them. Dr. Carmody recommended that current members of Greek organizations be able to maintain their affiliation until they graduate, but that no new members be added, and I have accepted that recommendation.
I appreciate the work of the UPCSA, under the leadership of Dr. David Pleins, as well as the cooperation and leadership exhibited by the members of the Inter Greek Council and the fraternity and sorority chapters. I am grateful to the Provost for the care and compassion she has demonstrated in her own review and counsel as well as other faculty and administrative staff. The full text of the UPCSA report and a copy of this letter can be found on the University website at http://www.scu.edu/provost/docs/greek-review/. Specific questions about the implementation of the decision should be directed to Jeanne Rosenberger, Dean of Student Life and Leadership.
This has been a difficult decision and one that carries great weight. I know some students will be greatly disappointed; however, I trust that students, faculty, and staff can work together through this transition. We have the opportunity to create an expanded, richer social environment for all. In this way, we will continue to develop our community through the "shared values amidst diversity, close personal relationships, effective communications, respect for others, and an engaged concern for the common good of the campus, community, and the global society" as articulated in the University's Strategic Plan.
Initial Response to the Committee Recommendations regarding the Greek System
Office of the President
500El Camino Real
Santa Clara, California
95035-0015
408-554-4100
March 2, 2001
To: Members of the University Policy Committee on Student Affairs
From: Paul Locatelli, S.J. and Denise Carmody
Re: Initial Response to the Committee Recommendations regarding the Greek
System
First, we want to thank you for the time, diligence, and effort that went into your review of the Greek system at Santa Clara. You have made many important points relative to both the Greek system and student life in general at the University. From a first reading and preliminary discussion of the recommendations, we offer the following initial responses:
We want to make it clear that our decision regarding the Greek system should not be seen as a reflection on members of Greek organizations at Santa Clara. Many of those individuals have made outstanding contributions to academic and student life over the years. These graduates, many of whom have written letters in support of their Greek experience, are positive examples of a Santa Clara education.
As the next step in this review process, the Provost requests a meeting with the committee to discuss the above responses to the committee’s recommendations before announcing a final decision. Under the governance model, the committee is free to respond to our decision and, if warranted, to request a review of the decision by the Board of Trustees.
University Policy Committee Charge
Office of the Provost
500 El Camino Real
Santa Clara, California
95035-0015
408-554-4533
www.scu.edu
October 11, 2000
J. David Pleins, Chair
University Policy Committee on Student Affairs
Department of Religious Studies
Bannan Hall 347
Santa Clara University
Dear David: I am asking the University Policy Committee on Student Affairs to conduct a review of fraternities and sororities on the Santa Clara University campus. The purpose of the review will be to determine whether the presence of fraternities and sororities contributes positively to building a vital community of scholars whose members collaborate as partners in learning and scholarship to provide an integrated educational experience. Student affiliation groups are an important means for achieving the sense of community that Santa Clara seeks to achieve. The review will help us determine whether fraternities and sororities contribute to or detract from the experience of community for all Santa Clarans that is grounded in the intellectual life of the University. The specific charge of the University Policy Committee is to recommend whether the University should continue its recognition and support of fraternities and sororities at Santa Clara.
A cherished core value of the University is a commitment to community and diversity and the roots that must sustain it: "shared values amidst diversity, close personal relationships, effective communication, respect for others, and an engaged concern for the common good of the campus, the local community, and the global society" (Santa Clara University Strategic Plan 1998, p. 3). It is a goal of the University to enhance the intellectual and cultural focus of undergraduate student life by connecting co-curricular programs more closely with curricular programs, strengthening the role of residential learning communities, and fostering a community governed by common standards. It is also a goal of the University to increase diversity among faculty, staff, and students, with special emphasis on members of historically underrepresented ethnic groups, as a critical part of our efforts to promote justice, enrich the learning environment, and enhance humanity for all members of our community. The exclusivity often associated with Greek life brings into question its compatibility with our emphasis on community and the inclusiveness that our commitment to diversity implies. Continuing incidents of behavioral misconduct by members of Greek organizations (e.g., hazing, acquaintance rape, excessive alcohol consumption) also call into question the place these organizations have in the environment. The review will help us determine whether fraternities and sororities are the type of student experience that the University should support to achieve the sense of community that is envisioned.
I am asking that the committee complete the review and make its recommendation to me by the middle of February. Given this timeline for a recommendation on possible changes in Greek life at the University, I am deferring rush until I receive and review the committee’s recommendations. In addition, I have asked the Inter Greek Council to place on hold the current consideration of expansion of multicultural fraternities and sororities. The staff of the Center for Student Leadership will continue to work with the Inter Greek Council leadership and support its educational efforts over the course of the review.
I am confident that the committee will be judicious in their collection of information to provide a thorough and balanced review of fraternities and sororities. I look forward to receiving the results of the committee’s review and its recommendations on the future of fraternities and sororities at Santa Clara.
