University fo Okahoma-Sigma Alpha Epsilon-Racial Chant

[exlurker]

The OU student paper has this editorial, which I think says some things that needed to be said.

http://www.oudaily.com/opinion/edito...5bb7d73f5.html

And this (below) is the related post, which includes the comments by the SAE president that are referenced in the editorial.

http://www.oudaily.com/news/sae-nati...69b15f7e1.html

The SAE president's comments were in Facebook; they have reportedly been deleted. How many times have GCers warned about posting on Facebook? (Somewhere between several and a gazillion times, IIRC.)

[AZTheta]

"A racist organization doesn’t elect a Jewish immigrant from South Africa as its national President. " So wrote Brad Cohen.

Excuse me, sir, ever hear of tokenism? And, FYI: you're Caucasian, aka WHITE. Yes, you're Jewish, but you're WHITE/Caucasian. That's your RACE. Judaism is a religion, not a race. Maybe you meant to write "bigoted" or "prejudiced" or "discriminatory"? I dunno.

This is just getting worse and worse. Cohen didn't help by posting on FB, not at all. The editorial made some valid points, I agree.

[SAEalumnus]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The President of SAE (at least by law, I have no idea about any of SAE's internal machinations) shouldn't see any legal issues here. SAE is a private organization. The government doesn't guarantee you due process rights with regard to private entities.

Not so, I'm afraid. Due process is guaranteed by SAE's national Fraternity Laws (available publicly here). Pursuant to Section 46C6 of the Fraternity Laws, the national president, with the consent of the Supreme Council, may suspend a charter and refer the matter with his report to the next Fraternity Convention for a final determination to be made there. Nowhere in the Fraternity Laws is the national president or the Supreme Council granted the authority to revoke a charter, such authority being reserved exclusively to the Fraternity Convention. That chant goes against everything SAE stands for, so those who participated in or otherwise supported it absolutely should be held to answer for it, but the revocation of that chapter's charter was technically illegal. Having personally attended SAE's national leadership school, I can confirm that no such chant or any other is or has ever been part of the curriculum of that program. The only songs you'll find officially sanctioned by SAE, nevermind taught at the leadership school, are these.

The Supreme Council set a precedent for exercising authority properly reserved to the Convention just last year with the implementation of the True Gentleman Experience ("TGE" / elimination of the pledging program). At the center of both the OU issue and the previous issue with the implementation of the TGE last year is the following single sentence:

"The Supreme Council shall: Represent the Fraternity Convention in the interval between sessions. [Section 21A of the Fraternity Laws (2013)]"

The national president and Supreme Council are hanging their collective hat on the word 'represent' and whether that means that the Supreme Council in fact possesses the full power and authority of the Fraternity Convention while the latter is not in session vs. whether they are simply stewards of that authority in the interim.

One example is sufficient to illustrate this point, which is in the context of the TGE program implemented last year.

If you consider Section 21A in the context of the entire body of the Fraternity Laws, in particular considering Sections 6, 9A, 12C, 12E, 12G, 73A, and 73B, it becomes abundantly clear that any decision to amend or repeal any portion of the Fraternity Laws or of the Ritual may only be accomplished by a supermajority vote of those entitled to a seat at the Convention, then only after prior written notice, and then only if the undergraduates possess a majority of the votes to be cast. Quite simply, the Supreme Council does not have the authority they asserted when the TGE was announced.

What happens if the 2015 Convention repeals this new program? When asked this very question, Deran Abernathy, Associate Executive Director for the Fraternity, explicitly confirmed that in the event the next Convention rejects and repeals this new program, the Supreme Council could “re-up” the program as soon as the Convention had adjourned. This is not rumor or hearsay, I spoke on the phone personally with Deran and had this very conversation.

