Dartmouth SigEp's Suspension

Dear Brothers and friends of Dartmouth SigEp,

In the Winter of 2017, after a number of years of witnessing increasingly risky behavior and adamant refusals by the undergrads to change their ways, the Sigma Phi Epsilon national fraternity, with the consent of the NH Alpha Alumni and Volunteer Corporation (AVC) Board, decided to appoint an Alumni Advisory Committee (AAC) to oversee the operations of our chapter and conduct a membership review of the 2019 and 2020 members. This step was taken as a last resort after attempts at coaching, mentoring and cajoling failed to alter the defiantly independent and risky path the chapter members were following.

Specifically, that behavior included:

• No discernible member development program,
• Excessive and wanton vandalism to the facility that so many alumni had contributed funds to build,
• Significant drug use in the house,
• Frequent violations of the College’s ban on hard alcohol,
• No willingness to convene Standards Board meetings or otherwise hold brothers to account for their misbehavior,
• College probation in six of ten consecutive terms, and seemingly no acknowledgment that the college’s tolerance for fraternity misbehavior has changed and its very recognition was imperiled,
• Endangering the lives of members by standing-by as they consumed life-threatening amounts of alcohol,
• Endangering the life of a comatose member by not promptly calling for assistance, but instead moving him offsite,
• And much, much more.

No stellar GPA, or quantity of public service projects, varsity team or musical group memberships or campus leadership positions could make up for this behavior.

A membership review is a process by which a group of alumni interview the current brothers and attempt to identify those who have the desire to be a part of a chapter that would aspire to the ideals of Sigma Phi Epsilon. Those that don’t wish to go through the process or are rejected are free to immediately join a fraternity that might be more appropriate to the experience that they seek. In our case, roughly 60% chose to interview and of those about half appeared to be serious about their intent to be part of a revitalized chapter.

Almost immediately after the member review, a significant number of alums from recent classes began calling for the chapter to once again go local so that a) all of the members who failed to qualify for continued membership could rejoin, and b) the chapter could continue to serve alcohol in the house, which the undergraduate brothers from around the country overwhelmingly voted to ban at the 2017 Conclave (effective fall, 2018). The AVC, as the legal owners of 11 Webster Ave., considered that option, but rejected it because it was abundantly clear that going local would solve none of the issues listed above and would presumably result in even less direction and supervision. Almost every discussion returned to two primary risks, both of which are clearly unacceptable:

• Someone could die
• The current brothers could imperil the future of Sigma Phi Epsilon at Dartmouth (see AD, SAE)

While we understand the pain of the undergraduate brothers who feel disenfranchised, and the consternation of many alumni who have little allegiance to the national fraternity, we have fully considered the options and are convinced that this is the best path forward.

We recently received a letter from the undergraduate brothers who successfully navigated the membership review indicating that they have reconsidered their expressed desire to be part of Sigma Phi Epsilon, so it seems likely that SigEp HQ will pull the chapter’s charter and NH Alpha will go dormant for an undetermined period. We are working closely with the College and HQ to develop a plan build a healthy chapter that fulfills SigEp's Balanced Man ideals, ensures members have a beneficial experience in the fraternity and creates a strong future for SigEp at Dartmouth. We will follow up with more details about this plan in the coming months.

At a 2018 “town hall” event open to all of our alumni, much of this was detailed, but some questions were asked for which there wasn’t sufficient time to respond in the allotted time. Following is representative sample of those questions and detailed responses to each. If after reading these you have more questions, please feel free to reach out to AVC president J.D. Optekar.

HFF,

Sigma Phi Epsilon NH Alpha AVC Board

-----------------------------------------------------------

1) AVC Policies & Bylaws:

a. I would like to hear more details about the process leading up to the AVC Board voting to make alumni AVC members non-voting. How will AVC Board members be selected moving forward?

b. How is the AVC planning to remain accountable to the broader alumni whose interests the Board is supposed to represent?

c. What is the plan to engage the alumni body and drive support, if not for the decisions that are being made, for the new brotherhood?

There were several factors leading up the bylaws revision. Needs for improvements had been identified since the most recent revision in 2016, however the board had been slow to implement them and the catalyst for action was the call by a group of recent alumni to consider localizing the chapter and removing several members from the board. This request brought to light a significant issue of concern in the existing bylaws whereby any group of 15 alumni could call for an AVC meeting at any time and date of their choosing and if 5 or more attended, that group could take any and all unilateral actions for the entire organization. This is a terrible way to run an organization responsible for a multi-million dollar property and one that serves 1500 living alumni, so the AVC Board took action to update the bylaws and align them with best practices of other New Hampshire non-profit organizations, including those of Dartmouth College and the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. In fact, membership in the AVC has now been broadened by removing the annual membership dues requirement and making all alumni automatic members. Additionally, alumni input is still welcome and the AVC Board will continue to hold elections of trustees at the annual meeting in the fall. There are three board members who will be retiring from service in the fall and the AVC Board welcomes anyone who is interested in joining to contact JD Optekar (jdoptekar@sbcglobal.net).

