Rutgers Bans Fraternity and Sorority Parties Until End of Semester

[Tango Two]

On the night of Wednesday, March 31, Rutgers officials announced the new decision in a meeting that went well into the wee hours of Thursday morning.


There, sources say Dean JoAnn Arnholt and senior staff at OFSA held a meeting with the presidents of each fraternity and sorority, as well as their respective governing bodies, the Interfraternity Council, the Pan-Hellenic Association and the Panhellenic Council.

Rutgers Bans Fraternity and Sorority Parties,,,

 

[rurichdog]

Anyone willing to wager that "until the end of the semester" gets quietly extended "until further notice"?

 

[Sir ScarletKnight]

Originally posted by Tango Two:

On the night of Wednesday, March 31, Rutgers officials announced the new decision in a meeting that went well into the wee hours of Thursday morning.



There, sources say Dean JoAnn Arnholt and senior staff at OFSA held a meeting with the presidents of each fraternity and sorority, as well as their respective governing bodies, the Interfraternity Council, the Pan-Hellenic Association and the Panhellenic Council.

Would be interesting to see how test scores will compare if this holds firm.

 

[PeteGiam07]

I don't think it will get extended. There were "blackout" periods when I was there in the early to mid 2000's too.

I just don't understand Dean Arnholt. After all these years no one has put pressure on her to formulate some kind of current and future Rutgers plan for greek life? She has been coasting at that position for years. I wish they would get some new blood in there.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

Originally posted by PeteGiam07:
I don't think it will get extended. There were "blackout" periods when I was there in the early to mid 2000's too.

I just don't understand Dean Arnholt. After all these years no one has put pressure on her to formulate some kind of current and future Rutgers plan for greek life? She has been coasting at that position for years. I wish they would get some new blood in there.

Agreed. She's been there 20 years and we've never had even an attempt at a vision for the future of the Greek system. Incremental changes have happened but it's mostly just living year to year. Maybe that's a resource issue or maybe its not but after 20 years of stagnation it's time for major changes. Unfortunately I think the university will need to be pushed into it so it will be on the organizations to think, plan, and act big.

 

[Ole Cabbagehead]

Originally posted by Scarlet Pride:

Originally posted by PeteGiam07:
I don't think it will get extended. There were "blackout" periods when I was there in the early to mid 2000's too.

I just don't understand Dean Arnholt. After all these years no one has put pressure on her to formulate some kind of current and future Rutgers plan for greek life? She has been coasting at that position for years. I wish they would get some new blood in there.

Agreed. She's been there 20 years and we've never had even an attempt at a vision for the future of the Greek system. Incremental changes have happened but it's mostly just living year to year. Maybe that's a resource issue or maybe its not but after 20 years of stagnation it's time for major changes. Unfortunately I think the university will need to be pushed into it so it will be on the organizations to think, plan, and act big.

I've always just assumed that Dean Arnholt's objective was to gradually eliminate the fraternity system at Rutgers. It seems like at least one house gets eliminated every year since she has been at the school (or at least since I attended), so I assume she has been hitting her bonus targets. That is really the only thing that makes sense. If the goal was not in fact to eliminate the fraternity system, I cannot fathom how she has been employed for this long. Zero workable solutions have been offered, and, to the contrary, the restrictions put in place seem to make violations inevitable.

Ultimately, the entire fraternity system is seriously flawed because of liability decisions made in the courts. Affiliated fraternity chapters expose the school and the national fraternity organizations to liability. As such, most of the national organizations are really nothing more than glorified insurance companies at this point. All they care about is the volume of new dues paying "brothers" and risk insurance. The schools are only willing to tolerate them if the risk profile falls in line with the fraternity chapters being essentially operated like another dorm. To my knowledge, that is the only way it is really working anywhere, including down south.

What I don't understand is why the fraternities aren't just operating on a non-affiliated "underground" basis. Why even try to be affiliated with Rutgers? If anyone could shed light on that I would be very interested, because I figure there must be a reason I am missing. To me, it seems like the answer to all of this is for students of a kicked out fraternity to just rent a house and put letters up. No national organization, no Rutgers administration, no reports, no charity, no nothing. In charge of your own brotherhood process (subject to criminal anti-hazing laws, obviously).

