CAREFUL terminology and broad generalizations are the Inter-Fraternity Council's best defenses. Perhaps critics of the IFC tend to generalize, but if an IFC supporter would like to make that claim he will find himself using a double-edged sword. The IFC is guilty of its own simplifications about fraternity life.
It is certainly true is that the Greek community can not be generalized. Some fraternities will perform a service project monthly while others will ignore such efforts for years. Some fraternities haze while others don't. Yet the IFC cannot hide behind these inconsistencies. Specific cases are damning enough.
First of all, the Zeta Psi incident is unacceptable. The claim that some odd type of bicameral consensus needs to be met is a convenient way to diffuse the responsibility for the IFC's failure. The bottom line is this: The IFC does not even come close to exercising the mandate it claims to have. It is currently a poor example of self-governance.
The administration has abdicated its interest in governing the Greek community, which is a credit to student responsibility. This situation may not end today or tomorrow, but it will certainly end. Student self-governance is a hallmark of this University, but concern for safety will trump it if the IFC does not develop a better operating procedure.
Issues such as the structure of the constitution, which body votes on a sanction, etc. are not the central issue. Clearly, the IFC suffers from an agency failure. The components of the organization exist to protect the system above all else.
Second, is it true that member fraternities are so committed to service that they far exceed formal expectations? This is not only a sweeping generalization; it is absolutely and unequivocally untrue.
The fact of the matter is that the IFC claims to be a governing body, not simply a service organization. In fact, as a governing body, it does little more than hand out small fines and non-threatening "social probation."
So let's stop speaking in general terms. Murky simplifications hardly matter when we finally have a public example of the IFC's shortcomings.
Does Zeta Psi have a plan for improving itself? Where has that plan been for the past several years? This is not the first time that Zeta Psi has found itself in hot water. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming. Yet the Presidents' Council seeks to preserve the status-quo to the detriment of the community.
Shortly before the Presidents' Council met, members of Zeta Psi visited various other fraternities to ask for their votes. These discussions occurred before any of the presidents had heard the case argument from IFCJC. At the end of these meetings, many presidents took the majority vote from their respective brotherhoods and bound themselves to that decision, agreeing to vote in favor of Zeta Psi at trial. When is the last time that you heard of an accused defendant manipulating his jury before a trial? That's called jury tampering, and it would be illegal in an actual courtroom (which, being an actual courtroom, would be open to the public).
Much of the problem here is that many IFCJC cases are handled behind closed doors. This is ridiculous. If I were accused of a criminal act I could find myself in county court, surrounded by peers and members of the media.
This is analogous to the current scrutiny for the honor system. Because there was a recent public trial, the single sanction has come under fire. And now, because there is a publicly known IFC disappointment, students have realized what constitutes typical IFC behavior.
The IFC isn't the Honor Committee; it doesn't need to protect the innocents' integrity. We're dealing with organizations, not vulnerable individuals. (Some fraternities, in fact, are incorporated). An accused fraternity has no right to privacy if it is going to be tried for an offense. Clearly, the IFC's form of "grand jury" has already met some burden of proof.
The problem is evident: It is difficult to discuss any specific IFC failure without attaining insider knowledge or breaking confidence. If trials were publicly visible the IFC would be held to a higher standard. It just might be somewhat effective. Furthermore, fraternities would be less willing to tarnish their names by risking a public trial with irresponsible behavior.
The IFC does not "condone hazing." Of course it wouldn't claim to condone hazing. But notice that such phrasing says nothing about the IFC's willingness to prevent hazing or punish offenders. Some may claim that it is difficult to root out hazing but will also tell you that such instances are investigated and adjudicated with the utmost seriousness. Apparently we will have to take the IFC's word for it. If only the trials were better known to the public perhaps this would be easier to believe. The terminology "utmost seriousness" is very convenient. It sounds good and means little. That's a winning combination for vague image management.
Preliminary investigations should remain confidential (and so should individual names); however, once the IFC has found sufficient evidence for a trial there is no reason to conceal the accused fraternity itself.
The IFC needs to open itself to the wider world. Its secrecy serves to invalidate its own purpose. It certainly should not be masquerading as a form of student self-governance. As of now, it is little more than a special interest group that seeks its own well-being.
Matt Klopfer is a third year in the Commerce School.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