Sincerely,
Denise L. Carmody
Provost
Cc:
Philip Riley
Vice Provost for Undergraduate Learning
Jeanne Rosenberger
Dean for Student Life and leadership
Jonathan Gray
Interim Director, Center for Student Leadership
The Greek System at Santa Clara University
Recommendations Regarding the Greek System
Issued by the Student Affairs University Policy Committee
February 2001
A. The Committee’s Charge:
Early in fall quarter 2000, the Provost requested that the Student Affairs University Policy Committee conduct a review of Greek organizations on campus with a view to ascertaining whether or not these organizations are compatible with the University’s mission and whether or not the conduct infractions of these organizations warrant their continued recognition on campus. The full charge of the Provost is contained in her letter which is included in the documentation attached as appendices to this set of recommendations. After several sessions in which the committee deliberated the meaning of the charge and questions to be answered through committee investigations, the rest of fall 2000 and the month of January 2001 were devoted to a series of consultations with a variety of constituencies who offered input and advice to the committee. The committee insisted from the start that the process be a fair and full study of the issue. Although time was of the essence, because delays might force Greek organizations into disrepair without the annual Rush dates, we nonetheless felt that a February 2001 reporting date would serve the needs of all concerned, the UPC, the Administration, and the Greek organizations.
B. Constituencies Consulted and the Basic Findings:
1. Inter-Greek Council: The UPC elected to begin with the Inter-Greek Council, the main oversight and judicial body of the Greek system. This is a student run body that interfaces with the university through a staff advisor, although for this process no advisor actively assisted the IGC in its presentation to the committee. By going first, the IGC was encouraged to put its best foot forward, but also to be candid about the needs and challenges facing Greek organizations on campus. From the start, both the achievements and the challenges of the Greek system were on the table for the committee’s deliberation. While there may be disagreement among the various constituencies we consulted as to the dismantling of the entire Greek system, all would appear to agree that the challenges constitute grounds for further improvement among SCU’s Greek organizations. The IGC has presented the committee with three major items: an extensive dossier on the Greek system at SCU, a Power Point presentation on the Greek system at SCU, and a written version of the speeches the IGC leadership presented before the committee at the start of the UPC’s data gathering process. They are attached as part of the appendices to this report. The committee wishes to observe that while our own study focused of necessity on negative factors, the IGC’s report highlights the positive accomplishments of our roughly 400 plus Greek students, many of whom are among our best students and who are involved in campus organizations outside the Greek system.
2. The Dean of Student Life and Leadership: Specifically we called on the Dean of Student Life and Leadership to present us with a detailed picture of the conduct situation with respect to Greek organizations. Rather than relying on anecdotes and hearsay, which we found could be wildly inaccurate or reflect merely the biases of the teller, we wanted solid data regarding conduct problems in the Greek system over the past several years. Clearly from the attached Power Point presentation and statistics presented by the Dean, there are serious judicial matters that have come to light and been remediated during this period in relation to several of the fraternities. In general, matters such as hazing, alcohol abuse, and harassment garnered the greatest attention from the committee. Such practices are unacceptable to the life of the university and the effects on the safety and well-being of our students were issues on the minds of the committee during the entire course of its data gathering and deliberation. However, the Dean’s presentation also made us aware that some of these activities, particularly alcohol abuse, are endemic to the general student life at SCU. At times this complicated our thinking since it was not always clear when conduct infractions were unique to Greeks and when they were part of more widespread practices that should not be blamed on the Greek system as such. In other words, it would be naive to think that the bulk of objectionable student behaviors can be isolated to the Greek system and that with the total suspension of the Greek system our campus will become a safer, tolerant, and alcohol free environment.
3. The Housing Office and Benson Center: While the committee’s charge was to look specifically at Greeks on campus, it became immediately clear that the issue could not be neatly disentangled from the pressures and constraints of student life on campus. The Housing Office, under Linda Franke, Director of Housing and Residence Life, offered pertinent data on the changing housing situations of students, a factor that plays into conduct problems that emerge both among Greeks and non-Greeks. The attached documents and statistics indicate that while 95% of first year students live on campus and 80% of sophomores, the vast majority of upperclassmen live off campus, whether by choice or by force of necessity since on-campus housing has to be restricted to lowerclassmen. Only with the advent of Sobrato has the university sought to address this issue, but its 244 residents and its restrictive admissions policy (a policy that is not objected to by the committee) hardly puts a dent in the numbers of students who elect to remain off campus. In some small measure, the Greek off-campus residences serves a need by offering upperclassmen places to live that are both linked to campus and are close to campus. In addition, Matt Cameron’s report (Director of the Benson Center) on the Benson Center (also attached) makes it clear that the center has gradually become more of an office building and a conference or meeting center than a student activities center. Beyond cafeteria-like eating spaces, there is little in the way of student space that would encourage students to simply "hang out" and enjoy a measure of community together. Competition even for activity space is at a premium with a variety of non-student groups and so once again we find that student life by force of necessity devolves to off campus venues, including area bars, Greek houses, and non-Greek party houses. The UPC has observed that whether by intention or by design the University has created a situation in which Greek houses and non-Greek houses off campus increasingly serve as a focal point for student life and entertainment, especially for upperclassmen. The lack of a vigorous University Student Center which would attract students to a healthy social life only exacerbates the situation. For those who have trouble with this notion, we must ask that they envision themselves as students on campus who find that it is 10 p.m. and their studies are done for the day. What would you do on campus for entertainment and social interaction? The UPC notes that the general student life issue is bound up in significant ways with the Greek question, even though as a committee we have tried to remain focused on the Greek system as such.
