Coming out of the AFA Annual Meeting, it seems a great time to revisit the conversation on partnerships between campus-based sorority & fraternity life (SFL) and headquarters-based (HQ) staff. Anecdotally, organizational conduct has been a source of tension for many campuses and organizational leadership this year – more severe outcomes for more minor behavior and a generally lower tolerance for group misconduct.
There, unfortunately, is very little documented resources for navigating organizational misconduct, and a significant number of campuses simply overlay their individual process over organizational incidents. This approach significantly impacts organizations as the individual process is designed for internal processing, reflection, and outcomes that address a singular person’s behavior.
The concept of “they’re our students, too” should be central to adjudicating sorority and fraternity misconduct as the organization does not exist without the students and our organizations are a proven retention strategy (Astin, 1984; Nelson et al., 2006; Pike, 2020). The only way to truly ensure student safety and progress toward alignment with campus and HQ expectations is a partnership between the two entities. The relationship between a fraternal organization and a college/university lives at the institutional level, not with the students; the students come and go.
Trust is often missing from the partnership between the institution and the HQ. Through his research on trust, author Steven Covey highlights the importance of trust-building in relationships and partnerships. In an interview on his book The Speed of Trust, Covey told interview Rodger Duncan (2018) that “When trust goes down…speed decreases with it. Everything takes longer. Simultaneously, costs increase. Redundancy processes, with everyone checking up on everyone else, cost more…Where trust is low, everything takes longer and costs more.” This is most evident in our world with conduct processes. When campus and headquarters do not trust each other, our students suffer. They are faced with twice the number of meetings, twice the sanctions, and less support over an extended period of time. Collaboration is essential to our work and supports a more cohesive experience for our students.
We have outlined the top four strategies for engaging in partnerships that are critical to supporting student health and wellbeing.
Building Relationships & Trust: A fundamental flaw in organizational misconduct is we are not usually building relationships with our internal and external partners in this process. It is common that we have one bad experience with a campus or HQ and we begin to apply that experience to everyone else. Unconditional positive regard is a concept borrowed from the American Psychological Association (2023) which refers to an attitude of caring and acceptance. This concept is geared towards therapy but can and should be borrowed in our daily interactions. In this case, it connects deeply to how we should trust our campus or HQ counterparts. If we believe that our counterpart is also working towards the best interest of the students and our communities, our interactions will start off much stronger than thinking otherwise. Until proven otherwise, always start with unconditional positive regard and your interactions and partnership will be much stronger.
One of the areas where unconditional positive regard breaks down is when we begin to apply the chapter’s behavior to the stakeholders supporting the chapter. While it is best practice to reference the chapter’s prior conduct when deciding on outcomes, this should not be mirrored in how we treat other professionals or new iterations of a chapter. Too often we engage with preconceived notions about an organization, chapter, or professional because of some historical bias related to a past incident or interaction. Whether it was a poorly trained consultant, a staff member overseeing SFL who was not affiliated, or a chapter that you pushed to close, we can build better relationships when we separate these interactions. One not so great consultant doesn’t mean all consultants (or headquarters staff) are bad. One campus professional who is not familiar with SFL doesn’t mean all campus professionals are ill-informed. A chapter that was closed for four years and then is re-established does not deserve to carry the burden of the past iteration of the chapter. Separating these experiences will not only improve your interactions but likely save you undue concern in the future.
When multiple partners are supporting an organization, it is easy to place blame – whether the students are doing it, or we are doing it to each other as partners. Students come and go but the relationship between campus and inter/national organization stays more consistent and long-term. We do not need to fight to be favorites, but we do need to fight to support our students’ health and well-being which means relying on the person they trust the most, whether headquarters or campus-based.
Leveraging Each Other’s Resources: So often, none of our offices (SFL, campus-based conduct, or HQ) are well staffed. Everyone is employed by a non-profit, so why would it be?! (Sigh…). When we have trust, leveraging each other’s resources because more of a reality, and in turn, benefits the students and the effectiveness of the accountability process.
