Feedback Summary, Nov. 22 Report on Fraternities and Sororities

7/30/2019 Feedback Summary, Nov. 22 Report on Fraternities and Sororities

1/7


2/7

The Executive of the Alma Mater SocietyJohn Deutsch University Centre, Queens UniversityKingston, ON K7L 3N6Phone: (613) 533-3001 | Fax: (613) 533-3002

November 22nd, 2012

Dear AMS Assembly,

In recent years, the issue of fraternities and sororities at Queens, and the AMS constitutional ban, has

surfaced repeatedly. Over the past month, we have spent considerable time and energy exploring the existence

and history of fraternities and sororities1 at Queens University, the reasons for the AMS ban on dual

membership since 1934, the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as

well as policy options moving forward. We have heard arguments for and against the existence of fraternities

and sororities at Queens, from students, alumni, and community members. We received over 150 responses

to a blog posted on October 18th, and although the feedback form was not intended as a survey, the opinions

shared were insightful. We have also consulted AMS and University legal counsel in order to better

understand the role and authority of both the AMS and the Universityneither of which are bound by theCharter of Rights and Freedomsin restricting individual membership in a group and restricting groups from

affiliation or resources.

Throughout this process, we have attempted to balance the information and opinions gathered with the

mandate of the Society: to serve and represent the best interests of our students. In doing so, we have been

guided by the AMS Constitution, including the Societys mission statement and operating statements. We

have included them here for your reference:

AMS MISSION STATEMENT

To serve and represent the diversity of students at Queen's.

AMS OPERATING STATEMENT

1. The AMS shall strive to be non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobic and otherwise inclusive and

non-discriminatory;

2. The AMS and its representative shall adhere to the Queen's Code of Conduct;

3. The AMS and its representatives shall act in an accountable mannerand be accessible to all of its

membership;

4. The AMS is an equal opportunity employer.

As a Society, we are bound by the AMS mission and operating statements. As an Executive, we each strongly

support and embrace these statements, professionally and personally as Queens students and AMS members.

1The existing policy in the AMS Constitution defines a fraternity or sorority as any organization composed of students

and former students which has a secret oat, constitution, or pledge or which has a sign of identification such as a pin or

Greek letters, or which is affiliated with any organization outside of the University (Section 7.01.13).

We would like to note that it is well-known that a community-based fraternity chapter currently exists in Kingston,

comprised mostly or entirely of Queens students. It has never been our intent ion to dismiss this fact; however, it would

be short-sighted and misguided for our discussion to be based solely on one organization. The AMS constitutional ban

has been in place for nearly 80 years; the question of the place of fraternities and sororities at Queens was raised long

before us, and the outcomes of this discussion will impact generations of Queens students that come afterus.


3/7

On a basic level, our understanding of fraternities and sororities is that they are exclusive in

membership, promote a strict gender binary, and may be elitist. In accordance with the first and third AMS

operating statements, it is our unequivocal belief that fraternities and sororities should not access AMS

resources, including space or funding, regardless of further outcomes from this discussion; permitting these

groups to do so would be a direct violation of the spirit and letter ofthe Societys mandate.

We believe that the Society, through AMS Assembly, should develop a policy on fraternities andsororities that addresses outstanding issues, beyond affiliation and access to resources. Even if the status quo

(a constitutional ban on membership) were to be reaffirmed by Assembly, the existing policy is insufficient

alone. We believe that a comprehensive policy on fraternities and sororities must address:

Whether the AMS has an on-campus ban of fraternities or sororities (a ban on accessing AMS andUniversity resources, such as space or funding)

Whether the AMS continues to hold an off-campus ban on fraternities and sororities (a ban onmembership by an AMS member in a fraternity/sorority)

A clearly outlined rationale for either, or both, of the aboveThis policy would also serve to inform whether the AMS shall pursue other avenues of condoning orcondemning fraternities and sororities, such as a representational stance on the matter to the Queens Senate.

Our understanding is that the Senates position against fraternities and sororities is still in effect, and that any

further positions by the Senate will be informed by student opinions.

