Risk Management Clarifications
Although an Executive Hearing for Alpha Tau Omega is not being held until next Wednesday, we think it is necessary to clear up some misconceptions created as a result of Dan Chak’s column [“ATO and the Kangaroo Court”] on Tuesday.
We would like to start by clarifying a few points about the IFC Risk Management Policy. Specifically, in Article 1 of Risk Management Policy under Enforcement Policy Definitions, an event is defined as “any gathering of people that is sponsored by an FSILG, occurs on FSILG property or is funded in any way by the FSILG ...”. It continues to list guidelines for interpretation of what an event might be. One of the guidelines in the policy interprets an event as “around 25 people present in a room with at least one person possessing alcohol.”
Article 11, Section B, rule 2 states “Small Events with Alcohol Present are defined as events in which the ratio of guests to members that live in the house does not greatly exceed one to one.” Any gathering classified as an event under the definition with less than the one to one ratio is a Small Event. All other events would fall into the Large Event category.
For those of you familiar with the IFC’s agreement with the Boston Licensing Board, the format we are following with the Cambridge License Commission is similar. We believe that we are the appropriate official body for dealing with situations involving our member houses. As such, the IFC has the responsibility of informing the CLC of incidents involving Cambridge houses, but also has the independence to deal with these situations.
To date, there have been two written correspondences with the CLC with regard to the ATO case. In the first, we wrote them to inform them that a situation that occurred at ATO on April 27. In this letter we explained that MIT, the IFC, ATO, and many student leaders on campus were already discussing the situation and were preparing to deal with it accordingly. At the end of the letter, we requested that the Cambridge License Commission refrain from scheduling a hearing for ATO until the IFC conducted their investigation and judicial proceedings.
The second letter that has been sent to the CLC included the investigation findings and charges brought forth by the IFC against ATO as a result of the Judicial Committee investigation. In no way has ATO been “convicted” of any wrongdoings. No decisions will be made by the IFC until after the Executive Review, requested by ATO, to be held on May 16.
In conclusion, I hope that the members of the MIT community can see the dual role that the IFC serves, both as a representative body of its members as well as an organization that governs itself. We are not working with MIT or the CLC to try and “shoot [one of our member fraternities] in the foot,” but rather, we are working with MIT and the CLC to allow the IFC to practice a self-governing system. Both institutions, MIT and the CLC, are awaiting to hear the results of our hearing. The IFC is not serving as “the right facade needed for MIT to keep itself at arm’s length from its own dirty work,” as Chak claims, but rather, we are doing our job as a governing body.
If there are any further questions or issues concerning IFC policy, actions, or goals, please contact the IFC President Rory P. Pheiffer at firstname.lastname@example.org, or any other member of the IFC Executive Committee either by e-mailing email@example.com or any of the respective officers on the Committee.
[LTE]The IFC Executive Committee
MIT Admins: License to Beat Up?[body]
I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the administration for doing the right thing. In the wake of the ATO/Roots incident, finally we see the rights and needs of the members of our community being upheld. Every community and institution of which I have previously been a part has blatantly violated my rights. But MIT, on the other hand, has shown that it supports my right to beat people up if they call me names.
Perhaps I will take this opportunity to start wearing my yarmulke. Not out of pride at my Jewish heritage, mind you, but in hopes of hearing more anti-Semitic comments. After all, there’s nothing I like more than beating up anti-Semites. Thank you, MIT. As a sign of my appreciation, I will donate $10 to my senior gift for every anti-Semite the administration lets me attack without penalty.[sig]
Geoffrey Williamson ’01