4. Multicultural Greek Organizations: The UPC also heard in a separate session from members of the newer multicultural Greek organizations. The committee was impressed by the clear dedication of these students to the principles of their organizations, to serious philanthropic work, to the university’s mission, and to the goal of not being organizations prone to conduct problems. The committee was also impressed by the fact that these students were working to break stereotypes regarding "minorities" on campus and that they represented a force for real change in a Greek system that has historically catered to a narrow ethnic focus. Unique to SCU is the way the IGC has been structured to bring together students from all ethnic groupings under a general umbrella. There seems to be promise here that both by the flourishing of these groups and by their combined rush activities, in practical ways barriers and misunderstandings can be overcome over time. (As an addendum we should note that some of the multicultural Greek members have shown an impatience with the IGC structure and appear not to view it in the same manner as the committee does.)
5. Greek System Advisors: The committee heard from two advisors to the Greek system who are older and thus more experienced with the longer term trends regarding Greek life at SCU and other campuses. Their statement is also attached to this set of recommendations. One of the advisors was in fact a former SCU student of high achievement and his presentation forcefully argued for the leadership qualities that can be fostered by Greek organizations and then transferred to later life situations. The committee has long pondered this claim that Greek organizations offer leadership opportunities that are unique to the Greek system and that our students would be the poorer for the loss of this contribution of Greek life to campus. The committee does recognize that Greek organizations can help hone student leadership skills. However, we do not agree that the claims that this is unique to Greeks or that by implication SCU students would find themselves severely lacking real leadership opportunities without the Greek system on campus. In fact, many Greeks are also leaders in a variety of non-Greek student organizations and they probably would still be involved even if there were no Greek organizations on campus. Since 85% of our students are not Greeks and since many find adequate leadership opportunities outside of the Greek structure, this particular claim came to carry less weight with the committee. This is not to say that we did not see value in Greek leadership opportunities, but simply that the claim, together with the supposed dire consequences of the dismantling of the Greek system on this point, was in the end not compelling to the committee. SCU affords all its students an education in life and leadership; this is not the sole preserve of the Greek system on campus.
6. Faculty Senate Council: A brief update was presented to the FSC and comments were elicited from the FSC members present. A summary of those comments is included in the attached minutes from that session. In general, faculty seemed particularly concerned about student misconduct around alcohol and harassment. The FSC issued no further statement to the committee on the matter.
7. The Student Senate: As a way to gather additional student opinion on the matter, the UPC offered a brief update to the Student Senate and elicited comment both from the senators present and the students who chose to attend the session, largely members of the Greek system. A video tape of this session was made and it is included in the appendix along with a written report from that session. Basically there were three types of comments: the Greek students were favorably disposed to the Greek system; a number of senators and speakers offered qualified support, suggesting that the Greek system should stay but that some of its excesses could be trimmed; and an articulate minority spoke out against the Greek system. In the latter case, one student took issue with what she saw to be shallow Greek philanthropic endeavors, favoring "justice" actions (which were not further delineated). The latter statement does raise a question about Greek philanthropic activities, yet the UPC tended to find that such endeavors were to be encouraged among our students as one among many ways of giving back something to the community.
8. General Student Opinion: In general the UPC feels comfortable with the level of student opinion that it has gathered and considered during this process. We have heard directly from Greek students through the IGC, the multicultural Greek organizations, and at the Student Senate Session. Also, we have had present on our committee one undergraduate who is in the Greek system and one graduate law student who is a former Greek member. In addition, from non-Greek students we have heard directly from the Student Senate chair who is on our committee and an undergraduate at-large student who is on the committee. Also, non-Greek students offered comments at the Student Senate session. In addition, numerous letters have come to the committee from sorority members and their parents (attached as part of the appendix). If there is any lack to our report, it is in our inability to further gauge the general non-Greek student opinion on campus. This is not through lack of trying. The Human Resources Office set up focus groups and personally invited 140 students in three consecutive emails to offer their opinions on the matter. Sadly only one student indicated a willingness to attend the session. The committee concluded that for these students this was simply "not their issue" rather than assuming that they were opposed to the Greek system. Confident, however, that we had an informed range of student opinion, the committee elected to proceed with the data at hand rather than risk serious delay in the process seeking input that might only be marginal to the overall recommendations we needed to make. Also, delay here would mean that Greek organizations could not hold Rush and that their organizations would be destroyed by procedural matters and not through substantive deliberative decisions.