 

[PeteGiam07]

Originally posted by Ole Cabbagehead:

Originally posted by Scarlet Pride:

Originally posted by PeteGiam07:
I don't think it will get extended. There were "blackout" periods when I was there in the early to mid 2000's too.

I just don't understand Dean Arnholt. After all these years no one has put pressure on her to formulate some kind of current and future Rutgers plan for greek life? She has been coasting at that position for years. I wish they would get some new blood in there.

Agreed. She's been there 20 years and we've never had even an attempt at a vision for the future of the Greek system. Incremental changes have happened but it's mostly just living year to year. Maybe that's a resource issue or maybe its not but after 20 years of stagnation it's time for major changes. Unfortunately I think the university will need to be pushed into it so it will be on the organizations to think, plan, and act big.

I've always just assumed that Dean Arnholt's objective was to gradually eliminate the fraternity system at Rutgers. It seems like at least one house gets eliminated every year since she has been at the school (or at least since I attended), so I assume she has been hitting her bonus targets. That is really the only thing that makes sense. If the goal was not in fact to eliminate the fraternity system, I cannot fathom how she has been employed for this long. Zero workable solutions have been offered, and, to the contrary, the restrictions put in place seem to make violations inevitable.

Ultimately, the entire fraternity system is seriously flawed because of liability decisions made in the courts. Affiliated fraternity chapters expose the school and the national fraternity organizations to liability. As such, most of the national organizations are really nothing more than glorified insurance companies at this point. All they care about is the volume of new dues paying "brothers" and risk insurance. The schools are only willing to tolerate them if the risk profile falls in line with the fraternity chapters being essentially operated like another dorm. To my knowledge, that is the only way it is really working anywhere, including down south.

What I don't understand is why the fraternities aren't just operating on a non-affiliated "underground" basis. Why even try to be affiliated with Rutgers? If anyone could shed light on that I would be very interested, because I figure there must be a reason I am missing. To me, it seems like the answer to all of this is for students of a kicked out fraternity to just rent a house and put letters up. No national organization, no Rutgers administration, no reports, no charity, no nothing. In charge of your own brotherhood process (subject to criminal anti-hazing laws, obviously).

NJ.com ran a Q&A article yesterday. Apparently, RU thinks the system is fine because member numbers have gone up from 1,500 in the early 2000's to currently 4,500. They don't elaborate on that though and I'm sure many of those numbers are for the non-mainstream fraternity and sororities. Given there are 86 at the RU campus that's an average of 52 members for each group.

http://www.nj.com/education/2015/04/rutgers_fraternity_party_ban_10_questions_answered.html#incart_river

Although I don't have a direct answer for you Ole, as you know most frats and sororities do not own their house at RU. When I was an undergrad we moved our chapter house and the first phone conversation I had with the landlord was "Are you a nationally recognized fraternity and I will need copies of your insurance policy." So, you kind of answered your own question on that one.

Believe it or not there is also a zoned area in New Brunswick where you are legally allowed to hang up letters on your house and where you aren't if you are a national recognized organization.

3 organizations come to mind that were separate from Rutgers since the early 2000's. ZEN (behind the student center), SQUAM (old chi phi I believe?) and recently Zeta Psi before they left campus. None of them lasted long. I am not sure what Rutgers does to push these organizations out, but at some point they seem to turn into an "animal house" kind of atmosphere.

My brother was part of a non nationally recognized fraternity at NJIT that has been around for 70+ years. They average only about 20 members a year, they own their house, and have an extremely tight and connected alumni support program that is rather impressive. Frats are a little different there as you can go to NJIT or Rutgers-Newark to join them. They have two different locations today. One is the NJIT housed frats they just built and the other is along Martin Luther King Jr blvd where the fraternities who own their houses are located.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

I don't quite take that extreme of a view. Yes national organizations spend an inordinate time on insurance and risk management but that's because they have to.

