Letter to the Editor 2/26/13

By Scott “Patches” Greer—A response was issued to my previous letter that was filled with snide comments about a word choice error, a single typo, and cheap shots against my fraternity.

Only two paragraphs contained valid criticism of my position on our administration and the FIPG policy, which are going to be the only parts of it that I address.The writer, Justin Huggins, was accurate to state that when reading the FIPG policy, it sounds similar to the risk management policies of UTC fraternities that have not signed onto it, such as Pi Kappa Alpha and Kappa Sigma.

The reason why I’m concerned about the FIPG policy being enforced at our school is directly linked to Justin Pohl. Last semester, I was a member of the Interfraternity Council Executive Board and we were responsible for overseeing judicial cases dealing with IFC Fraternities.

Pohl brought before us a case that dealt with a student who had been charged with Drinking Underage and had been at a fraternity house the night of him receiving a DUA.

In the police report that was presented to us, there was no evidence of this student being provided alcohol by this fraternity, any other students being provided alcohol by this fraternity, or even any evidence that this student drank at this fraternity house.

The only evidence that was used to charge the fraternity was that at some point in the night, the student went to the house and saw some type of container with beers in it. This container was in an area that would not be considered a common area.

The IFC Exec Board determined that this fraternity was not at fault and warranted no sanctions. Pohl disagreed and felt that the fraternity should be sanctioned under FIPG policy. Pohl argued that the mystery container constituted a common source of alcohol and  this meant that the fraternity was distributing alcohol to guests at this event.

Pohl even tried to argue that this mystery container violated the BYOB policy of only allowing 6-packs into social events and that a third party vendor should have been monitoring this unidentified container. The Exec Board, fortunately, did not agree with this position and stuck with our stance that this fraternity was not in violation of any of the codes of the IFC constitution.

But this event showed that Pohl would use ridiculous justifications and twist evidence to suit his own agenda of what IFC’s risk management policy should be. This semester, he charged another fraternity with similarly dubious evidence and even exploited a meeting with a leader of the fraternity that would’ve been treated as confidential by past Greek administrators to use against the charged fraternity. But with this case, Pohl took it to administration instead of IFC Exec in the hope that it would have more favorable results.

Huggins is in favor of Pohl’s policies, but he doesn’t fully understand how it would negatively affect fraternities with houses. His own fraternity, Delta Upsilon, does not have a house, which means there would be more leeway for their parties, as it is harder to determine what constitutes a fraternity event if it is not at a recognized fraternity house or a designated off-campus fraternity function.

I’m also leery of the alcohol survey that was created by Huggins and issued to students by Pohl. Considering Pohl’s track record, I have a feeling that he would use the survey to justify stricter policies against Greek Life rather than help our organizations.

In conclusion, the policies that Pohl wants to enact would hurt the social scene of our campus and Greek Life in general. It would also drive away more students that would’ve otherwise been proud Mocs if they were allowed to have fun, instead of being rigorously monitored by school officials.

No Comments Yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>