Clarifications From the IFC
Alcohol. Police. MIT fraternities. Do I have your attention now? Probably that and the attention of every Boston and Cambridge official out there.
In the July 12 article entitled “IFC Designates Phi Delta Theta Alcohol-Free After Violations,” it was stated that the sanctions on Phi Delta Theta were harsher than usual “as a result of an agreement between the BLB [Boston Licensing Board] and IFC.” While the IFC is working on improving relations between the BLB and our FSILGs, the severity of the sanctions are not based on what the BLB expects. They are based on the violations committed and what the Judicial Committee feels would be an appropriate response.
The IFC’s agreement with the BLB was made in order to give the IFC the ability to try its own cases without intervention from the BLB, rather than the opposite.
A quote in the article read, “I think that they (the Executive Committee) are definitely out of touch with their member groups.” As a member of Exec, I know I speak for all of us when I say that we have chosen to serve the IFC because we care about what happens to our members. Although placing sanctions on members of our community may seem harsh, it is with the goal in mind that houses will learn from their mistakes and it will make them stronger, both as a house and a member of our FSILG community.
The article also implied that it was the IFC’s Executive Committee that placed the sanctions on Phi Delta Theta for their violation of the Risk Management Policy. The final sanctions were the decision of the Judicial Committee, an entirely separate committee of IFC members. The Executive Committee fully supports their decision.
The IFC tries to protect its members with its Risk Management Policy and Judicial By-Laws. The actions that the Executive and Judicial Committees take are all in an effort to ensure that FSILGs will continue to have the opportunity to offer MIT students an unique and rewarding college experience.