<p>I just received a phone call from a very nice female soph asking for a donation to MIT. I have been donating to MIT for at least the last 25 years. I AM donating to MIT this year despite the economic uncertainty but far less than last year. I reduced my donation this year, and will continue a reduced donation for 10 years because I am extremely displeased that MIT decided to close my fraternity house (ATO) a few months ago for the next 10 years. Although I am not a great proponent of the fraternity system as a whole and would favor closing them all in one fell swoop, it appears to me, an alumnus a few hundred miles and a few decades away, that MIT is on a campaign to close the fraternities one by one for offenses that do not deserve such drastic action to the entire fraternity house as opposed to action against only the individuals involved.</p>
<p>I am posting this note here because it seems that MIT admissions or admissions-related personnel look at some of these posts. Maybe they will see this and pass the message on and reconsider. Maybe not. Also, MIT alumni/ae seem to look at some of these posts. </p>
<p>I remain, however, very proud to have attended MIT. I only wish MIT were less digital and would see things other than only in black and white.</p>
<p>I am acquainted with all of the facts, and I did live there for 4 years. If acts of a few can be blamed on the entire living group (your phrase: “their own”), all of the dorms and all of the frats should have been closed decades ago. I have my opinion, you have yours. Nevertheless, my donations will be reduced until my frat is reopened. It would be nice if alumni of all MIT frats would do the same.</p>
<p>I am a huge proponent of the MIT fraternity system, but ATO was significantly responsible for MIT’s actions. Now some of the things that happened to ATO may not have been their fault. During the summer of 2008, a burst pipe caused extensive water damage and as a result, ATO lost its housing license from the Cambridge Licensing Commission, which has little to do with MIT, but as a consequence of the re-licensing process, only 6 people were allowed to live in the house, and ATO needed to be managed by MIT and follow its licensing rules. This gave MIT much more direct liability for any incident that occurred at ATO than existed at other fraternities.</p>
<p>ATO was then found to have committed multiple offenses since then, largely relating to underage drinking. Now I would certainly not claim that thanks to Massachusetts law, no 20-year old anywhere in the fraternity (or the dorm) system has tasted a beer, but with MIT directly responsible for ATO thanks to Cambridge, it was not something that MIT could easily ignore, particularly not to save housing for 6 students.</p>
<p>Now chunks of that were not necessarily ATO’s fault. The degree of water damage, the actions of the Cambridge Licensing Commission, the extreme conditions attaching to the new lodging license, which made MIT much more directly responsible, all of this put ATO into a very precarious position which was broadly not their fault. But ATO also failed to recognize the precariousness of their position and I was disappointed but not surprised that MIT removed their accreditation. I’m not sure what else MIT could have done.</p>
<p>Also, you realize that they were thrown out <em>by the IFC</em>, right? MIT itself did deny their appeal, but it was their fellow fraternities that actually chucked them out.</p>
<p>The under-age drinking that occurred was off campus. Two ATO students were involved and 2 of their dates (in a panic, they took the drunken girl for medical treatment – no damage other than a hangover). The drinking did not involve the whole frat house and it did not occur in the frat house or on campus. Pleeze. Like there is no under age drinking in the dorms or other frats. Pleeze. Once more, everyone is scared of being sued. [This fear seems to drive America as a whole now a days] As to saving the frat for only 6 students, when I was there, 52 students lived there. MIT used a burst pipe during the summer when the house is rented out to students from all over as a hook to exert control over the frat as an organization. History has proven that once targeted, as ATO clearly was, something “offensive” can always be found, especially when one is dealing with college age students. I suppose if any ATO member performed a hack, like many ATO hacks that are in the hack book and of which all MITers seem so proud of, that would also have been the ultimate camel back’s staw. Which frat will be targeted for distruction next?</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with closing all of the frats at once, that is called equal treatment. For example, would you like it if only ***[fill in your eye color] eyed people were prohibited from xxxing [fill in your favorate activity]? I think not.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but it’s very hard to take you seriously when you seem determined to believe that there was some conspiracy against ATO.</p>
<p>They broke some rules, and the IFC, a group made up of other students, kicked them out. I’m not well versed in all of the details, but I fail to see a conspiracy in that.</p>
<p>You’re absolutely right that it’s wrong to punish blue-eyed people for having blue eyes, but that’s quite different from punishing blue-eyed people for giving alcohol to minors.</p>
<p>If they were really concerned about alcohol they would have to close Baker and Burton-Connor, and if they were concerned about illegal drugs they would have to close East Campus and Senior House. Why pick on frats?</p>
<p>AFAIK, when the pipe burst it was Cambridge and not MIT who acted, or perhaps over reacted. As to the being sued, I think that you are right. Once MIT was directly on the hook for the house (which was Cambridge’s doing), then they were rightly afraid of being sued and what was a fraternity house essentially became a dorm that attracted significant risk and which only housed 6 students (again Cambridge, and not MIT’s doing). I understand that you feel hard done by. </p>
<p>It has happened before. Think of the AEPi incident of 1989, when again, gasp, it was discovered that an underage student had experienced beer. There a house of 55 was basically cleared. The innocent majority of the students kicked out of AEPi went on to form Delta Pi which later became Sigma Nu (which returned to the MIT campus after a gap of many years). Were the kids involved hard done by? Absolutely. Trying to prepare for finals and simultaneously shift accommodation, splitting up with roommates, late into a term is brutal. But again, MIT could not be seen to condone the activity.</p>
<p>I might agree that what happened to ATO was harsh, and it certainly was unlucky (it was predominantly the busted pipe that put them at such risk), but I also think that what happened to ATO was probably MIT’s only option given the facts as they were. Clearly the students on the IFC board agreed when they recommended to MIT that ATO’s accreditation be stripped from them. Consider it from MIT’s perspective. What would their legal position be if the relevant student governing body (in this case the IFC) had recommended that ATO lose accreditation and then MIT ignored that recommendation and something subsequently happened? MIT did what it had to do. You would argue that what it had to do was fundamentally unjust, and perhaps you might even have a case, but it certainly wasn’t unfair or unreasonable or improper.</p>
<p>Why don’t you ask the IFC, a group of fellow fraternity members, which decided to throw them out?</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily think that throwing them out for this was the right move either, but those of you who think this is evidence MIT treating fraternities unfairly relative to dorms are barking up the wrong tree. I will repeat again, they were expelled by <em>other fraternities</em>. If you want to complain that ATO was treated harshly or unfairly, complain to the IFC. MIT has done some things over the years to screw over FSILGs (and dorms), but this wasn’t one of them.</p>
<p>It is true that MIT could have granted their appeal, but I can’t really get too fussed about MIT actually upholding the self-governance of their students - that seems, if anything, a show of respect to the fraternity system, as represented by the IFC. MIT, in this case, trusted the fraternities to be capable of running their own disciplinary affairs, instead of needing a higher power to step in.</p>