The recent events over the past few months at the chapter have elicited numerous communications and conversations between the AVC Board and alumni, and the AVC welcomes all input. The recent Town Hall phone call was intended to engage our alumni and listen to varying viewpoints.

The AVC Board includes members from a variety of backgrounds (class years from ’76 through ’06, both Sigma Phi Epsilon and Sigma Theta Epsilon, for example). The AVC Board members also have a wide range of views on various subjects and regularly have healthy debates; a diversity of perspectives is welcome and is, in fact, one of the strengths of the AVC Board

2) Undergraduate Membership Review:

a. I think everyone would like to see the framework/methodology applied during the review of the existing undergraduates, i.e., the specific metrics used in evaluating who was or was not qualified to remain a brother at NH Alpha. Please let us know what the qualifiers were.

b. Why was it necessary to kick out 80% of the current undergrads? What did those individuals do wrong?

c. What was the rationale to couple membership review with the decision to go dry?

d. What were some of the ways the AVC tried to generate accountability within the undergraduate members prior to the membership review?

The AVC and SigEp HQ would have liked nothing more than to have avoided the membership review – in the end it was an action of last resort, taken only when all other efforts to guide the chapter in improving its operations over several years had failed. On the surface, the chapter seemed strong, with 100+ members and a good average GPA. However there were numerous underlying problems. The chapter had been on College probation 6 of the 10 past terms. In the last four years, two members were sent to the ER with life-threatening blood alcohol levels in excess of 0.30. Almost no formal Balanced Man Program was in place to develop the members as they progressed through their Dartmouth experience. Several members of the AVC Board have been working with the chapter for years to try to gradually improve things, but these efforts were insufficient and when the chapter violated its College probation status in the Winter term of 2018 and was formally suspended by Dartmouth, the HQ staff decided that a membership review was warranted and the AVC Board concurred.

The decision by SigEp nationally to go substance-free at all facilities was made by undergraduate representatives from chapters nationwide at the 2017 summer Conclave and was not connected with the events leading up to the membership review at NH Alpha.

The focus of the membership review was to identify members of NH Alpha who were:

• Aligned with the core tenets of Sigma Phi Epsilon.
• Committed to reforming the chapter to align with the Balanced Man Program.
• Shared our aspiration for SigEp to not only be a fraternal organization fostering brotherhood and collegiate friendships, but also an organization that contributes to the Dartmouth community and to the personal development and accountability of the chapter members.

Unfortunately, only about 60% of the membership chose to go through the membership review, inherently limiting the number accepted into the chapter going forward. Of those that did participate, many chose to copy/paste answers to the membership review questions from a standard response that the members developed in advance, which demonstrated a lack of commitment to the process and SigEp in general. One member showed up to the review visibly intoxicated. In the end, 22 members were invited back in total, including 3 after appealing the initial results.

3) When the current brothers manifestly feel no connection to Sig Ep national and want to create a different experience for themselves, why does a narrow group of alumni think they are in a better place to dictate brothers' undergraduate experience?

The AVC has responsibilities to several parties. Fundamentally, the articles of incorporation of the organization state that the AVC exists to support the Dartmouth chapter of the Sigma Phi Epsilon national fraternity. With that said, the AVC also has an obligation to consider the views and input of alumni and a duty to the parents of undergraduate members to ensure that the chapter practices sound risk management that protects the health of its members. In hindsight, the AVC recognizes that communication with the alumni should have been stronger leading up to the membership review (one message was sent out to all alumni on March 29, but appears to have been missed by many).

Nonetheless, the clear best path forward when considering the undergraduates, 1500 living alumni and the families of the undergraduates is to stay affiliated with the national fraternity. The vast majority of NH Alpha’s history has been as part of the national fraternity, so the majority of the alumni have an experience associated with the national fraternity and built around SigEp’s core principles. In addition, SigEp nationally offers a structured personal development program through the Balanced Man Program that enhances the undergraduate experience beyond what a local fraternal social organization can offer. Lastly, SigEp’s progressive stance on moving the fraternity towards substance-free facilities will reduce the likelihood of a tragedy happening at the chapter and helps improve the reputation of the fraternity to ensure its future at a time when Greek systems are under pressure at Dartmouth and on campuses nationwide for poor risk management.