C. The Fairness Question and a Comment from the Committee Chair:
Throughout this process, the chair of the committee has sought to push aside pressures either to dismantle the Greek system outright or to simply assume that all was well. The chair felt that the process had to mirror the UPC’s previous study of the academic integrity question, a process in which a variety of constituencies were consulted in the belief that the final recommendations must reflect the best thinking of all the parties concerned. Also, the chair operated with the presumption that most students are hardworking, committed to bettering SCU, and wish to have a genuine say in the shaping of our common institutions. Furthermore, the chair operated with a sense of the larger mission of the university, asking how we can work as staff, faculty, administrators, and students to build a community that works together for the common good. This has not been an easy process because the chair also recognizes that no matter how lofty our goals, we tend to fall short in obvious ways. The question becomes: Can we take what we have and improve those places where serious faults occur or is it best at this juncture in SCU’s history to dispense with the Greek system entirely? These are difficult questions that affect the 5% of our students who are Greek members, those connected with them, and any staff member or administrator that plays a role in relation to Greek life. Fairness dictates that we all ask where we have failed to nurture our community. Students must ask how they can refine their organizations. Administrators must how they can fully support students in the students’ chosen endeavors and organizations. Staff must likewise ask what spaces, programming, and support are needed to encourage our students to flourish. As a faculty member, the chair of the committee confesses that he is even more aware now of how many of his highest achieving students have also been involved in Greek organizations. Are there ways in which faculty can be more involved to nurture in these students the best side of their stated ideals as Greeks? The chair also realizes that we owe it to such students to make sure that we offer judgments based on good data and sound insight rather than anecdote or hearsay. Finally, the chair has sought to have the UPC look both at the achievements of the Greeks as well as their foibles. From the chair’s perspective, we have done this partly for reasons of fairness but also out of a long-term sense that we at SCU can be our own worst enemies, quicker to ask for more out of our people than to acknowledge that much good is going on all around us. Sometimes we are too exhausted to see the achievements. Sometimes we do not take the time to issue the needed praise. Sometimes we do not exert the energy to really get to know our students. Yet their achievements are the very things that we say we seek from our students. The chair also recognizes, however, that fairness can be a grim taskmaster. Fairness also dictates that we not lose sight of the nameless persons who have been victimized and traumatized by the harder side of student life, including Greek life. There is a tendency, despite moments of candor, for the Greek system and its advisors to paper over the very real harm that hazing, alcohol abuse, and harassment causes our students. The UPC is not in a position to know, for legal reasons, all of the details of judicial cases that have emerged from the Greek system. Yet it is clear that such behaviors cannot be tolerated any longer on this campus. For whatever reason, the past few years have witnessed incidents in the fraternities that bother committee members a great deal. Fairness demands that the situation not be left simply as it stands. In the belief that we can do better as a university in this regard, the UPC offers its recommendations to create a better climate on campus and to deal with the excesses of the Greek system.
D. Recommendations of the UPC:
I. Overall Recommendation:
Retention of the Greek System With Significant Changes
While the committee was divided on the opinion of whether or not Greek organizations truly are as unique as they claim in terms of what they offer students, there was a consensus that the Greek system affords opportunities for social life and leadership that should still be one option among many for students despite being a structure that is in need of specific changes that address committee concerns over matters of community and mission, personal conduct issues, and questions of exclusivity and diversity. This consensus appears to be shared with the student body at large, many of whom do not avail themselves of the Greek system but who also do not feel that students should find themselves excluded from having this system as an option for student life even as similar changes have been called for by fellow students.
At the very least, our committee would suggest that for the university simply to say "no Greeks" or to think that the Greeks are a unique source of moral trouble at SCU and assume that the university’s student-life problems will be solved by dismantling the Greek system without substantive improvements in student social life would be to misunderstand the situation of our students and potentially do a disservice to the student population.
Therefore, in light of our extensive review of the matters at hand, as its overall recommendation the Student Affairs UPC would submit the following: All committee members agree that if the Greek system is retained certain specific and significant changes need to occur in the university’s relationship to the Greek system and within the Greek system itself in order to foster positive future growth.
To give the administration a sense of the extent of this consensus we also would indicate the relative weight of the committee in this regard. Committee members selected from among the following possible stances:
1. Lack support for Greek system now, and do not think that future changes will help.
2. Lack support for Greek system now, and insist on significant changes for Greek organizations to stay on campus.
3. Qualified support for Greek system now, and doubt future changes will genuinely take root or will have much of an effect.
4. Qualified support for Greek system now, and require substantive changes for retaining Greek organizations.
5. Support for Greek system now, but also wish to see important changes for future viability on campus.
6. Support for Greek system now, and think that little or nothing needs to change.
Of the nine committee members one weighed in at 5, seven at 4, and one committee member wavered over 2 and 4, arguing that the Greek system is essentially harmless but does not add in significant ways to what a Santa Clara education already offers. Essentially there is generally qualified support for the Greek system, but there is also a strong sense that the status quo is not an acceptable state of affairs.