The development of this policy should be informed by the information we have gathered thus far

(included in this package), and any further information requested by AMS Assembly. In this package, you will

find a legal opinion from both Michael Hickey (AMS legal counsel) and Diane Kelly (University legal

counsel). At the centre of this discussion has been the question: does the existing AMS constitutional ban on

an AMS member holding membership in a fraternity or sorority violate human rights or contravene the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Based on the responses from both Mr. Hickey and Ms. Kelly, it is our

interpretation that the Society, as a private entity with sufficient separation from the government, can ban dual

membership in both the AMS and an off-campus fraternity or sorority. The outstanding questions that remain

are: i) should the AMS maintain an on-campus ban on fraternities and sororities (ban on resources) and/or an

off-campus ban on dual membership in both the Society and a fraternity or sorority, and ii) how would theAMS, through the non-academic discipline system, enforce such a ban or apply sanctions.

As an Executive, each of us has thought deeply and personally about this issue over the past month.

We have heard from some individuals that fraternities and sororities may offer Queens students something

that they may not find in other campus groups. We have also been cautioned not to paint all fraternities or

sororities with the same brush, and that some groups focus on leadership development and philanthropy.

However, we have also heard from current students and alumni that an influx of fraternities and sororities maythreaten the very fabric of the community that makes our Queens experience so unique. Concerns have been

raised over the fundamental exclusionary quality of fraternities and sororities, which is predicated on a strict

gender binary. Concerns have also been raised over the potential for fraternities and sororities, which are

chapters of national or international umbrella organizations, to divert loyalties from campus clubs, athletic

teams, faculty societies, and the AMS, to organizations completely external to Queens. We have been

cautioned that the outcome of this discussion will impact generations of Queens students still to come.


4/7

The very identity of the Queens community, and the future of our community, has been at the

heart of all opinions received thus far.

It would be nave to argue that the Queens community is inclusive, welcoming, or safe for all

students. Many students may struggle to find their place at Queens, and may face very real discrimination or

oppression. The AMS must always strive to serve and represent students who are excluded from student life at

Queens, and this is not a task that any Executive can accomplish easily, or alone.

We acknowledge that some university campuses may benefit from fraternities and sororities.

However, we believe that Queens is unique. The geography of our student housing, the vibrancy of our

student life and opportunities, the involvement of our students in University governance and decision making

all of this sets Queens apart.

It is our position that the time has arrived for AMS Assembly to develop a clear policy on fraternities

and sororities. Beginning with the AMS mission and operating statement, and extending to encompass the

host of concerns that have been raised to us, it is our firm belief that fraternities and sororities should be

precluded from accessing AMS resources. Furthermore, it is our belief that the fundamental exclusionary

nature of fraternities and sororities would facilitate more negative than positive impacts on the Queens

experience. It is our opinion that the AMS should take a strong stance against the development of such

organizations at Queens.

Notwithstanding our own strong opinions on this matter, we believe it is critical for Assembly

members to engage fully in this issue and to carefully assess whether, and how, the student body should be

consulted more broadly. It is the Assembly that governs the content of the AMS Constitution and all of the

Societys policies. As an Executive, we are committed to gathering any additional information requested by

Assembly to facilitate this process.

We are looking forward to a productive, engaged, and respectful discussion at our Assembly meeting

this Thursday. If you have comments, questions, or would like to speak further, please dont hesitate to

contact us.

Cha Gheill,

Doug Johnson Mira Dineen Tristan LeePresident & CEO Vice-President (University Affairs) Vice-President (Operations)

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


5/7

Fraternities&SororitiesAtQueens:

Report for AMS Assembly on the Arguments and

Opinions Submitted to the AMS Executive

BackgroundIn the early 1930s the AMS and the University banned fraternities and sororities on campus. This ban,

which is reflected in AMS Constitution Section 7, precludes AMS members from be[ing] an active

member of any fraternity or sorority, that is, any organization composed of students and former students

which has a secret oath, constitution or pledge or which has a sign of identification such as a pin or

Greek letters, or which is affiliated with any organization outside of the University.

It has been nearly 80 years since the ban was implemented and the AMS feels that it is time for broader

consultation, to hear from students, and to have a campus-wide discussion on this issue. The Executive

has therefore solicited feedback regarding the ban and the place of fraternities or sororities at Queens

through an online form located on the AMS blog.

Statement Regarding MethodologyThe AMS Executive would like to make clear that this phase of consultation has been aimed at getting a

sense of the arguments and opinions that exist amongst alumni, the student body, and other campus

stakeholders. The Executive feels that it is important to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to

provide written, anonymous feedback regarding this issue. The process of consultation thus far has not

been intended as a poll. The information contained herein is not necessarily reflective of the views of

the AMS Executive, or any other AMS staff member.

