If deemed necessary, reported comments will be removed within 7 - 10 days but usually sooner. Please submit this report ONLY if you STRONGLY believe this needs to be removed. Multiple illegitimate reports slow down the administrative process of removing the actual and more seriously unfavorable content.

Poster Name:
Here it is

Poster Message:
Path 3 If none of the above work, then it is time to explore the third, nuclear option. Assume that after putting all the ideas and research together, both SLL and the Board of Trustees are unwilling to partner with you to make a stronger fraternity system at IU. Desperate affairs require desperate remedies. There is the option for the council and its member fraternities to completely sever ties with the university. Though this has been casually discussed around the IFC office and in fraternity houses a number of times through the years, this is a very serious decision and should not be considered without taking all risks into account. However, sometimes in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connect them with another. It would be unfortunate if circumstances require dissolving the relationship between IU and the fraternities because I think a partnership can be much stronger. However, fraternity systems can be successful without the universities involvement and I think there is a national trend starting towards separation. In fall of 2004, a fraternity pledge at UC Boulder tragically died from alcohol poisoning. The following spring, the university issued a Draconian set of policies similar to our Housed Fraternal Organization Agreement. UC allowed no student input; the only option given was to submit to all the terms or be shut down (sound familiar?). The document required a fulltime live in staff member, deferred rush (as members of IU’s Bloomington Faculty Council have suggested) and other requirements. Unlike at IU, the fraternities at CU consulted with their alumni boards, the National Interfraternity Conference, each fraternity’s national office and attorneys and broke ties with the university. While CU predicted disaster for an independent fraternity system after losing the advice and regulation of the university, the opposite occurred. A culture of mutual accountability was fostered. Since ending university affiliation, UC’s fraternities have grown from 12 to 20 and membership has grown from 800 to 1,800. The system is not anarchy, as three chapters have been suspended for not upholding the shared standards. If you want to find out more details on this, read the article entitled “Fraternities Can Change on Their Own” posted in the Chronicle of Higher Education. There are other institutions where fraternities have no formal relationship with their host universities. At both Harvard and Yale for example, fraternities, secret societies and final clubs have no relationship with the universities and are entirely governed by their undergraduates, their alumni boards and when applicable, their national offices.