In their 2018 study, Pritchard et al. found that “students at doctoral institutions have a median ratio of students to frontline student affairs employees of 375:1…At master’s institutions this ratio is only 247 students per frontline student affairs employee, and for baccalaureate institutions it is only 185 students per employee.” To further illustrate, many of our SFL, campus-based conduct, and HQ staff are offices of one, and sometimes are responsible for more than one area. Whether based on reality or feeling, everyone seems to be overworked and understaffed. Partnering and leveraging the resources within a campus/HQ partnership can better support student well-being while avoiding overburdening either side. This can be most effective when discussing outcomes related to organizational conduct to avoid either party being over-encumbered by needing to support the chapter via programming or coaching. When in doubt, the best practice is to communicate needs and capabilities. It is best not to provide an outcome that neither party can support or provide.
There are some resources available to a campus that are not to an HQ and vice versa; leveraging this allows for a robust educational plan that assists the organization in aligning with the expectations of both the campus and HQ. There are also some privileges and areas of jurisdiction that HQs have that campuses do not; HQ staff can have different conversations, discuss the purpose, meaning, and ritual of the organization in a different way, and have tools they can employ that campuses cannot (e.g., membership reviews, removing an individual from membership, revoking the charter, etc.).
Joint investigations: This one is extremely simple. Do it together (inter/national organization and conduct). It makes it easier on everyone, but most importantly the students. Doing a joint investigation and determining outcomes together also sends a message to the students, alumni, and volunteers that the two entities are unified. Joint investigations are crucial not only to the effectiveness of the process, but more importantly to ensure a neutral and educational process for the student organization and its members. What we mean by “neutral” is that the investigation will be based on the information provided by the students involved NOT the information gleaned because of conflict between the institution and the HQ. When the campus-based staff and the HQ representatives are at odds, the students may provide different information to the two, it is likely to become more adversarial, and the intended purpose of providing education and correcting behavior gets lost.
Joint investigations allow both parties to receive the same information at the same time, rather than relying on a filtered version. Having both representatives in the space ensures that the students cannot avoid discussing certain issues or providing inaccurate information about their organization’s processes, policies, and procedures. When HQ representatives are not involved, the institutional staff are at a disadvantage as they are likely less aware of all the organizational nuances. When the campus-based staff are not involved (because this happens, too!) it is challenging to ensure on-campus oversight and support.
Collaborating on outcomes and involving the SFL advisor also allows each entity to fill the gaps with the resources and systems they have access to. Too often, an outcome is too heavily focused on what the inter/national partner can do or the campus can do; there should be a balance. In 2018, the Fraternity Executives Association and the Association of Student Conduct Administrators developed the Communication and
Collaboration Guidance for Inter/National Fraternal Organizations and Campus Student Conduct Professionals which is a great resource for campus and HQ to reference when developing a partnership around investigations.
Loss of recognition – Loss of recognition is a reasonable outcome for severe incidents and even repeat behavior that the students do not seem capable/interested in changing. And, this type of outcome should be collaboratively decided; this does not mean agreement, but it does mean good communication, consideration of both sides, and a unified message to the students. As conduct and SFL staff, it is imperative to understand that loss of recognition for a chapter has significant implications for the HQ. The factors an HQ must consider are important to note: alumni involved, the financial impact on the organization (AKA dues), housing, the ability to return, the financial and historical impact of ensuring all memorabilia is obtained, etc.). So, being a good partner means ensuring HQ representation is a part of this conversation.
