NIC Position: NIC opposes host institutions naming alumni advisors and volunteers, fraternity employees, or student leaders for collegiate fraternity chapters as Campus Security Authorities (“CSAs”).

Clarifying Points:

1. The NIC supports reporting of any activity that caused serious bodily injury to local authorities. The term serious bodily injury involves any of the following: unconsciousness as a result of hazing of any kind, extreme physical pain, protracted or obvious disfigurement of a bodily member, protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty, death, or a substantial risk of death.
2. NIC supports efforts to provide continuing education to volunteer advisors on what they can do to address potential criminal acts. However, care should be taken to avoid creating significant barriers to a person agreeing to serve or continuing to serve in the voluntary chapter advisor position.

Rationale:

1. There is nothing in the Clery Act that necessitates these volunteers being designated as CSAs, unless the person is also an employee of the host institution which otherwise results in their designation as a CSA.
2. The Clery Handbook (2016, page 4-2) states that a CSA is a term encompassing four groups of individuals as indicated below.  The role of a volunteer chapter advisor does not meet or exceed these criteria:
   1. Campus Police or Campus Security Department
   2. Any individual who has responsibility for campus security – such as an individual who is responsible for monitoring access to campus, acts as event security, or escorts students around campus
   3. Any individual specified as an individual or organization to report criminal offenses
   4. An official of an institution who has significant responsibility for student and campus activities. An official is defined as any person who has the authority and duty to take action or respond to particular issues on behalf of the campus.
3. These volunteer advisors take time from their families and from their work to provide guidance to chapters. There is not an abundance of capable persons willing to volunteer for these positions. Deeming these volunteers CSAs under the Act carries with it the potential for personal liability where no such liability exists without the designation. This would be a significant impediment to recruiting and retaining volunteer advisors.
4. A designation by the academic institution of volunteer advisors as CSAs requires educational programming by the institution. These have included required attendance by the volunteer at on campus programming events. These additional requirements or expectations and requisite time commitments would be additional impediments to recruiting and retaining these volunteer advisors.
5. Educational programming by the academic institution for volunteer advisors who are designated CSAs creates potential liability for the academic institution based on claims that what was done was not enough, was not often enough, or that it failed in some other regard. Furthermore, by designating a volunteer alumni advisor as a CSA, the institution assumes certain liability for an advisor’s actions or lack thereof, but the institution does not have the ability to remove or discipline that advisor.
6. The potential liability arising from such a designation includes potential claims by an alleged victim and by an alleged assailant. As an example, see King v. DePaul University, No. 2:14-CV- 70-WTL-DKL, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117075 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 30, 2014) where plaintiff (alleged assailant) sought leave to pursue litigation claim against the student who initiated the university disciplinary process against him, asserting false statements with damage to reputation, and that alleged false statements constituted an interference with a business relationship.
7. Any liability claims against volunteer advisors due to their designation as a CSA also provides potential liability to the advisor, the associated chapter, and the chapter’s national organization under an agency theory.
8. Instances have occurred where advisors have resigned rather than accept a designation by the academic institution as a CSA under the Act.

Supporting Resources:

• Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting, page 4-2

NIC Position: The NIC supports values-based recruitment systems that empower students to join a fraternal experience in a manner that they determine best meets their developmental needs.

Clarifying Points:

1. Recruitment for any member fraternity must align with NIC Standards which includes its Health and Safety Guidelines.
2. The NIC opposes any recruitment requirement placed on fraternities that is not equally applied to all registered student organizations including deferring joining or recruitment.
3. The NIC supports open recruitment systems which provide ample opportunity for students and chapters to find a good fit for membership.
4. The NIC supports a chapter’s ability to select members on terms that best meet their organization’s culture and standards.
5. Per the IFC SOP, the NIC supports organized recruitment periods provided that chapters are permitted to recruit and distribute bids outside of the designated recruitment period.
6. Per NIC Standards, all men must have a 2.5 GPA or higher to be eligible to join.
7. The NIC opposes any recruitment requirement placed on fraternities that is not equally applied to all registered student organizations.
8. The NIC opposes any recruitment restriction that infringes on free speech and associational rights.
9. The NIC opposes any recruitment restriction that violates anti-trust laws.