I will give OFSA credit in that they are very open to new organizations coming on campus and groups reorganizing and colonizing. I think this has been their primary strategy for change. New people, new groups will eventually lead to change. The problem is that strategy is flawed because of the lack of a support system, resources, and plan for change by the university and greek system allows each new group to eventually gravitate back to the norm.

I don't blame OFSA for the system's problems - I just think they haven't done enough to address it (for whatever reasons).

In terms of underground organizations...Chapters are generally closed because of real problems - namely alcohol violations (serious ones), hazing, lack of recruitment, and/or major financial problems. National organizations try to help chapters change/improve but eventually some need to be closed. Why would any national organization allow a group with those problems to continue to operate?

Now in some cases, national organizations may disagree with the university and allow a group to operate unrecognized for a short period of time but as an overall policy it's a bad idea because it doesn't help future expansion and chapters on other campuses to have that reputation.

Why don't students don't just do it themselves - honestly I think it's because most chapters that get closed are seriously flawed. Most of the membership doesn't have the motivation or interest to actually take the initiative to organize and run an organization. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying every member or every leader is bad. There are a lot of good members and leaders in chapters that are closed. The good members often still have loyalty to their organization and probably wouldn't consider going underground. They may also understand why they were closed and accept the consequences.

You said...."No national organization, no Rutgers administration, no reports, no charity, no nothing. In charge of your own brotherhood process (subject to criminal anti-hazing laws, obviously)."

What you are describing isn't really a fraternity. A fraternity is an organization not a party house. Charity/service is part of every organization's core beliefs. As are leadership and academics. A fraternity like any organization requires structure, goals, guiding principles. If you don't want that just go rent a house and throw parties - why would you event try to pretend to be an organization? People that just want to throw parties can do just that without "letters".

 

[srru86]

I'm a little surprised this has got as much play in the local/regional media as it has.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

Originally posted by srru86:
I'm a little surprised this has got as much play in the local/regional media as it has.

With the Oklahoma racist chants, the Rolling Stone article, PSU's Facebook of women, and some other incidents there has been a lot of media attention. This isn't really big news but with the death of a student earlier this academic year and all the other incidents it's right in the media wheelhouse to cover it and make it a big story even if it's not much of one. The reality is that it's only a few weeks of the school year that are impacted.

 

[virginiaru]

I find the comments on the Board interesting and well thought out. I have somewhat of a different take. First I am surprised that Greek organizations don't challenge the band. The action by the school likely is illegal due to lack of due process (Rutgers as a state school, absent an emergency, is required to provide some sort of hearing). Additionally, whatever issues te school may have had with specific houses, they can not, unless we have moved to China impose group penalties. Apparently the Dean thinks that Minority Report is reality and not science fiction story.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by virginiaru:
I find the comments on the Board interesting and well thought out. I have somewhat of a different take. First I am surprised that Greek organizations don't challenge the band. The action by the school likely is illegal due to lack of due process (Rutgers as a state school, absent an emergency, is required to provide some sort of hearing). Additionally, whatever issues te school may have had with specific houses, they can not, unless we have moved to China impose group penalties. Apparently the Dean thinks that Minority Report is reality and not science fiction story.

sorry, but legally they can ban an activity just the way a legislature does. This would not be considered punishment because it is being not singling out particular greek organizations on the basis of what individually those organizations did. I'm not saying I agree with the ban -- I lack the information to know -- but there is not a constitutional problem.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

Well the reality is they can't stop the organizations from doing anything. They can't ban student organization activities that occur off campus. When they say "ban" they mean if you do it we will attempt to take away your recognition from the University. But any "governance" from the university is voluntarily accepted by the organizations. They could operate fully and freely without recognition from the university but as I touched upon in an earlier post generally do not choose to do that.

I think the reaction from the student chapters has been fairly muted because they know that there have been a lot of problems and it's only a couple weeks of school before finals away. They get to have their formals and they may have fought it but at the end of the day you pick your fights and this probably wasn't worth going crazy over.

