Rush ban committee, USG meet to discuss openness

The committee to implement the ban on freshman rush attended the Undergraduate Student Government meeting held on Sunday at 7:30 p.m. in Frist 309. The committee’s transparency and opportunities for community input were at the heart of discussion between the committee and the USG members.

Dean of Undergraduate Students and co-chair of the committee Kathleen Deignan began the conversation by introducing the committee’s charge, issued by University President Shirley Tilghman in October, to craft clear language to define exactly what types of actions would be prohibited by freshmen and other students, to suggest appropriate penalties for violations of the policy and to figure out how to effectively communicate the policy’s parameters to students.

Deignan noted that, so far, the committee has met with the presidents of sororities and fraternities, residential college advisers, residential college staff, the Interclub Council and Tilghman herself to generate ideas to eventually craft its report.

She also noted that the committee held an open forum in Frist and received 450 text responses to an email survey sent out to the entire student body asking for students’ recommendations.

Deignan emphasized that though she has heard the committee referred to as the “Greek Life committee,” the charge is not to examine Greek life as a whole or revisit Tilghman’s decision to ban freshman rush, but rather to craft language to describe terms like “rush” or “Greek organization” that, while widely understood, can be difficult to define.

“We use the term ‘rush,’ but rush is probably a term that’s more operational with sororities than with fraternities,” Deignan said. “The process of seeking membership in fraternities is a little less organized and less formal. The term needs to be explicated more so students understand what that term refers to.”

Class of 2013 senator Andrew Blumenfeld began the question-and-answer session by asking if the committee would consider issuing preliminary updates on its progress and soliciting input from the University community at various points along the way.

Deignan said she doubted the committee would be able to, noting that the committee was directly responsible to Tilghman and would want her to hear about the policy first and did not want to be “flying trial balloons” in the meantime.

She emphasized, however, that the committee’s report would likely be issued early in the spring semester and that she suspected that Tilghman would welcome community input then before making her final decision.

“It’s frustrating that we can’t be more transparent,” committee and sorority member Jamie Joseph ’13 said. But she noted that undergraduate presence on the committee demonstrates that student input is being considered.

“I wouldn’t discount the fact that there are six undergraduates on the committee,” Joseph added. “Our responsibility is to speak for the undergraduate voice. We are all being as effective and forceful about that as we can be.”

In response to questions from USG members arguing that perhaps a more transparent dialogue between the committee and the community could help clear up the hazy issues surrounding the definitions of terms, Deignan noted that this was precisely what the committee was trying to do with the open forum and the survey and that students were always welcome to bring concerns and suggestions to the committee.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

“We’re asking you to tell us,” Deignan said. “You have to put your faith in the fact that there’s representation. The committee has to be able to hunker down and do its work without popping up every week and saying ‘What do you think about this?’ ”

In response to questions about progress the committee had made in crafting its language as well as for specific situations, committee and sorority member Shreya Murthy ’13 echoed Deignan’s plea to trust the undergraduate representation on the committee.

“Questions like that are what we discuss in the committee,” Murthy said. “That’s the reason that there are six students on the committee. We’re really not trying to screw anyone over with this policy, excuse my language. We stand up and say, from a student’s perspective, what isn’t going to work.”