It is also critical for everyone involved in the decision-making process (yes, the administration as well) to fully understand that the students in the organization are still students at the institution unless individual accountability is taken by the campus. When a loss of recognition is issued by the institution, many inter/national organizations have the opportunity to determine whether the individual members maintain their membership. If there are individuals who also lose their membership with the inter/national organization, it almost completely eliminates the sorority or fraternity’s ability to intervene or hold them accountable. This means the individuals are now still students on campus, joining other organizations and clubs – likely bringing some of those same behaviors with them. If you are working toward also holding individuals accountable in group conduct cases, know that many HQ partners can support by sharing the reasoning behind member removal, especially if it would also constitute a violation of campus policy.
Although the loss of recognition is warranted in some cases, it is best to utilize it for severe incidents because of all the potential consequences of individuals taking that same behavior elsewhere. Additionally, if every student organization incident is met with significant outcomes, where is the threshold? Are we willing to remove all organizations? Athletic teams? Student Government? Ambassador programs? Likely not. Therefore, our responses should be measured within the context of the campus climate.
Partnering in loss of recognition cases also allows for a smoother path forward in planning the return of the organization at a later time. Pro tip: make sure both entities share their version of the chapter’s roster to ensure the HQ is aware of whose membership needs to be considered.
This is a high-level overview of where partnership is crucial to the success of a chapter, and there are many ways to build relationships outside of these areas. A simple introduction email and get-to-know-you call, attend AFA or ASCA to meet your counterparts from the other side, be transparent about your processes, expectations, and experiences, and most importantly, address conflict and tension when it occurs.
We can accomplish so much more when we partner and truly trust each other, believing that all sides have the best interest of our students and are prioritizing health and safety. Partnership is beneficial not only for student health and safety but for our well-being and workload. This applies to operational elements such as roster updates and, more importantly, the more daunting tasks of investigations and organization accountability. There is a considerable amount of work that must be done in this area and ensuring there are at least some partnerships that we can elevate and promote is a good starting point.
References
American Psychological Association. (2023, November 15). APA Dictionary of Psychology. APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/unconditional-positive-regard
Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Duncan, R. D. (2018, July 18). The Speed Of Trust: It’s A Learnable Skill. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2018/07/12/the-speed-of-trust-its-a-learnable-skill/
Matthews, L. M., Angotti, J., Horvath, M. R., Kreman, J., Lanpher, D., Meneley, N., … & Wisbrock, J. (2018). Communication and Collaboration Guidance for Inter/National Fraternal Organizations and Campus Student Conduct Professionals. Association for Student Conduct Administration & Fraternity Executives Association.
Pike, G. (2020). The Greek experience revisited: The relationship between fraternity/sorority membership and student engagement, learning outcomes, grades, and satisfaction with college. Research report prepared for the North American Interfraternity Conference. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/filed/1VO 32qZdHh9tu7nWbbFudAvLVMJ_uT5lj/
Pritchard, Adam, & McChesney, Jasper (2018, October). Focus on Student Affairs, 2018: Understanding Key Challenges Using CUPA-HR Data (Research Report). CUPA-HR.
About the Authors
Elliott Beach (he/him) serves as the director of health and safety at Delta Sigma Phi fraternity where he is also a member. In this role, Beach works on investigations, member conduct, membership reviews, and supports health and safety education for Delta Sigma Phi members. He is a proud alumnus of Thiel College where he received his B.A. in history and Indiana University where he received his M.S.Ed. in Higher Education & Student Affairs. He currently lives in Mississippi and is married to his loving and supportive partner, Dr. Kelley Bellia, and their fluffy dog, Birdy.
Christina Parle (she/they) is an educator, thought leader, and consultant. Christina has specific experience in building effective systems, policies, and procedures, as well as curriculum writing, and leadership education. She served as the 2023-24 President of the Association for Student Conduct Administration, and most recently served as the Associate Dean of Students for Avila University. Christina received her bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Criminal Justice from the University of Central Missouri and her master’s in Higher Education with an emphasis in Student Affairs from Penn State University. Christina lives in Kansas City, Missouri with her dog, Nugget, loves the musical Hamilton, and considers herself a tv show enthusiast.