Let's think about this for a moment. The Fraternity Convention is supposed to be the highest authority of government within our Fraternity, explicitly superior to that of the Supreme Council (Sections 6 and 9A), and is the very body to which an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Council may be taken (Section 78B). The Fraternity Convention is only in session for three days at a time once every two years; but during the other 99% of the time the Convention does not cease to exist. Its membership may still be consulted by direct mail ballot as provided for in Section 12E, which allows for a relatively brief maximum turn around time before a decision may be made. If we are to believe the current Supreme Council's interpretation of the word 'represent,' then that renders the entire biennial Convention both moot and meaningless, as the Supreme Council would have full power and authority to entirely disregard the orders of the Fraternity Convention and do whatever the hell they want during all but three days every two years. This would also mean that an appeal to the "Fraternity Convention" of a decision of the Supreme Council would effectively mean appealing to the Supreme Council regarding a decision of the Supreme Council and all the conflict of interest and bias that implies. The notion that the Supreme Council 'representing' the Fraternity Convention necessarily means they have the full power and authority of the Convention defies logic as well as due process.

In the present case at OU, certainly a swift and decisive response was warranted, but I and others are firmly convinced that the national president and Supreme Council were more motivated by the PR value of revoking OKKA's charter than they were with the legality of doing so or of the due process owed to their members, some of whom may actually be innocent in this, nevermind the Supreme Council's current efforts to pursue expulsion proceedings against every single member of that chapter. Guilty until proven otherwise, it would seem.

The following are SAE's national president's own words as posted earlier this week on Facebook, which I will let speak for themselves:

Originally Posted by Brad Cohen, March 29, 2015, 8:14pm, Facebook

I'm amazed that a University President such as Boren of OU does not know the difference between "learned" and "heard."

If he truly believes these bigots at our former chapter at his University "learned" or were taught that vile song as part of the curriculum at one of the greatest learning experiences for young college men, the Mosely Leadership School, vs heard it from perhaps a handful of equally bigoted idiots outside of the extensive leadership curriculum, then he should not hold the position that he does as President of a major University.

His statements were inflammatory and self serving. At the end of the day, it was his students that chose to hear a vile chant, take it back to their university and make it part of their culture in their chapter.

Disgusting, one sided and biased and I'm done being silent.

After spending the weekend with a retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a retired Army General, the Director for the U.S. patent office and a retired President of Marriott International [here he's referring to guest speakers at the Inner Circle program held this past weekend], most of whom attended the Mosely Leadership School as undergraduates and all learned valuable lessons from it as have tens of thousands of members over its 80 year history, I'm more convinced than ever that SAE builds character, it leads based on its strong values and principles of the True Gentlemen and has an amazing membership that has gone on to contribute enormously to society.

Like any organization, government, university or business, bad apples exist. How you deal with those bad apples is what counts.

We showed clearly and a lot faster than Oklahoma University did, we mean what we say, by closing the chapter within hours of seeing the disgusting video and bringing charges against all members for expulsion.

SAE is not the largest and one of the oldest Fraternities because it's a racist organization. It is because of its values and its ability to change and adapt over the past 159 years.

A racist organization doesn't elect a Jewish immigrant from South Africa as its national President. I'm proud to lead it, I'm proud of of our members and I'm proud of the many bold and proactive changes we've made in the past year. As our executive director has clearly stated, if any chapter uses this vile chant, they too will be dealt with harshly and swiftly.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SAEalumnus

In the present case at OU, certainly a swift and decisive response was warranted, but I and others are firmly convinced that the national president and Supreme Council were more motivated by the PR value of revoking OKKA's charter than they were with the legality of doing so or of the due process owed to their members, some of whom may actually be innocent in this, nevermind the Supreme Council's current efforts to pursue expulsion proceedings against every single member of that chapter. Guilty until proven otherwise, it would seem.

That's clearly the case. I guess they thought it was better to ask forgiveness than permission. It would appear your governance model is similar to Sigma Nu's in that at least for 3 days every couple of years, the Convention is the legislative body of the fraternity. Your Convention, I hope, sends a message which the analogs of other Supreme Councils and National Presidents will receive--that simply ignoring the rules in order to get the headlines you want is not acceptable.

I'm sure most of our national bylaws set out certain rules for due process and place constraints on our national leadership. I hope your convention does what it needs to do. The entire fraternal system is watching.