II. Mission and Community Integration
University Mission: The committee finds that while in theory there is no inherent conflict between the university’s mission and the mission of Greek organizations, Greek organizations tend to define themselves in terms of uniqueness such that a gulf emerges between Greek self-perceptions and the university’s understanding of the Greeks. We would recommend that the administration become more carefully informed about their Greek students, and that Greek students become clearer about the leadership opportunities and social life enjoyed by non-Greek students. For example, members of the administration would benefit from hearing directly the IGC presentation offered to this committee. Likewise, Greek students who may become isolated in the Greek system would benefit from crossover education about leadership opportunities afforded by the larger campus community. Greek students are at their best when their own leadership, philanthropic, and social activities dovetail with other parts of campus. Many of the committee’s other recommendations speak to this outcome.
Educating the Whole Person Within the Context of Student Life: All committee members agree that our study points to the need for improvements in the overall student life situation on campus and recommends that substantial resources be allocated to creating on-campus social life venues that would be attractive to students and be designed through student-led decision-making processes. While not wishing to find our Events Board remiss in their labors, the committee feels that the structure of Benson Center and the programming available to students does not adequately fill a void that is currently being filled for many students, Greeks and non-Greek alike, by the Greek system. Neither will we fault our music department for its Noon Concert series, but also observe that the time is better suited to staff and faculty lunch hours rather than the needs and times of students. In the context of educating the whole person, the campus could do better in making itself not only a quality learning institution but also a socially satisfying place for students to be. While the committee lauds the integration of learning with student life, the committee finds that too great an emphasis on having all things carry a "pedagogical weight" can lead to diminution of the non-academic dimension of student life that goes neglected to our students’ collective detriment. While we recognize the importance of linking student life to learning, we also recognize the importance of fostering a good social life on campus for our students. Compared to other campuses our size, we find that SCU could stand to improve in this regard, calling for changes that will doubtless take the burden of SCU’s social life off of our Greek communities.
Leadership Projects and Integration: The committee would like to see an enhanced level of integration between Greek organizations and the campus in terms of leadership projects. Greeks need to find avenues for serving not only the larger community outside SCU but also to be of direct service to fellow students at SCU. While some Greeks straddle both the Greek world and the campus at large, better integration of aims and projects would assist those Greek students who only find their social life and leadership opportunities within the Greek system. Non-Greek students could collaborate with Greeks to break down stereotypes. Common participation in Habitat for Humanity, the Sigma Pi volleyball tournament, Rosebowl, Star Search (Heart Foundation), the Soccer tournament, and Special Olympics are among the examples of the model that might be followed.
Restructuring Rush: However, the committee also does not want SCU to be defined primarily or solely by Greek life. Students must be exposed in their first year at SCU in a substantive way to the various non-Greek leadership and social opportunities that are at their disposal. Therefore, the committee recommends that Rush be deferred until sophomore year and after. In thinking through the overall Rush structure, the committee also recommends there be one membership recruitment period per year and that Rush take place within the first three weeks of the fall quarter of the academic year to serve as part of our students’ "kick-off" to the academic year. The committee was fairly evenly divided regarding the precise implementation of this new set of procedures. Some argued that Greeks should still be permitted to rush this spring as a morale boost after this difficult review process, arguing also that the negative consequences of delaying this year’s rush entirely could jeopardize the acceptance of this report by Greek members who have otherwise cooperated with us through a very difficult review process. Those who took this view did agree that if a spring rush were held this year, it should follow our other recommended guidelines, including the limitation to Sophomores and upperclassmen as well as the new cap formula discussed at the end of this report. Others argued that rush should be deferred entirely this year and that the Greeks should be encouraged to pour their energies into holding a good rush next fall following the other guidelines of the committee. Those on the committee who took this view argued that only a break with the past will signal that we have entered into a new era of relations between the university and the Greek system. In any event, given either a late rush this year or a complete deferral until the next academic year places multicultural Greeks in a difficult position that needs both a short and more longer term remedy. Thus, recognizing that multicultural organizations may run the risk of falling below the minimum number of 7 members to retain their recognition on campus as legitimate Greek organizations, the committee recommends that for the next two academic years that currently recognized Greek organizations which fall short of the minimum number of members should still be recognized by the university as legitimate Greek organizations, and that resources and proper university staff advising be at their disposal to ensure continuity and development.