It was inevitable that some alumni and undergraduates would disagree with this direction and it is unfortunate that the current undergraduate members did not choose to take up the challenge to build a truly world class chapter, but the AVC has a responsibility to establish a future direction for the chapter that establishes the best path forward for the chapter’s long-term future.

4) Going Local:

a. Was there any systematic effort to measure alumni preferences on the importance of staying affiliated with national vs. going local, i.e. a poll?

b. Did the AVC give any consideration to allowing the chapter to go local? What are the obstacles to doing so?

c. Couldn't we create a local house that shared similar values with SigEp national?

d. Could you please explain how those risks are greater than the certainty of losing every brother in the house when we don't go local?

Much of this is addressed in the response to the prior questions, but to expand further, the AVC Board did spend time considering a local path. Besides the Dartmouth Greek Life policy preventing the recognition of organizations under College sanction (as SigEp has been since Winter term), there are also disadvantages and no advantages in doing so. A local chapter could be established with similar values to the national fraternity, but, as mentioned above, it would not be able to provide the kind of member development program and leadership opportunities that SigEp nationally offers through the Balanced Man Program and national events such as the Carlson Leadership Academy, Ruck Leadership Institute, the Tragos Quest to Greece, and the national Grand Chapter Conclave. NH Alpha went local once before, but ultimately returned to the national fraternity to strengthen its operations and build a stronger future. The chapter could localize and reverse the membership review to re-admit members, but it is virtually certain that this would only lead to poor risk management again, would eliminate any structured programming or personal development programs and likely lead to Dartmouth ultimately closing the chapter permanently. Remaining affiliated with the national fraternity and correcting the behavioral issues at the chapter, while difficult in the near term, offers the strongest path forward for the long-term success of the chapter at Dartmouth.

5) The Future of the Chapter:

a. How do you plan to recruit new members without any undergraduate representation and a house full of a random assortment of students (assuming you have to follow the College policy and fill with others)?

b. How can we expect to fill the house, which is on Webster Ave in the company of other Greek houses, with unaffiliated students?

Unfortunately, it is necessary to close chapters from time to time and then rebuild them from the ground up, but this is not an unusual event, nor one that is irreversible. Sig Ep nationally re-colonizes chapters on average four times per year and has even had to close and re-colonize Virginia Alpha, the founding chapter in Richmond. There are challenges, to be sure, but the HQ team is committed to NH Alpha and to providing resources to make this successful, primarily by having HQ staff spend time at the Dartmouth campus to recruit a team of “founding fathers” committed to the fraternity’s ideals and then supporting this group to grow over time. The AVC will also provide guidance and the financial management of the house to enable the chapter to have a permanent home. There is a shortage of housing on campus, so in the short term the AVC Board will work with the College to solicit tenants and keep the organization financially solvent. This is already in process for the fall and the house at 11 Webster offers some strong advantages relative to other housing options, such as air conditioning that should attract students.

6) If the AAC has final say on bids to potential brothers, and they were the ones that oversaw the drop in diversity via the membership review, how does the house regain its once diverse status?

Several people have made accusations of racial bias in the membership review and the AAC and AVC categorically deny this. As mentioned in response to one of the previous questions, the only criteria used in the membership review to determine which members would remain part of the chapter was a commitment to Sig Ep’s core beliefs and an interest in building a Balanced Man Chapter going forward. Race, creed or any other differentiator were not used in any way – in fact, the 22 members who passed through the review represent a variety of nationalities and backgrounds. It is also worth noting that Sigma Phi Epsilon was the first national fraternity to open its membership to all races and religions at the 1959 Conclave in a legislative action led by Bruce Hasenkamp, NH Alpha ’60. Bruce’s son Peter Hasenkamp, NH Alpha ’98, serves on the AVC and all members of the AAC and AVC support a diverse membership in the chapter and will work to foster this as the chapter is rebuilt. Any accusations of bias are unfounded and distract from the core issue that the chapter required drastic action to correct its program and avoid a future tragedy.

7) Is a belief in a "higher power" necessary to be a SigEp member?

Sigma Phi Epsilon accepts members from all backgrounds and does not discriminate or exclude applicants from any race, religion, creed, etc. SigEp’s ritual does ask potential members to affirm their belief in a higher power, however thousands of members have joined the fraternity from across the nation with a broad spectrum of spiritual beliefs.