If they attempted to extend this "ban" into next year you would find a strong fight on their hands and their ability to carry out such a ban would be directly challenged. The relationship between the university and the greek system is not one where the university can dictate the terms unchallenged. They do not hold unquestioned control over any student organization activities.

 

[PeteGiam07]

These comments are from Barchi from a recent Daily Targum student interview, interesting work he did at UPENN with frats. It seems like he has too much on his plate to get heavily involved with the Greek system, but he is a supporter.


DT: I know you mentioned some of the things you wanted to do is make the school obviously more attractive to students in the state and things like that and obviously academics, athletics all play a major role in that. But you know, at 18 years old (for) a majority of students, social life is a major part of that. With the recent ban on greek life activities, do you think that could possibly affect incoming students decision on whether they want to come here? Because I know it's a very big part of a lot of students' decisions.
Barchi: I'll tell you what would affect incoming students' decisions even more is if we have another death, alcohol-related in a frat house and we haven't done anything about it. That, I think, would really put a chill on the place. I'm in favor of greek life. I was very much involved at Penn in the fraternity, sorority affairs that were reported to me when I was provost. And one of the first things that I had to do when I walked into the provost's office was to make the entire campus dry for six months because of a death in a fraternity house and rewrite all the alcohol policies before we opened everything back up again. And I have to tell you that that was back in 1999, and those policies became widely copied accross the country. And I'm really surprised that when I come here, we're not doing those things that I thought were pretty standard, accepted features (such as) tip trained bartenders who are not members of a fraternity who are professionals, door minders who are checking IDs and armbands and all the other things most people do, sober monitors roaming in the campus for registered parties that try to make it a safe environment for people to have fun in that we probably should be doing. And I get the feeling that the leaders of the fraternities and the sororities also feel that we need to be a little bit more organized in how we do this. I don't think anybody wants to see anybody get hurt. And if it takes just kind of chilling down for a four or five week period, remember fraternities and sororities can still party, that they can still go off-site with professional staff, third-party staff providing the alcohol and all those kinds of things. So we're not closing down fraternities and sororities like some of the newspapers said, or some of the flashes on the evening news. But I think it is time to realize what's been happening. This semester has not been a good semester in terms of harm to our students, the number of transports for alcohol intoxication, death, physical harm, can't have that. So I would have to turn it around and say, if we don't fix those things we're going to make Rutgers a less attractive place for students to be. And fixing it doesn't mean getting rid of them. There's so many other things that fraternities and sororities do besides just party that that's like the proverbial baby in the bath water. You don't do that. So I'm not at all in favor of curtailing the number of fraternities and sororities we have, I'm just in favor of working with them so that they can help us to create a more appropriate and safe environment for their members to party in and to have fun and to do the things they want to do.
DT: So will some of those policies be implemented here, or reworked at least?
Barchi: I would hope so. You know I haven't actually talked to the people here who report to the provost and the chancellor about what those policies are, but I know everybody is going to be looking at what the best practice is. And I think some of those policies are accepted as being best practices. So I would hope that some of them would be. They do work actually to reduce the riskiness of the environment, and that's what you want to do. You're not looking to remove alcohol use. You're not even looking to eliminate underage drinking. I'm not that naive. But what you're trying to do is remove the risk as much as you can. Because there still will be people who are going to use false IDs or whatever they're going to use. But what we don't want to do is have an environment where people who do choose to drink are at risk for physical harm or harming someone else. That's just not acceptable.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

I think those are good solid responses. I think you're right that he may understand the value in Greek life but is tackling issues that are far larger at this point of his tenure. Sounds like a great time for the Greek community (led by alumni) to bring a strong plan to the university because I think Barchi would get behind a sensible plan.