Expanded Advising: Our studies suggest that the campuses where the Greek system works well are the campuses that have a close and healthy advising relationship with the students who are involved in their Greek organizations. An expanded university Greek advising post which connects not only to the IGC but especially much more closely to each individual Greek organization would speak to a host of issues that have cropped up over the years between the Greeks and the university. The university’s rather laissez-faire approach, such as having a half time staff advisor or even none at all, has never worked and this structural factor must change if the Greek system is retained on campus. Committee members repeatedly observed that the administration and the Greeks need to "sit on the same side of the table" as they together try to tackle the concerns at hand and that nothing is to be gained from an adversarial relationship between the administration and the Greek organizations. To that end, individual Greek organizations, like other student organizations, should have a faculty advisor as a part of the normal structure of each organization as the various organizations interface with the university. To facilitate this change, the IGC should remove the phrase "whenever possible" in reference to faculty advisors from their "Relationship Statement" to thereby structure regular faculty links with Greek organizations on an on-going basis. In this sense, Greek organizations should normalize their structures to mirror that of other campus organizations. Furthermore, the committee observes that substantive resources need to be allocated to this expanded advising process. We contrast the situation with athletics where 65 people are employed to supervise and coach the students involved. When one considers that the numbers of students in Athletics and in the Greek organizations are roughly the same and that the Athletics department has had to handle its share of hazing and alcohol problems, to think that the Greek organizations will succeed with minimal university support is a rather misguided notion. In addition, the committee recommends that the expanded advisor’s work include regular and direct contact with the Presidents of the Greek organizations, especially for the purposes of leadership training. Alcohol, hazing, and harassment remain deep concerns to the entire committee. We wish neither to pin these issues solely on the Greeks, nor to ignore Greek involvement in them. To the extent that the judicial structures of the university and the Greek system have begun to deal with these issues seriously, we applaud those efforts. The committee observes that closer and better advising of each individual Greek organization would go a long way toward speaking to matters such as alcohol abuse, hazing, and harassment before they get out of hand.
III. Conduct and Accountability
Judicial Structure and Processes: The committee recognizes that the IGC structure, when working in concert with the Dean of Student Life and Leadership, has proven somewhat effective in dealing with misconduct issues arising out of the Greek organizations. The expulsion of Sigma Phi Epsilon ten years ago and the recent suspension of Sigma Alpha Epsilon until December 2002 are cases in point. The committee recommends that there be an increased vigor in this accountability structure such that sanctions be clear, swift, direct, and specific. There should not be long, drawn out proceedings. There should be no covering over of the facts. There should be serious sanctions, including the suspension of entire organizations and the suspension of specific offending students. There is no reason, for example, why students involved in serious infractions should not be suspended from the university for one year rather than simply be put on academic probation. Too much hand-holding in this regard has not served the judicial process very well and appears to have allowed situations to fester rather than find appropriate sanctioning. When all parties are clear about expectations and consequences, then accountability becomes a shared concern. Hazing, alcohol abuse, and harassment, while infrequent, are serious infractions that must not be tolerated. Our vigilant use of judicial processes to mete out substantive penalties in these cases is our best option to deal squarely with offenders, while not bringing all Greek students and all Greek organizations under suspicion. The failure to suspend for a fixed period individual offenders or disbar specific organizations in a timely fashion works to the detriment of student life at SCU, as both the administration and the IGC should recognize. In the larger context, the committee observes that when we compare Greek and non-Greek houses in the neighborhoods or when we compare the conduct of Greek and non-Greek students, many behaviors are shared across the board and are not exclusive to Greek students. The alcohol issue is a common student malady. Hazing and harassment also occur in athletics and in club sports. In this wider context, the university needs to be careful not to attribute to the Greeks conduct and behaviors that are found across campus and might require a broader set of solutions. Addressing issues in Greek organizations is only one step in a multi-stepped program toward facing campus-wide problems.
Dean of Student Life and Leadership: In some ways, the issues brought before the committee are matters of management and not matters of policy, matters that bear directly on the work of the Dean of Student Life and Leadership. We found a rather anomalous situation as we consulted with this Dean. While this Office was our primary point of contact with the administration and also serves as the primary interface between students and the administration on these matters, our review of the university’s governance structure reveals that the Dean of Student Life and Leadership is far down the totem pole. The level of authority of the Dean of Students is less than adequate for these purposes and complicates that Office’s access to upper levels of the administration. Our study can only bring to light this anomaly that appears to have been created by the otherwise laudable reassessment of the student-life side of the university. Yet now the committee recommends that the structure of the Vice-Provost and the Dean of Student Life and Leadership be reexamined to enhance the authority and access of the Dean of Student Life and Leadership. The new Provost model has put this office in the position of commanding major issues in student life but is so low in the institutional structure that the kind of authority that is needed in relation to the students and the access that is required to the President and Provost for dealing with the Greek system has been sharply curtailed. This is a place where the interface between the administration and the student body could be rethought for the benefit of all. The Dean of Student Life and Leadership, for example, could have been charged with conducting a conduct review of the Greek system rather than turning to a policy committee for what largely amounts to a review of conduct matters. The Dean of Student Life and Leadership also needs the clout to formally sanction student misconduct in a more timely and substantive manner.
