Recent charges levied against the Delta Tau Delta fraternity for breaking alcohol policies at a February party demonstrate serious failures of fraternity self-governance and overly lenient University enforcement in handling groups that break the law.
Delta Tau Delta mismanaged a party for its president, Bob Simon, during his Student Association presidential campaign – a party that resulted in at least eight arrests for underage drinking. The fraternity allowed students in who were not on the invite list, failed to monitor the party and gave beer to students without drinking bracelets.
As punishment, the members must participate in alcohol management programs to learn how to follow the rules they have already been taught. They will take a course that is usually taught by one of Delta Tau Delta’s own members who was present at the party – the Interfraternity Council’s risk management chair. It seems irrational for the IFC to argue for more judicial control over fraternities when the person responsible for creating and enforcing the rules breaks them himself. It seems equally absurd that anything can be achieved by putting fraternity members through training they already received without any real punishment.
Student Judicial Services put Delta Tau Delta on social probation for breaking alcohol rules, meaning they cannot host any parties until the sanction is lifted. This standard punishment is fitting, but there is no concrete time restriction. As soon as Delta Tau Delta organizes its members to participate in seemingly ineffective training programs, the fraternity may again hold parties. This will likely only take two weeks, according to Simon. What can result is a revolving door in which members break rules, go through comical training from fraternity members who do not even follow their own rules and throw more parties hoping not to get caught.
GW and the IFC were right to investigate and charge the fraternity for breaking rules set to prevent serious alcohol-related incidents. But the charges that resulted are too light considering the gross infraction of the rules. SJS should hand down social probation punishments that will have a real affect on fraternities that break the rules. Merely revoking a group’s right to party for a couple of weeks sends a weak message about the University’s tolerance for irresponsible use of alcohol.
GW should be commended for working with fraternities to give them a sense of self-discipline on small cases such as minor rush violations. But serious cases like these make it clear the IFC is not ready for more responsibility and that the University should feel free to implement its own punishments despite IFC recommendations for light sentences.