[Nanners52674]

Originally Posted by SAEalumnus

Not so, I'm afraid. Due process is guaranteed by SAE's national Fraternity Laws (available publicly here). Pursuant to Section 46C6 of the Fraternity Laws, the national president, with the consent of the Supreme Council, may suspend a charter and refer the matter with his report to the next Fraternity Convention for a final determination to be made there. Nowhere in the Fraternity Laws is the national president or the Supreme Council granted the authority to revoke a charter, such authority being reserved exclusively to the Fraternity Convention. That chant goes against everything SAE stands for, so those who participated in or otherwise supported it absolutely should be held to answer for it, but the revocation of that chapter's charter was technically illegal. Having personally attended SAE's national leadership school, I can confirm that no such chant or any other is or has ever been part of the curriculum of that program. The only songs you'll find officially sanctioned by SAE, nevermind taught at the leadership school, are these.

The Supreme Council set a precedent for exercising authority properly reserved to the Convention just last year with the implementation of the True Gentleman Experience ("TGE" / elimination of the pledging program). At the center of both the OU issue and the previous issue with the implementation of the TGE last year is the following single sentence:



The national president and Supreme Council are hanging their collective hat on the word 'represent' and whether that means that the Supreme Council in fact possesses the full power and authority of the Fraternity Convention while the latter is not in session vs. whether they are simply stewards of that authority in the interim.

One example is sufficient to illustrate this point, which is in the context of the TGE program implemented last year.

If you consider Section 21A in the context of the entire body of the Fraternity Laws, in particular considering Sections 6, 9A, 12C, 12E, 12G, 73A, and 73B, it becomes abundantly clear that any decision to amend or repeal any portion of the Fraternity Laws or of the Ritual may only be accomplished by a supermajority vote of those entitled to a seat at the Convention, then only after prior written notice, and then only if the undergraduates possess a majority of the votes to be cast. Quite simply, the Supreme Council does not have the authority they asserted when the TGE was announced.

What happens if the 2015 Convention repeals this new program? When asked this very question, Deran Abernathy, Associate Executive Director for the Fraternity, explicitly confirmed that in the event the next Convention rejects and repeals this new program, the Supreme Council could “re-up” the program as soon as the Convention had adjourned. This is not rumor or hearsay, I spoke on the phone personally with Deran and had this very conversation.

Let's think about this for a moment. The Fraternity Convention is supposed to be the highest authority of government within our Fraternity, explicitly superior to that of the Supreme Council (Sections 6 and 9A), and is the very body to which an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Council may be taken (Section 78B). The Fraternity Convention is only in session for three days at a time once every two years; but during the other 99% of the time the Convention does not cease to exist. Its membership may still be consulted by direct mail ballot as provided for in Section 12E, which allows for a relatively brief maximum turn around time before a decision may be made. If we are to believe the current Supreme Council's interpretation of the word 'represent,' then that renders the entire biennial Convention both moot and meaningless, as the Supreme Council would have full power and authority to entirely disregard the orders of the Fraternity Convention and do whatever the hell they want during all but three days every two years. This would also mean that an appeal to the "Fraternity Convention" of a decision of the Supreme Council would effectively mean appealing to the Supreme Council regarding a decision of the Supreme Council and all the conflict of interest and bias that implies. The notion that the Supreme Council 'representing' the Fraternity Convention necessarily means they have the full power and authority of the Convention defies logic as well as due process.

In the present case at OU, certainly a swift and decisive response was warranted, but I and others are firmly convinced that the national president and Supreme Council were more motivated by the PR value of revoking OKKA's charter than they were with the legality of doing so or of the due process owed to their members, some of whom may actually be innocent in this, nevermind the Supreme Council's current efforts to pursue expulsion proceedings against every single member of that chapter. Guilty until proven otherwise, it would seem.

The following are SAE's national president's own words as posted earlier this week on Facebook, which I will let speak for themselves:

That was a lot to read, are you saying that you think SAE nationals was in the wrong in pulling the charter?

[SAEalumnus]

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

That was a lot to read, are you saying that you think SAE nationals was in the wrong in pulling the charter?

I'm not saying it was necessarily a wrong move. I am saying the people who made that decision lack the authority to do so.

[DubaiSis]

Thank you for the thorough (and cited) essay on the issue. If I may boil this down, you think SAE didn't handle the situation correctly according to your bylaws but the excuses given at the collegiate level are a load of hooey.

But I have a question. You can't possibly wait 2 years between conventions to pull charters but it sounds like this is only the fully legitimate way to get it done. Do I have that right?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

But I have a question. You can't possibly wait 2 years between conventions to pull charters but it sounds like this is only the fully legitimate way to get it done. Do I have that right?