Alcohol Issues: Students and the administration need to address its campus-wide alcohol issues in more creative ways. Further study beyond the scope of this committee is urgently needed. Yet we do have a specific proposal that demands action in the very near future: To cater more creatively to the needs of students, the university should consider opening student venues that are rich enough to engage students at a social level, especially between the hours of 7 pm and 3 am. The committee envisions, for example, a pizza-parlor/entertainment establishment designed by students where students would simply choose to "hang out." The latter would have to be designed by students for maximum participation, be enjoyable to students, and be flexible enough to accommodate changes in student interests and needs. It should also be a place that attracts students back to campus, who might live off campus. While as a policy committee we are often rather loathe to spell out specific details like this, it seems that a failure to attend to very concrete proposals ensures that changes that would improve the campus situation in relation to Greek and student life will not take place as needed. Finally, we strongly recommend that any event sponsored by a student organization at which alcohol is served that the practice of using "third party vendors" who have been specifically approved by the university’s advisor for that organization be the only method by which alcohol is served. For the Greek organizations, this would also involve so-called "satellite houses," suggesting that if a majority of the lessees of the house belong to a particular student organization, in this case the Greek organizations, these students are responsible to work with their university advisor to secure a third-party vendor for alcohol as if the gathering were an event sponsored by the Greek organizations. This policy clarification is not designed to single out Greeks and would extend logically, for example, to "club sports" groups.
Regularized Review: The UPC recommends that if the Greek system remains in place there be a regularized review process of the Greek system and not simply of IGC. It seems that the University has put itself in a crisis management mode by having only infrequent unscheduled reviews of the entire Greek system. A regularized review process would go a long way toward communicating university expectations to the Greek system and for promoting vigorous responses should there be conduct and judicial problems that seem not to be resolved by normal IGC and Dean of Student Life and Leadership interventions. The reviews could take place in the following three year cycle: Year one would include the rechartering of the IGC and a review of the advisor to the system; Year two would focus on the individual Greek fraternities; Year three would be devoted to the individual Greek sororities. After that the cycle would repeat. If so, we would recommend that during the next academic year the IGC undergo its standard rechartering review as a way to elicit how the changes recommended in this report have been enacted by the Greek organizations. The reviews would be conducted under the purview of the Student Affairs UPC in consultation with the Dean of Student Life and Leadership.
IV: Diversity and Exclusivity
Ethnic Diversity: The committee observes that the Greek system and the campus as a whole has a long way to go toward resolving the diversity question. We have been impressed by the efforts of the multicultural Greek organizations but strongly recommend that the structural obstacles that impede their recognition by IGC be removed immediately and that each multicultural group be therefore recognized by the IGC. In terms of the links between IGC and the Multicultural Greeks we also recommend that the organizational integration with IGC be retained and that the practice of a "common rush", i.e. which includes both traditional and multicultural Greek organizations, be maintained. This allows for maximum cooperation and exposure between all students.
Exclusivity: Whether by design or default, the Greek organizations are often perceived as exclusionary. Beyond the ethnic diversity question, there are issues of wealth (e.g., high fees and dues for some Greek organizations) and of personal psychology that are at stake here. While it appears that male Greek organizations do not fill out their numbers and so do not seem to exclude men who wish to join fraternities, it is clear that the sororities have very different issues regarding numbers. While one newer sorority lags behind in attracting members, others are over booked in terms of those who want to join and so must, because of the annual cap, turn many away. This is a rather destructive practice fostered by unnecessary bureaucratic measures. While the committee does not wish to have sororities of hundreds of members in each group, the committee recommends that the cap be expanded to some greater extent for all Greek organizations, that rush be permitted once a year at the beginning of the year (for Sophomores, Juniors, and Seniors) to also allow an expansion of the numbers, and that both fraternities and sororities be supported to create a level playing field so that no particular group finds itself lagging while others expand dramatically. At this point in the life of the university, it seems that there is greater interest in sorority life than fraternity life and that this need should be structurally addressed. With regard to the cap for sororities/fraternities, the UPC recommends that a formula be adopted in which the cap for the individual organizations be a function of an even division of the total number of those going out for rush (less the number of existing members) by the number of sororities/fraternities participating in rush. We do not wish to create unwieldy organizations and would set the overall organizational cap for any each Greek organization at 180 members. In the event that the new rush cap formula and the upper limit restriction of 180 leaves individuals without the potential of being accepted into a Greek organization, we would recommend further review of the new cap policy in a timely fashion to encourage the addition of new Greek organizations rather than the further expansion of existing organizations to accommodate the growing numbers. For example, if 200 women rushed this academic year and we had four sororities operating on campus, then the division would set that year’s cap at 50 for each of the women’s organizations. Currently all those who rush could have a place in some organization since estimates for rush this year (had one been held this year based on this formula) would put the largest sorority at 133 (statistics can be found in the attached documentation). Obviously the 180 limit has not been reached and all who rushed would be accommodated but also note that no one organization could try to take in a far greater portion of rushees than another. The exclusionary mechanism at work currently in the Greek system would have been mitigated by these new procedures and also the new procedures would encourage the growth of the newer sororities. This formula must not be construed to suggest that we want to force all the organizations to accept all who rush into their membership. We recognize that, just like Sobrato, Greek organizations do have legitimate standards to enforce and there will be cases in which some will not find their way into a Greek organization. Yet the potential will be there for all appropriate candidates to find a space in a Greek organization.