 

[virginiaru]

I must disagree. A legislature may enact laws but their enforcement must comply with due process. While Rutgers might be able to ban Greek organizations in their entirety, to the extent they do regulate them they must provide due process and have some tie in to Rutgers educational mission. We need to keep in mind that the fraternities do have a right of freedom of association and that "group guilt" and punishment is not part of our legal system. In any event by timing the ban for the end of the semester, Rutgers effectively avoided any chance of litigation. If the ban continues into the new semester things may change,

 

[retired711]

I dislike arguing with non-lawyers about law, but unfortunately for the Greeks, you are incorrect. This is a regulation just llike the City Council of a town imposing a curfew in a bad part of town. Because it is a legislative act, due process requirements are just about zero.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
I dislike arguing with non-lawyers about law, but unfortunately for the Greeks, you are incorrect. This is a regulation just llike the City Council of a town imposing a curfew in a bad part of town. Because it is a legislative act, due process requirements are just about zero.

LOL

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
I dislike arguing with non-lawyers about law, but unfortunately for the Greeks, you are incorrect. This is a regulation just llike the City Council of a town imposing a curfew in a bad part of town. Because it is a legislative act, due process requirements are just about zero.

LOL

Do you mean that he is one?

 

[Scarlet Pride]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
I dislike arguing with non-lawyers about law, but unfortunately for the Greeks, you are incorrect. This is a regulation just llike the City Council of a town imposing a curfew in a bad part of town. Because it is a legislative act, due process requirements are just about zero.

It's strange that you use a curfew as an example since they have been overturned in court quite often and while they haven't been entirely banned they are not so easily enacted. They cannot be enacted without reasonable exceptions nor without a clear compelling need for such action.

The reality is that when a university establishes a system of conduct review for fraternities they do have to apply it equally. They cannot do whatever they want in terms of student organizations. And again the reality is that public universities can only regulate on campus activities and tie other regulations and discipline to "recognition". If a fraternity decided to operate without university recognition the university would have no say.

Universities do not have legislative control over student organizations.

 

[retired711]

I could come up with numerous other examples if you don't like that one. Legislatures and authorities like Rutgers routinely make general laws to carry out their police power. These laws may be very bad for some, but are certainly constitutional nonetheless.

 

[Scarlet Pride]

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
I could come up with numerous other examples if you don't like that one. Legislatures and authorities like Rutgers routinely make general laws to carry out their police power. These laws may be very bad for some, but are certainly constitutional nonetheless.

Yes but like any legislative or police power - there are limits. We see plenty of laws or policies passed by governmental authorities to carry out police power that are later overturned. Just because Rutgers has broad powers doesn't mean it has absolute power. When it comes to a public university and student organizations those powers are far from absolute.

But what is more important for this conversation is the fact that Rutgers has no inherent power over fraternities anymore than they do over the Hungarian American Club in New Brunswick.

Rutgers ability to regulate fraternities is due, in large part, to the greek system's voluntarily participation within the Rutgers structure. If the Greek council decided to leave Rutgers and decline Rutgers recognition the university's power over the organizations ceases to exist.

So there is a mutual agreement/partnership necessary for this to work. It's much more of a business relationship than it is a legislature creating laws. Rutgers can do whatever they want but they also risk having organizations walk away from Rutgers oversight. Now both sides understand that the best thing is for them to work together so they push and pull each other to come up with a system that works.

So even if one accepts that Rutgers can do whatever they want - this ignores the reality of the Greek/University relationship.

 

[retired711]

Originally posted by Scarlet Pride:

Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
I could come up with numerous other examples if you don't like that one. Legislatures and authorities like Rutgers routinely make general laws to carry out their police power. These laws may be very bad for some, but are certainly constitutional nonetheless.

Yes but like any legislative or police power - there are limits. We see plenty of laws or policies passed by governmental authorities to carry out police power that are later overturned. Just because Rutgers has broad powers doesn't mean it has absolute power. When it comes to a public university and student organizations those powers are far from absolute.

But what is more important for this conversation is the fact that Rutgers has no inherent power over fraternities anymore than they do over the Hungarian American Club in New Brunswick.

Rutgers ability to regulate fraternities is due, in large part, to the greek system's voluntarily participation within the Rutgers structure. If the Greek council decided to leave Rutgers and decline Rutgers recognition the university's power over the organizations ceases to exist.