Rationale:

• In most cases, fraternity membership leads to higher retention rates and higher graduation rates among undergraduate students.
• Fraternity membership leads to greater affinity for the host institution and greater alumni engagement, which is a benefit to the host institution.
• Deferred recruitment is an inequitable application of student policy because other student organizations – such as intercollegiate athletics, school-sanctioned clubs and others – are free to recruit, select and enroll new members at any time.
• A successful fraternity experience provides men with a sense of community and a support network that aids in a successful transition to the collegiate experience.

Supporting Resources:

• NIC Standards
• NIC Health and Safety Guidelines
• IFC SOP Manual

NIC Position: The NIC opposes system-wide actions that suspend activities for fraternity chapters that have no credible allegations of policy violations.

Clarifying Points:

1. Per the IFC SOP, the NIC supports IFCs implementing a temporary restriction on events (see guidance in IFC SOP).
2. The NIC supports the IFC collaborating with its host institution to implement a temporary period of restriction that aligns with the IFC SOP, especially in the wake of a student death.
3. Per the IFC SOP, the NIC supports IFCs setting a cap on the number of events a chapter may host with alcohol per term (see guidance in IFC SOP).
4. The NIC supports chapters voluntarily agreeing to shorten or adjust their new member  period if requested (but not required) by the IFC or host institution.

Rationale: Imposing a system-wide suspension of all activities on fraternity chapters with no allegations of misconduct is counter-productive for the following reasons:

1. The NIC is committed to student development and strategies that address underlying issues affecting student safety. System-wide actions deprive students of the opportunity to learn and practice accountability and self-governance.
2. Universities and fraternal partners should focus on proactively building healthy communities where students effectively govern themselves, establishing and practicing leadership prior to a crisis.
3. Blanket actions penalizing individuals, absent evidence or facts, instill behaviors and beliefs misaligned with our nation’s laws and legal processes.
4. It disincentivizes following the rules and taking care of each other, since responsible students are treated just like their peers who are causing problems.
5. It undermines efforts to have students self-report problems because doing so may negatively affect a broad group of students not involved in the misconduct.
6. It erodes trust between campus partners and students, alumni and inter/national organizations, because these actions are unilateral and lacking fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
7. It advances the narrative among students and alumni that “the school is out to get rid of fraternities.” This narrative is hard to counter when chapter and community activities are suspended over the actions of a few individuals.
8. The action causes predictable and unnecessary media over-reaction that labels all students as irresponsible which strains relationships among those unfairly and negatively impacted by the system-wide action.

Supporting Resources:

• IFC SOP Manual
• NIC Guidance on System-Wide Actions

NIC Position: Students have the right to participate in a positive and enriching single-sex fraternal experience that aligns with the conference’s Standards.

Clarifying Points:

1. NIC stands firmly opposed to any policy or practice that would not permit students the personal choice of whether they want to be members of single-sex social organizations.
2. As a private membership organization, each NIC member fraternity determines its membership criteria.
3. Fraternity members should be treated equitably in comparison to students at an institution of higher education who do not participate in single-sex or co-ed social organizations and in comparison to students who participate in non-fraternal student organizations.
4. No host institution should take adverse action against a fraternity based solely on its membership practice of limiting membership to men. Likewise, no host institution should take adverse action against an individual fraternity member based solely on his membership in a single-sex social organization.

Rationale:

1. Fraternities have existed at institutions of higher education for over 200 years, where they have played, and should continue to play, unique roles in the development of young men by creating brotherhoods that foster leadership, promote academic achievement, and encourage civic and campus involvement through philanthropic activities. By instilling values in young men, fraternities have a unique ability to shape them into leaders on their campuses and in their communities.
2. Fraternities have never been more relevant to a generation of student leaders than they are today. This is due to the values they espouse, the life skills they teach, and the lifelong friendships and support networks they create. Fraternities are the premier leadership development experience on college campuses and have the ability to change the lives of individuals and the culture of a community. It is because of this great potential for positive impact that the NIC advocates for the advancement and growth of the fraternity community. The educational mission of the host institutions and the ideals of fraternity can work in concert to create a positive force in the campus community.
3. Freedom of association—the freedom of joining, assembling, and residing with others—is protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, and allows individuals to create spaces that are safe, welcoming, empowering, enabling, uninhibited, and free.