I assume that this is how the situation can be handled between conventions, though obviously SAEalumnus can correct me if I'm wrong:

Originally Posted by SAEalumnus

The Fraternity Convention is only in session for three days at a time once every two years; but during the other 99% of the time the Convention does not cease to exist. Its membership may still be consulted by direct mail ballot as provided for in Section 12E, which allows for a relatively brief maximum turn around time before a decision may be made.

Or perhaps it's that the Supreme Council can suspend but only the Convention every two years can revoke?

I'd say that SAE is in for a very interesting convention this summer.

[SAEalumnus]

The chapter at OU is (was) among the largest in the country at something on the order of 160 members. Let's suppose for a moment that this chant was accepted by essentially all of their members as a part of their chapter's "culture." In such a case, the charter should be revoked and all 160 members expelled, which is precisely what the national officers are currently attempting to do. I believe those involved knew exactly what they were doing, no matter whether they were bigots spewing hatred or douchebags pursuing shock value, so I don't believe for a minute any comments aimed at blame shifting or trying to mitigate their responsibility for their own actions. If a member's conduct is such that he disgraces himself and his character to the point that the Fraternity is nothing more than a name to him, our Ritual mandates that he be expelled. No exceptions, no questions asked. What we don't know is what proportion of those 160 members were actually responsible for this. It may well have been damned near 100%, but it may also have been a relatively small fraction or anywhere in between. Until it is established by a trial that a member is, in fact, guilty, and then by a separate vote as to what penalty should be imposed, he is still a Brother in SAE and is still entitled to due process.

If some portion of those 160-odd members were opposed to / didn't support this chant and constitute enough of a group of guys to keep a chapter running, then the Convention might consider expelling the members who caused the problem, but restoring the charter for the benefit of those who were found fit to wear our badge, if any. In other words, those responsible should in every case be expelled, but if the problem could be remediated to the point of allowing the upstanding remainder of the chapter's members to function as a chapter, perhaps under the temporary guardianship of an alumni commission, then an option like that is possible. Having said that, if OU has revoked their local recognition and banned SAE from ever returning during the current campus president's tenure (nevermind Brad Cohen's personal comments about OU's president), the odds of the Convention defying the university and supporting a chapter otherwise fall somewhere between slim and none without a seriously compelling and nationally defensible reason. SAE's current national leadership has demonstrated a particular sensitivity to PR and headlines, even when published by sources hardly worthy of being considered legitimate "news," so the Convention and national leadership would have to be willing to fight a PR battle on behalf of OU's members if they were ever to entertain restoring their charter. As a practical matter, I have zero expectation of that happening.

The Fraternity Convention, and only the Fraternity Convention, possesses the authority to grant or to revoke a charter. Period.

This is, in fact, common practice as far as I am aware. For example, within the Masonic Grand Lodge of California (formally, the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of California), the Grand Lodge and only the Grand Lodge has the authority to issue (Section 801.010, et seq. of the California Masonic Code ["CMC"]) or to revoke (813.030 CMC, et seq.) a charter. The Grand Master has the authority to grant a Dispensation, under which a local group must function for a time as a prerequisite to obtaining a charter (analogous to Colony recognition), but even the substantial authority and autonomy enjoyed by the Grand Master does not extend to granting or revoking a charter. The most recent charter to be revoked occurred just this past October at our Annual Communication of Grand Lodge and followed an original suspension of the charter in December 2011 and an investigation and demands for corrective action by no fewer than four Past Grand Masters before ultimately being revoked almost four years later by a vote of 89.8% of the members of Grand Lodge. The then-current (now Past) Grand Master was able to recommend the revocation of the charter in question, but could not unilaterally take that action himself. As a matter of fact, IIRC two different Past Grand Masters involved in the situation participated in the discussion while the motion was on the floor, but even then it required a vote of the Grand Lodge, over 70% of the members of which are the Master and Wardens [president and vice presidents] of the various constituent Lodges and only about 5% of whom are current or past Grand Lodge Officers combined. The supreme governing authority is vested in the constituent members collectively, not in the handful of Grand Lodge officers individually, or even in the Grand Master himself. The same is true of SAE and its Eminent Supreme Archon ("ESA" or national president) and its Supreme Council vs. the constituent, and most importantly undergraduate, membership.

