The administration at Wesleyan is under fire from students and a national student rights organization for banning all student activities at an off-campus fraternity, Beta Theta Pi, located at the corner of High and Church Streets. Beta House was the site of an alleged rape of a student, and has a reputation for parties with substantial alcohol consumption.
Beta has been part of Wesleyan since the 1890s. Their house is currently owned by Beta’s alumni association, and is considered off-campus housing, but is not recognized as a sanctioned "private society" by the Wesleyan administration. As with other off-campus living arrangements, students have until now been given permission to live in Beta. Effective in August of this year, Wesleyan students will be forbidden to live at the house.
A series of incidents over the past several years have created tension between Beta and the University administration. The student newspaper, The Argus, reported that there had been multiple hospitalizations for alcohol poisoning associated with Beta, and more than one reported sexual assault.
Last fall, the administration urged students to avoid parties at Beta house, writing in a campus-wide email, “We advise all Wesleyan students that they should avoid the residence because we cannot establish the safety of the premises.”
This stark warning came after a student reported to the Middletown Police that she had been raped during a party at the house on October 31st. In January, a 21-year old non-student, John O’Neill, was arrested and charged with first degree sexual assault.
This week, the administration took the ultimate step against the fraternity, announcing, “Students will be prohibited from residing in - or using for social activities - houses or property owned, leased or operated by private societies that are not recognized by the University.” Mike Whaley, dean of students, acknowledged that the policy is expressly targeted at Beta house, writing that the University is hopeful that Beta would choose to become officially sanctioned “program housing”. This step would require Beta to comply with University policies on a range of topics including non-discrimination, smoking, quiet periods during exams, social events, and liquor permits for parties. It would also guarantee Wesleyan Public Safety access to the building.
Some students, including many who are not Beta members, have protested that this new policy goes too far, violating the rights of students to choose where to live and where to socialize, “This is not a Beta protest. This is a student rights protest,” wrote one student on a Wesleyan student forum.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), has also protested the new policy. In an article entitled, “New Policy at Wesleyan University Makes a Mockery of Freedom of Association,” it announced that it had sent a letter to President Michael Roth, urging him to revoke the new policy. The article concluded “How Wesleyan arrived at this trainwreck of a solution to whatever problem it has with Beta is a mystery. In our letter, FIRE urged Wesleyan to revoke this unjust and nonsensical policy, and we've asked President Roth to respond by March 9. Hopefully, however, Wesleyan will come to its senses much sooner than that.”
In their letter to President Roth, FIRE claims that the policy would forbid students from gathering at other privately owned clubs in Middletown such as the Elks, the Italian Society, and Churches. FIRE also writes that the new policy is inconsistent with other long-standing student policies, including the Joint Statement on the Rights and Responsibilities of Students. Although this statement includes language on Freedom of Association, the statement does not appear to guarantee students the right to reside or to party in private clubs.
The Beta house issue exposes conflicting priorities on Wesleyan’s campus. The administration is acting to remove a living and partying locale that it thinks is dangerous to students, and probably also acting to protect itself from liability and adverse publicity which might result from another incident at Beta. The students are fighting to be treated as adults who should be given the right to make their own decisions about living and partying.
4 comments:
I sympathize with the Wesleyan Administration's desire to discourage its student body from engaging in potentially harmful behavior, such as visiting Beta.
However, such behavior in of itself is not illegal, and draconian policies which prohibit any student from even VISITING non-Wesleyan affiliated organizations is ridiculous.
It's the responsibility of the university to keep students and the surrounding community safe. The university shouldn't allow a public safety issue like this to continue. (BUT, they also should take sexual assault seriously and not offer on-campus "hearings.") I applaud them for getting tough on this house. It's been a danger to students for too long.
I truly do not think that the University's action against Beta is because of the sexual assault that happened there. The University's own policies on sexual assault need to be drastically reformed-- and Wesleyan should turn its focus inward rather than pointing the finger at an off-campus house. The number of sexual assaults and rapes that happen on campus far outnumber the one incident at Beta-- this is just a way for the University to get back at a student organization they cannot control.
Wesleyan's problem with the Beta house has nothing to do excessive drinking or with the alleged sexual assault - both of which occur on campus as well - and Wesleyan students should be smart enough to see that. Frankly, Wesleyan should be ashamed of itself for using an alleged sexual assault as a proxy for its attempt to shut down Beta, an off-campus organization that it has longed to have under its control. The student body of one of the most liberal universities in the country should find it suspect that the school administration wants to curtail its right to associate and prevent it from socializing at or with organizations not affiliated with the school. What if the next Wesleyan president decides that it does not want its students practicing religions and prohibits them from going to local churches? What if it decides that it does not like some of the organizations with whom the students volunteer their time (like the Boy Scouts or the Girl Scouts)? If the students do not fight to have this policy repealed, they are heading down a dangerous and slippery slope.
Post a Comment