Supporting Resources:

• Review of Research on Single Sex Experience
• Title IX Exemption for Single Sex Organizations: “the membership practices of social fraternities whose active membership consists primarily of students in attendance at an institution of higher education are exempted from the provisions of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972”
• In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court stated: Consequently, we have long understood as implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment a corresponding right to association with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends. … Government actions that may unconstitutionally infringe upon this freedom can take a number of forms. Among other things, government may seek to impose penalties or withhold benefits from individuals because of their membership in a disfavored group. … [A]nd it may try to interfere with the internal organization or affairs of the group. … [I]infringements on that right may be justified [only] by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms
• It is the position of NIC that this rule of law is also applicable to private institutions of higher learning. Alpha Tau Omega v. Univ. of Pa., 10 Phila. 149, 150 n.1 (Common Pleas Ct. 1983) (“it is a matter of national policy that higher education is a public function”); Ryan v. Hofstra Univ., 67 Misc. 2d 651, 663-69, 324 N.Y.S.2d 964, 977-83 (Sup. Ct. 1971), supplementary judgment, 68 Misc. 2d 890, 328 N.Y.S.2d 339 (Sup. Ct. 1972) (private universities perform a “governmental function”)

NIC Position:  A collaborative partnership between fraternities and host institutions aids in the co-curricular development of students while also fostering greater loyalty towards their alma mater.

Clarifying Points:

1. NIC member fraternities maintain collaborative partnerships with hundreds of host institutions that support the conference’s Position Statements and Standards.
2. When a Position Statement conflict arises, NIC member fraternities will advocate forcefully for a positive fraternal experience that aligns with the conference’s Standards.
3. While the NIC advocates on behalf its members, individual NIC member fraternities retain the sole responsibility to maintain an affiliation with the host institution.
4. The NIC can support mutually developed relationship statements that:
   1. provide equal treatment to fraternities as compared to other registered student organizations
   2. respect the sovereignty of internal processes including autonomy and privacy when selecting their membership and/or holding their members accountable to inter/national standards
   3. do not add additional liability to individuals or inter/national organizations
   4. do not add burdensome financial barriers that inhibit access to students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds
   5. require reporting of any action that results in serious bodily injury to a member or guest

Rationale:

1. NIC members are committed to collaborative partnership especially in the areas of NIC Standards enforcement and academic excellence. Likewise, NIC members are committed to a healthy fraternal experience for students that is also free from unnecessary restrictions and/or the erosion or elimination of basic rights of freedom of association. The conference is strongly resolved that both can be achieved simultaneously.  
2. As the NIC reviews language for statements and agreements, we look for and support language that is equitable, based in the code of conduct, and aligned with the above principles. We encourage our campus partners to communicate early and often with the NIC as relationship statements/recognition agreements are being discussed or drafted.
3. In the event a Position Statement conflict arises, the NIC prides itself on starting with an offer to collaborate on a mutually agreeable solution. It is only after attempts to collaborate break down that NIC members may be forced to pursue other means of resolution.

NIC Position: An unfaltering commitment to fraternal excellence from NIC members is essential to the advancement of all fraternities.

Clarifying Points:

1. NIC member fraternities are committed to holding their members accountable to their organization’s standards.
2. NIC member fraternities embrace their interfraternal responsibility of holding fellow NIC members accountable to the conference’s Standards.
3. The NIC opposes any action by a host institution that directly contradicts the conference’s standards including its Health and Safety Guidelines.

Rationale:

1. To achieve fraternal excellence, it is incumbent on all fraternity men to hold themselves and their brothers accountable to the principles of their organization. Without accountability, standards are merely words on paper.
2. All fraternities teach values, integrity, honor, and striving for high personal and academic achievement to create a framework through which a fraternity man can endeavor to become the best version of himself. Adherence to these principles has helped shaped generations of campus, civic, and business leaders.
3. The values systems taught by fraternities are aspirational in nature, and while they differ slightly from organization to organization, they all center on providing young men some of the tools necessary to be better people and to be positive, contributing members of their communities.
4. Achieving fraternal excellence is also a community endeavor. Accordingly, NIC members, in holding each other accountable to Conference Standards, advance the fraternal movement on a broader scale. This is true at the national level through the NIC, and at the local level through, for example, Interfraternity Councils (IFCs). The NIC appreciates support from host institutions that reinforce the conference’s Health and Safety Guidelines. Further, the conference recognizes that some campuses have unique circumstances. Campus administrators are encouraged to contact the conference should a potential conflict arise with the conference’s Health and Safety Guidelines.

Supporting Resources:

• NIC Standards
• NIC Health and Safety Guidelines
• IFC SOP Manual