When UCLA withdraws its endorsement of a fraternity, it should
stand by its own conditions before it considers reinstatement.
For some reason, UCLA failed to do that this September when it
reinstated Sigma Chi despite the fraternity’s failure to
fulfill one of five important conditions: the hiring of a live-in
graduate advisor.
Sigma Chi was first placed on suspension on Oct. 10, 2003, when
it hosted a sorority “keg-off” in violation of
university regulations. Later, on Nov. 7, a report was filed with
the Center for Student Programing alleging incidents of hazing.
On March 31, after months of secret hearings, UCLA withdrew its
official recognition of the fraternity.
Dean of Students Robert Naples said UCLA acted in good faith to
reinstate the fraternity because its members had indicated the
graduate advisor would be hired imminently.
But reinstating the fraternity before it has absolutely
fulfilled the requirements sends the wrong message to the campus.
Losing recognition for a summer hardly seems an effective way to
curb prohibited activities.
Being recognized officially is a privilege, not a right. But
it’s hard to see that distinction when the
administration’s actions seemingly pander to organizations
that disregard its policies.