E. Summary of the Student Affairs UPC Recommendations on the Greek System at SCU:
I. Overall Recommendation:
Retention of the Greek System With Significant Changes
·the Greek system affords opportunities for social life and leadership that should still be one option among many for students despite being a structure that is in need of specific changes that address committee concerns over matters of community and mission, personal conduct issues, and questions of exclusivity and diversity.
·All committee members agree that if the Greek system is retained certain specific and significant changes need to occur in the university’s relationship to the Greek system and within the Greek system itself in order to foster positive future growth.
II. Mission and Community Integration
University Mission:
·We would recommend that the administration become more carefully informed about their Greek students, and that Greek students become clearer about the leadership opportunities and social life enjoyed by non-Greek students.
Educating the Whole Person in the Context of Student Life:
·All committee members agree that our study points to the need for improvements in the overall student life situation on campus and recommends that substantial resources be allocated to creating on-campus social life venues that would be attractive to students and be designed through student-led decision-making processes.
·In the context of educating the whole person, the campus could do better in making itself not only a quality learning institution but also a socially satisfying place for students to be. While the committee lauds the integration of learning with student life, the committee finds that too great an emphasis on having all things carry a "pedagogical weight" can lead to diminution of the non-academic dimension of student life that goes neglected to our students’ collective detriment.
Leadership Projects and Integration:
·The committee would like to see an enhanced level of integration between Greek organizations and the campus in terms of leadership projects.
Restructuring Rush:
·the committee recommends that Rush be deferred until sophomore year and after.
·the committee also recommends there be one membership recruitment period per year and that Rush take place within the first three weeks of the fall quarter of the academic year to serve as part of our students’ "kick-off" to the academic year.
·the committee recommends that for the next two academic years that currently recognized Greek organizations which fall short of the minimum number of members should still be recognized by the university as legitimate Greek organizations, and that resources and proper university staff advising be at their disposal to ensure continuity and development.
Expanded Advising:
·An expanded university Greek advising post which connects not only to the IGC but especially much more closely to each individual Greek organization...
·individual Greek organizations, like other student organizations, should have a faculty advisor as a part of the normal structure of each organization as the various organizations interface with the university.
·the IGC should remove the phrase "whenever possible" in reference to faculty advisors from their "Relationship Statement" to thereby structure regular faculty links with Greek organizations on an on-going basis.
·the committee observes that substantive resources need to be allocated to this expanded advising process.
·the committee recommends that the expanded advisor’s work include regular and direct contact with the Presidents of the Greek organizations, especially for the purposes of leadership training.
·The committee observes that closer and better advising of each individual Greek organization would go a long way toward speaking to matters such as alcohol abuse, hazing, and harassment before they get out of hand.
III. Conduct and Accountability
Judicial Structure and Processes:
·The committee recommends that there be an increased vigor in this accountability structure such that sanctions be clear, swift, direct, and specific.
Dean of Student Life and Leadership:
·the committee recommends that the structure of the Vice-Provost and the Dean of Student Life and Leadership be reexamined to enhance the authority and access of the Dean of Student Life and Leadership.
Alcohol Issues:
·To cater more creatively to the needs of students, the university should consider opening student venues that are rich enough to engage students at a social level, especially between the hours of 7 pm and 3 am.
·we strongly recommend that any event sponsored by a student organization at which alcohol is served that the practice of using "third party vendors" who have been specifically approved by the university’s advisor for that organization be the only method by which alcohol is served.
Regularized Review:
·The UPC recommends that if the Greek system remains in place there be a regularized review process of the Greek system and not simply of IGC.
·we would recommend that during the next academic year the IGC undergo its standard rechartering review as a way to elicit how the changes recommended in this report have been enacted by the Greek organizations.
IV: Diversity and Exclusivity
Ethnic Diversity:
·We have been impressed by the efforts of the multicultural Greek organizations but strongly recommend that the structural obstacles that impede their recognition by IGC be removed immediately and that each multicultural group be therefore recognized by the IGC.
·we also recommend that the organizational integration with IGC be retained and that the practice of a "common rush", i.e. which includes both traditional and multicultural Greek organizations, be maintained.
Exclusivity:
·the committee recommends that the cap be expanded to some greater extent for all Greek organizations, that rush be permitted once a year at the beginning of the year (for Sophomores, Juniors, and Seniors) to also allow an expansion of the numbers, and that both fraternities and sororities be supported to create a level playing field so that no particular group finds itself lagging while others expand dramatically.
·With regard to the cap for sororities/fraternities, the UPC recommends that a formula be adopted in which the cap for the individual organizations be a function of an even division of the total number of those going out for rush (less the number of existing members) by the number of sororities/fraternities participating in rush. We do not wish to create unwieldy organizations and would set the overall organizational cap for any each Greek organization at 180 members. In the event that the new rush cap formula and the upper limit restriction of 180 leaves individuals without the potential of being accepted into a Greek organization, we would recommend further review of the new cap policy in a timely fashion to encourage the addition of new Greek organizations rather than the further expansion of existing organizations to accommodate the growing numbers.