I wonder how they define “party” and “large” party, for purposes of the rules. Only beer in cans and wine poured by sober monitors for all parties on campus, then? No hard liquor for the age 21+ set? The expense of hiring security personnel? Its hard to believe these rules won’t push all parties off campus. Maybe that is what UVA is aiming for.
“The fraternity at the center of a controversial Rolling Stone article describing a culture of sexual violence at the University of Virginia has been reinstated after city police could not confirm an allegation that rape occurred at that fraternity’s house.”
“In a statement Monday, the university said Charlottesville police told the university their investigation has not revealed any substantive basis to confirm the allegation.”
Story from the Washington Post. I wonder if the students who vandalized the fraternity house will be expelled. Destruction of property should be an expellable offense, regardless of the veracity of the allegations.
I can’t really give a good estimate, because I don’t know how many people filter in and out every night. But our list is usually capped around 600. The whole ejected thing totally depends on the night. A good number would be anywhere from 3-10? Yes, party guests are encouraged to appeal to sober brothers for help. Most party goers are happy to have sober brothers.
Again, I’ll answer any fraternity related questions. My house has similar rules to the new ones at UVA and is a pretty similar style university. Just make sure to @ me so I see it.
"Still, UVA officials are pushing for new rules for the school’s 31 fraternities to address sexual assaults involving students — including that three sober frat brothers must be present during parties and there be a hall monitor to check bedrooms. Student organizations have until Friday to agree to such protocols.
But Kevin O’Neill, executive director of the Fraternity and Sorority Political Action Committee, said some of the fraternities think the mandates go too far because it creates “unique legal burdens” on the students. Those fraternities also think the school hasn’t done enough to help vindicate Greek organizations, O’Neill said. “There’s been a tremendous rush to judgment by the university in a case heard 'round the world,” he told NBC News."
The “unique legal burdens” aren’t spelled out but may be concerns along the lines some have brought up here; namely that a sober brother could be sued or otherwise be held liable if something bad did happen (rape, alcohol related injury or death).
“The “unique legal burdens” aren’t spelled out but may be concerns along the lines some have brought up here; namely that a sober brother could be sued or otherwise be held liable if something bad did happen (rape, alcohol related injury or death).”
So now being sober is a liability? This is madness.
Are there other campus organizations at UVa that have big open parties where lots of alcohol is consumed? Are those organizations exempt from these rules? I’m persuaded by @TransferGopher that the sober brothers at his fraternity’s parties are busy, and are doing jobs that need to be done.
" The Virginia Alpha Chapter of Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Virginia has been reinstated effective immediately, University and Phi Kappa Psi national officials announced today.The reinstatement resulted after consultation with Charlottesville Police Department officials, who told the University that their investigation has not revealed any substantive basis to confirm that the allegations raised in the Rolling Stone article occurred at Phi Kappa Psi. U.Va. President Teresa A. Sullivan informed fraternity officials of the decision to reinstate the chapter’s Fraternal Organization Agreement with the University after learning of the update to the police investigation."
The NBC article says that the fraternities must provide
Surely this is the reporter’s misrepresentation not an actual requirement?!
I agree that having a few sober souls at any party is an excellent plan, but asking students to police the behavior of other students puts the students and the fraternities in an untenable legal position in our litigation happy environment. They may be able to discourage drunken partygoers from ascending the stairs, but what’s next, getting signed affidavits of consent from those that made it to the bedrooms?
Any one know if the Charlottesville police interviewed Jackie?
A long and thoughtful article in The American Prospect by Nancy Gertner, judge, law professor and feminist, reflecting on many of the legal and ethics issues this thread has addressed. If you make it to the end, her comments on how Oberlin has tackled Title IX requirements is especially insightful. http://prospect.org/article/how-harvards-sexual-assault-policy-imperils-feminist-quest-justice
Momrath: thanks for that link to a very interesting article. It is possible to be a feminist, believe that truly false accusations are rare, but still believe that a fair process is beneficial to all. The author is a long-time defense attorney who now is a Harvard law professor and signed the letter recently posted bu professors concerned about Harvard’s new policies. She refused for many years to defend accused rapists, but did take on one case which is discussed in the article. Her final two paragraphs are:
Feminists should be concerned about fair process, even in private institutions where the law does not require it, because we should be concerned about reliable findings of responsibility. We put our decades-long efforts to stop sexual violence at risk when men come forward and credibly claim they were wrongly accused. We put our work at risk when the media can dredge up the shibboleths about false accusations of rape, a collective “We told you so” tapping into old attitudes. The recent feeding frenzy around Rolling Stone’s account of a gang rape at the University of Virginia campus shows just how much damage can be done by the claim that a rape report was flawed—damage to the women making the accusations, to the men who are accused, and to the cause of combating sexual violence.
There is no question that we have to confront sexual misconduct on campus and elsewhere as aggressively and comprehensively as we can. There is no question that we have to lift the protection offered the star athlete, confront the administrators more concerned with the man’s future than with a woman’s trauma, challenge the atmosphere of impunity at fraternity houses and social clubs. And we can do so without turning every disciplinary proceeding into a full-blown trial, without imposing the maximum due process protections, on the one hand, or an administrative Star Chamber, on the other. It isn’t necessary to jettison every modicum of a fair process to redress decades-long inattention to these issues. It never is. As I argued in Paul’s case, we should not substitute a regime in which women are treated without dignity for one in which those they are accusing are similarly demeaned. Indeed, feminists should be concerned about fair process, not just because it makes fact-findings more reliable and more credible, but for its own sake.
It’s definitely possible for schools to create procedures that respect due process concerns.
But the problem isn’t that the president of Harvard is too dumb to understand the concerns that her own law school faculty has raised. The problem is that in order for the Title IX investigations to be dropped, the OCR has mandated that new sexual assault procedures be instituted, and they’ve strongly intimated that these procedures should substantially lean towards making it easier to obtain convictions.
Pragmatically, negotiations between the schools and the OCR are a more than a little like negotiating with Don Corleone … the Godfather doesn’t need to tell you what he wants; the best you can do is overshoot the mark and copy what other schools have done to get their investigations dropped. Maybe hire a former OCR insiders for substantial fees to negotiate on your behalf. The Dear Colleague letter was written quite carefully and there’s a lot below the surface.
I also like the art by Nancy Gertner very much as it aligns pretty much with what I’ve been saying and trying to say for almost 2 years now. Speaking of which the district courts in Illinois just ruled in favor of Northwestern. The plaintiff felt that a hostile environment persisted because the accused was not booted off campus (in this case a professor).
I feel good that things are starting to shake out and the “means” testing that is occurring in courts are beginning to shed light on what colleges and universities can and should do.
I’m not sure about Nancy Gerner’s article. She admits: “Still, I could not forget Paul’s case. It shaped the context in which I saw the university sexual assault controversy.” What happened to him was awful but it was mainly a failure of specific people in the judicial system, especially the cowardly judge who was driven by concern for his political future.
If it had been a different person she represented how would her view be different today? Pressure to find guilt against Paul is very similar to pressure to not find guilt against a star athlete so why has one extreme affected her more strongly than the other when they are both wrong?
That being said, Oberlin’s efforts look promising. They have taken the investigative arm out of the Title IX office and have hopefully appointed professionals, not random professors who don’t really understand things. I’m not worried about Harvard’s policy - it has created such a firestorm of scrutiny that it is bound to be changed soon.