The Supreme Council has three options with which to legally dispose of OKKA's charter:
1) Section 12A -- At a regular biennial session of the Fraternity Convention, a vote can be taken as to revocation per Section 46C7; or
2) Section 12B -- A special session of the Fraternity Convention can be called to attend to this specific purpose, though this is likely the least practical option; or
3) Section 12E -- A direct mail ballot is sent out to those entitled to a seat at the Convention and any votes not returned within 21 days are assumed to be affirmative.

As it happens, the next Fraternity Convention will take place the third weekend of June this year, which is not all that long from now. Nevertheless, a direct mail ballot sent out on the question of whether or not to revoke OKKA's charter would reach a decision upon the sooner of 1) at least 2/3rds of the mailed ballots coming back in favor of revocation, or 2) 21 days having elapsed since the ballot was mailed. Three weeks or less, that's it. If the Supreme Council, or the ESA on the SC's behalf, had mailed out such a ballot the same night they held their conference call to "revoke" OKKA's charter, the 21-day window would have expired this past weekend and a decision would already have been made. The ESA would just not have been able to claim he acted before OU did, thus sacrificing the PR advantage for the sake of following our own governing code.

In any event, no matter what the disciplinary situation, no matter how repugnant the behavior, no matter how much the national organization gets hammered in the press, neither the ESA, nor the Supreme Council possesses the authority to either grant or to revoke a chapter's charter. The Fraternity Convention and only the Fraternity Convention has that authority. This coming Convention will definitely be interesting. I know for a fact that a package of 20 proposed resolutions was submitted for consideration at this Convention, for all of which I was among the co-signers and on one of which, directly relevant to this subject matter, I was a principal author. I'm not personally aware of any other submissions as the usual pre-Convention publication used for providing that notice has not yet been published, but it would not surprise me to find that others were also sent in sounding off on the Supreme Council's recent power grabs. The fact of the matter is our five elected national officers (excluding our Eminent Supreme Recorder / executive director, who is technically not a member of the Supreme Council) constitute a progressive line -- just like the Masons, actually. You tend to get elected first to the lowest ranking position, then to each succeeding position at two-year intervals until you're finally elected national president. Accordingly, a national officer remains a member of the Supreme Council for 10 consecutive years from the start of his term as Eminent Supreme Chronicler to the end of his term as Eminent Supreme Archon. The only time that changes is if those positions are contested and other member(s) get elected in lieu of the presumptive candidate(s). In my personal opinion, the entire Supreme Council should be voted out of office and an entirely new group of five officers, willing to strictly adhere to our Laws and Ritual, elected in their place. Playing fast and loose with either the Laws or the Ritual, or both as the current Supreme Council has done, is a recipe for disaster.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by Kevin

How so?

You weren't. MysticCat cleared it up. I actually agree with you. That was my misunderstanding when I originally read your post.

[exlurker]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

"A racist organization doesn’t elect a Jewish immigrant from South Africa as its national President. " So wrote Brad Cohen.

Excuse me, sir, ever hear of tokenism? And, FYI: you're Caucasian, aka WHITE. Yes, you're Jewish, but you're WHITE/Caucasian. That's your RACE. Judaism is a religion, not a race. Maybe you meant to write "bigoted" or "prejudiced" or "discriminatory"? I dunno.

This is just getting worse and worse. Cohen didn't help by posting on FB, not at all. The editorial made some valid points, I agree.

SAE president Cohen has apologized to OU's president for what was written on Facebook:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/educa...698546a8d.html

[SOM]

Sorry-President Boren is the one who is deflecting and slitting hairs. In fact IMVHO he is making a part. “I received a letter of apology from him (Thursday),” Boren told Matthews. “He had made a Facebook post and then immediately or very quickly took it down. He’s trying to draw a distinction between hearing a chant at the national convention and learning a chant, and I said ‘No, don’t waste your time splitting hairs, let’s talk about moral issues.’” The moral issue starts at his campus. His campus population. And this was very wrong as posting was NEVER taken down-Posting is STILL up on Facebook. So one really should start to wonder just what else he is not saying correctly.

[SOM]

Fraternity president discusses OU bus video, Boren http://okne.ws/1CWLQCW?utm_source=Ne...areBar-Twitter