So there is a mutual agreement/partnership necessary for this to work. It's much more of a business relationship than it is a legislature creating laws. Rutgers can do whatever they want but they also risk having organizations walk away from Rutgers oversight. Now both sides understand that the best thing is for them to work together so they push and pull each other to come up with a system that works.

So even if one accepts that Rutgers can do whatever they want - this ignores the reality of the Greek/University relationship.

Laws that are exercises of the police power are in fact very rarely overturned. I do, though, recognize your point about the Rutgers-greek relationship. But that relationship is far different and more intimate than Rutgers' relationship with the Hungarians. I would think to obtain Rutgers recognition, the fraternities and sororities agreed to be under Rutgers supervision as to matters of health and safety I can't imagine that not being the case. Yes, the Greeks could withdraw from that arrangement, but it seems to me that a Greek organization would very much want to be affiliated with the university is out. Again, I want to make clear that I, being in South Jersey, have no basis for an opinion about whether the ban makes sense; but it seems to me that Rutgers has the power to do what it did. Whether Rutgers was justified in exercising that power is a different question.

 

[virginiaru]

I am a lawyer you sanctimonious windbag and have more real life involvement in this area of the law than I suspect you do. You seem to be the classic example of "them that can do, them that can't teach".

 

[NotInRHouse]

That kind of language is unbecoming of this board. This is not the CE board. We can disagree here like adults.

At the end of the day fraternities can exist outside the U framework. Is that the point of this argument? I don't think anyone is arguing that.

 

[virginiaru]

I guess I was ticked off with the I am tired of arguing with non lawyers comment,

My point is two fold: Any exercise of a police power (read: regulatory power) needs some form of reasonableness. In Rutgers' case it needs to be something tied to its educational mission (and keeping is order is tied to its educational mission) while balancing the civil rights of its students. Taking an extreme example, if Rutgers were to decree that it would only allow students wearing leiderhosen to attend class, such a regulation would be constitutionally unreasonable.

Once it does establish regulations, as a state agency, it is required to administer them in accord with due process. For example. Rutgers has a code of student conduct which is the basis for expelling students for a variety reasons, including cheating. It grants the affected student the right to a hearing with procedural safeguards. That's what is missing in the case of the fraternities.

We are not talking about an emergency since the recent alcohol incidents were several months ago. We are also not talking about the fraternities doing something illegal since the holding of a party is by its nature a legal activity (remember this non Rutgers owned housing). It is the serving of alcohol to minors which is illegal and which is already regulated by the state. Basically banning on a group guilt basis an otherwise legal act without any form of hearing is the problem.

 

[retired711]

I apologize for assuming you are not a lawyer. That was wrong of me.

I think you would agree that Rutgers can make reasonable rules to govern fraternities and sororities. It seems to me a rule designed to prevent future undesirable incidents would be acceptable. I doubt that under post New Deal law a court would insist that there have been a state of emergency. (Perhaps Virginia would be different; I don't know the specifics of its laws and constitutional doctrines.)

I also think the constitutional distinction between legislation and adjudication would also help Rutgers defend itself from charges of lack of procedural due process. Consider that when welfare existed, a person could be kicked off welfare only with a hearing. But when Congress abolished the welfare entitlement, there was no need to give anyone a hearing. Part of that is because of the number of individuals involved, but a bigger part of it is that abolishing the entitlement is a legislative act -- that is, it depends on broad considerations of policy and broad community-wide facts, not on what some particular individual has done. I agree that this distinction is hazy, but it is real. I don't think that forbidding parties is an act of punishment aimed at particular individuals, but I can understand your disagreeing with that. In any case, I think Rutgers would be unlikely to lose in a New Jersey court or a federal court in New Jersey.

Friends again?

 

[virginiaru]

Pax. I follow your reasoning but do think that in the abstract a challenge to the broad based ban would succeed since I wouldn't categorize it as "legislative". Of course I tend to be more David than Goliath in these types of things. I do think the timing of the ban for the end of the school year was superb in fending off any potential challenges. What happens next semester I think will be interesting.