The relationship between the University’s administration and Beta Theta Pi is one that is fraught with tension, to say
the least. Since the University withdrew recognition of Beta in 2005, enmity has simmered between the fraternity and
the administration; however, in the past year these strained relations have come to a boiling point. Although some of the
University’s campus-wide e-mails regarding Beta over the past year have struck many as excessive, the more recent
allegations of sexual assault at the fraternity have taken the issue beyond a petty tug-of-war. Regardless of any claims
that the University is using these allegations as leverage over Beta, the prospect of rape, or any form of sexual assault,
cannot be overemphasized and certainly not overshadowed by a power struggle. Making sure that students are safe
within their house, whether it is on or off campus, needs to be Beta’s top priority, plain and simple.
Still, we believe that the University’s latest response is a step in the wrong direction. It imposes an unacceptable
restriction on students’ personal freedoms, including the majority of students who have played no role in this longstanding
controversy. We do not take issue with the University’s attempt to reincorporate Beta as a part of program housing, but
rather with the method they have recently adopted to accomplish this goal. It has gone beyond mere intimidation of the
Beta brothers to an outright restriction of every student’s independence, and brings into question how broadly the new rule
might be applied in the future. The problem is inherent in the language of the revision:
“Wesleyan students are prohibited from using houses or property owned, leased or operated by private societies that
are not recognized by the University,” states the newest addition to the Campus Housing Policy, available online through
the University website. “This prohibition includes using such houses or property as residences, taking meals at such
houses or property and participating in social activities at such houses or property.”
The administration has claimed the authority to regulate where its students are permitted to eat, sleep, and visit.
Without an adequate definition for “social activities,” this new restriction could extend not only to those who choose
to attend a Beta party, but even to those who wish to step within the premises to say hello to a friend, pick up a book,
or even ask for directions. They have effectively banned the entire campus from stepping foot in Beta under any
circumstances, and threatened us with suspension.
Although the University has specified its intention to settle their battle with Beta once and for all, it is also unclear
at what point the University will permit its students, under the new policy, to use other private housing. Will students
eventually no longer have the option to live off-campus? Will we be able to partake in “social activities” in other buildings
in town that are not necessarily recognized by the University in the future? These questions hint at extreme cases, but
they demonstrate how the ambiguity of language is a cause for concern.
It is understandable that the University would want to regulate foot traffic at a location where a student was allegedly
raped and held against her will. However, restricting our personal freedoms in such a way goes beyond the issue at
hand. Stopping sexual assault on campus is a much more complex task, one which cannot be solved by issuing a blanket
ultimatum to the brothers of a fraternity house which, sadly, is not the only place where sexual assault has occurred at
Wesleyan.
Leaving aside arguments about the University’s ability to implement such a shocking restriction based on its status
as a private institution, what the University has communicated to its students is a profound lack of respect for our ability
to make reasoned decisions about our personal lives. Rather than providing us with information about the dangers of
visiting the Beta house, as they did after allegations of sexual assault emerged, the University has simply issued its final
say, which we can question at the risk of suspension. While we support the University’s attempts to protect its students
and ensure our safety, we must contest this new policy, and the overextension of administrative authority into our ability to
move freely around our community.