Section shuffling terminated

University officials have decided that there will no longer be campus-wide shuffling of sections for fraternities and selective living groups, Campus Council President Stephen Temple announced in a town hall-style forum Wednesday.

Section locations as determined by the most recent Residential Group Assessment process will be honored, but groups dissastisfied with permanently residing in their new locations can appeal to a recently recreated Approval and Removal Committee. The decision to freeze section shuffling was purely made by University administrators, independent of Campus Council, Temple, a junior, said.

“We had a lot of conversations about it, but Campus Council did not have control over that administrative decision,” he said.

Many residential group leaders used the opportunity in Wednesday’s forum to give feedback on the CHP before Campus Council votes on the resolution at its meeting today.

Several leaders who attended the meeting expressed concern at the composition of the ARC, most specifically the presence of five unaffiliated members who are unfamiliar with the workings of fraternities or selective living groups. ARC members would be chosen by the committee co-chairs.

“Trust is a big word to be thrown around especially after going through the RGAC process,” said outgoing Alpha Tau Omega fraternity President Adam DeWolf, a junior. “You’re putting housing in the hands of unaffiliated students and faculty who have not lived in section.”

Temple noted that the committee reflects the estimated 75-25 ratio of unaffiliated students to affiliated students.

“There are very real effects of this process for independent students,” Temple said. “Every bed that goes to a selective living group or fraternity section is one less that could have been for an unaffiliated student, which is why independent students are stakeholders [in the committee].”

Joe Gonzalez, associate dean for residential life, noted that trust would be necessary for this process, but affiliated students formerly had the majority of the say.

“It didn’t really work,” he said. “It was like the fox guarding the hen house, it wasn’t representative of the campus.”

Regarding the impact of section damages, Temple noted that in this new process, damages would be assessed in terms of the severity and impact on the community as opposed to costs. He added that the dollar amount for cleaning and damage repair were not always fair.

“This new policy would be beneficial to both independent students and affiliated students,” Temple said.

The RGA scores, however, do not clearly stipulate what a “low” score would entail and when a group would be at risk for probation.

“There need to be guidelines that groups go by, so that they would know some form of written criteria of what is a probationary score,” DeWolf said. “Leaving groups biting their fingernails when they’ve worked their asses off is unacceptable.”

Campus Council Vice President Johnathan Pryor, a junior, noted that although there were compelling arguments for both sides, a compromise had to be made.

The CHP proposes a reduction in required community events to six, which Temple said reflected a new emphasis on quality instead of quantity. CHP also allows social events like section parties to count.

There was, however, a debate about whether off-campus events could be counted. Council members noted that they would consider the proposition for allowing off-campus philanthropic events.

Community involvement would make up 40 percent of the RGA score, and section stewardship would count for 60 percent.

The decisions of the ARC committee would act as recommendations to the executive director for Residence Life and Housing Services.

“[A group being approved or removed from campus] is not going to come down to one vote,” Pryor said. “Everything here is still a suggestion to the administration.”