SAE suspension wrong, requires reversal

The Editorial Board stands in firm opposition to the disciplinary course the University has decided to take against the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity. We view these punitive measures as lacking in both proportionality and basic fairness, and we condemn University administrators for their negligent erring in attention to precedent and context. We urge immediate reconsideration of the case and a new punishment to be handed down.

We strongly believe in accountability, and there is no doubt that SAE’s neglectful attitude during its party necessitated disciplinary repercussions. Yet the sanctions imposed by University officials are draconian and show a clear lack of basic understanding of the Hopkins social scene by new administrators.

The imposition of a full calendar year-long suspension, along with an additional full calendar year-long probation, for providing alcohol to minors and failing to adequately manage who is able to enter a party is simply absurd on its face. While Vice Provost for Student Affairs Kevin Shollenberger says in one breath that the Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) at the University “found a lack of evidence that SAE members engaged in behavior that increased the potential for sexual violence at the party,” he says in the next breath, “This suspension reflects the gravity of what occurred at SAE last November,” explicitly stating the connection between the alleged sexual assault and the sanctions imposed. Though the Vice Provost says in his email that “[t]he dean’s office, however, found that fraternity members failed to follow Johns Hopkins student conduct policies, contributing to an unsafe environment at the party,” the OIE, which specifically investigated the incident as it related to Title IX and the Sexual Violence Policy, found no specific wrongdoing on SAE’s part.

It is truly tragic what allegedly occurred at that party, and we as a community must ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again. But SAE should not be the scapegoat. They certainly did not properly control who was able to enter their party. And yet, we all know that in this Hopkins social culture there isn’t a single student group — from Lax to Rugby to all other IFC fraternities — that checks J-Cards at the door. We all know that this could have happened to anyone.

What is probably most alarming is a brief contextual comparison between two remarkably similar punishments handed down in the past year. The first is SAE: suspended for nearly a full year, on probation for another, forced to get University approval of a plan to contribute to Greek Life, and mandated to attend certain training programs. The second is Pi Kappa Alpha (PIKE): suspended for one year, no probationary period requirements, forced to submit a chapter improvement place and attend certain training, and forced to leave their house.

Yet while the punishments are nearly identical, the groups’ transgressions could not be more apparent. SAE provided alcohol to minors and failed to adequately manage who made it into their party. At this party, a minor was allegedly sexually assaulted by two men entirely unaffiliated with SAE and/or Hopkins. The party had been registered with the University, and the brothers of SAE immediately called police and worked with law enforcement and the school upon being made aware of the potential assault.

Additionally, the Vice Provost contends that SAE had been warned in the past for serving alcohol to minors and controlling guests, but the organization was not put on probation (and thus we find this uncompelling, as the University clearly wasn’t too concerned as to officially warn them — indeed, what is the meaning of probation if any simple prior conversation triggers the highest possible punishment short of revoking a chapter?)

SAE was, by all accounts, a very productive part of Greek Life at Hopkins and all along the way made responsible decisions.

PIKE, on the other hand, was a completely different story. PIKE, too, was found to have served alcohol to minors and to have failed to control who entered their party, as well as to have disturbed neighbors. Yet PIKE was accused of its own members gang raping a partygoer. Additionally, PIKE was found to have created a dangerous environment — their house had recently been the location of several violent encounters, chiefly a stabbing. PIKE had accrued a long list of disciplinary infractions and was on probation at the time of the incident. The Vice Provost acknowledged even to The News-Letter that “Both groups had disciplinary issues in the past but were different in their nature.”

The inequality in punishments is simply unjust, and we call upon the highest levels of the Administration to right the wrongs done by your subordinates.

When the Vice Provost writes that the “suspension reflects the gravity of what occurred at SAE last November – the report of a young girl sexually assaulted during a fraternity party at which members violated alcohol and conduct policies” even after the OIE found that the organization did not create a dangerous environment leading to the assault, he is conflating the two and punishing SAE for the assault rather than their actions. Additionally, when he writes, “The sanctions also speak to the ways in which we will continue to hold members of our community responsible for creating safe environments at parties and other events,” we take that as a not-so-veiled indication that the administration is making an example out of SAE rather than executing a just disciplinary process.

For an Administration so insistent that it is trying to work with Greek Life to make our community safer, these school officials have certainly lost a great deal of credibility with this decision. The punishment should be reversed and remanded back to the Office of Student Life for further proceedings consistent with the context and proportionality of the larger situation.