Fraternities & Sororities: For and Against

The online feedback form generated 118 responses. 48 students identified themselves as such, 32

respondents identified themselves as alumni, and 4 respondents identified themselves as community

members. 34 respondents declined to select one of these options. This table summarizes the arguments

provided through the feedback form. It should be noted that the responses in this table address the

harms and benefits of fraternities/sororities themselves. The Other Comments/Arguments section

below includes legalistic, big picture considerations.

For Against

Fraternities/sororities can carry out philanthropic

activities, having a positive impact on thecommunity and the school.

There already exist plenty of ways to get involved

in the Queens and Kingston communities.

Fraternities/sororities can provide a place for

students without athletic ability, musical talent, or

other niche interests to bond and get involved.

There is a single, recognizable Queens identity

associated with our school spirit. To introduce

fraternities/sororities would be to splinter this

identity and damage this spirit.

With sharp rises in enrolment, faculties and

programs are becoming larger.

There is no pressing need - dont fix it if it isnt

broken.


6/7




Fraternities/sororities could function to create

smaller, more intimate communities.

Most modern fraternities/sororities have stronganti-hazing policies.

Fraternities/sororities foster exclusivity, socialhierarchy, and cliques.

They provide a family-like level of support for

members, both within fraternities/sororities and

between them.

Fraternities/sororities are prohibitively expensive

and will lead to social stratification and/or elitism.

The AMS and University could profit by having

fraternities/sororities pay annual dues.

Fraternities/sororities can lead to hazing practices.

Fraternities/sororities provide a unique

opportunity for inter-university and international

networking.

Fraternities/sororities can create an unsafe

environment with respect to physical/verbal abuse

and sexual assault.

Like any other group or club, fraternities/sororities

provide opportunities for meaningful participation.

Many alumni will dislike the existence of

fraternities/sororities, impacting annual giving andstudent-alumni relations.

There are proven examples of fraternities

operating in Kingston that provide a network of

support to students and engage in charitable

activities.

The AMS and other organizations provide

sufficient outlets for philanthropy and community

service.

The mere existence of fraternities/sororities

provides students with the opportunity to make

independent decisions, an important component

of becoming an adult.

Fraternities/sororities have a tendency to promote

and foster heavy drinking and/or drug abuse.

There is already a problematic drinking culture at

Queens, and this would only be exacerbated by

fraternities/sororities.

Despite the existence of numerous clubs and

organizations geared toward providing outlets for

meaningful participation, there are still students

for whom fraternities/sororities would provide the

only opportunity to bond.

The fraternity /sorority rush would interfere with

Orientation Week activities.

There are already rivalries between faculties,

residences, etc. Fraternities/sororities would add

to these in a negative way.

Based simply on the negative connotations

associated with fraternities/sororities, it would be

in the interest of the AMS and University to ban

such groups.

Fraternities/sororities are in their nature

oppressive and reinforce a binary understanding of

gender.

The rivalries that are fostered between

fraternities/sororities can lead to violence and

unhealthy competition.


7/7




Other Comments/Arguments

Freedom of association: Students should have a right to associate themselves with any group of theirchoosing. The AMS should not be in the business of banning our membership from participation in

certain kinds of groups.

Recognition of status quo: The existence of at least one fraternity including AMS members has already

been confirmed. Students involved in this organization should not feel persecuted.

Probationary period: The ban could be lifted for a time, during which the AMS and University could

monitor the effects of these groups, or lack thereof, on the Queens community.

Individual choice: Students make the decision to come to Queens as opposed to other Canadian

universities that allow fraternities and sororities. Students must therefore abide by the rules associatedwith their chosen institution.

Case Study: In April 1983, Princeton University lifted a decades-old ban on fraternities but reaffirmed

their opposition to these types of groups. Today, 15 unrecognized fraternities and sororities exist

including over 700 undergraduate members.

Comparative groups: A number of organizations and informal on campus already act like fraternities

by promoting a culture of excessive drinking and other destructive behaviours.

Equality of opportunity: All AMS clubs and services, while potentially restrictive in terms of numbers, are

open to any student who wishes to participate. Fraternities/sororities would function on a morearbitrary and restrictive basis.

Distinctions: There is an inherent difference between cultural and religious fraternities/sororities and

secular Greek-Letter Organizations.

AMS resources: Notwithstanding the existence, or lack thereof, of the ban itself, the AMS should

withhold resources from fraternities, including funding, space, or official recognition.

Feedback Summary, Nov. 22 Report on Fraternities and Sororities

Documents

Transcript of Feedback Summary, Nov. 22 Report on Fraternities and Sororities