The Daily Orange is a nonprofit newsroom that receives no funding from Syracuse University. Consider donating today to support our mission.

One Syracuse University official has the power to approve, reject or alter the sanctions decided in a conduct hearing. The university outlined this policy Wednesday in response to a lawsuit from its chapter of the Alpha Chi Rho fraternity.

The national organization of Alpha Chi Rho, known as Crow, filed the lawsuit against SU in June asking the Onondaga County Supreme Court to reverse the suspension. Crow alleges that SU violated its own policies when one official decided to suspend the fraternity in March for an alleged racist verbal assault after the University Appeals Board had lifted the fraternity’s sanctions two weeks earlier.

The university claimed in its response Wednesday that it acted within its own policies in suspending the fraternity, referring to a section of its student conduct system procedures that grants the senior vice president for enrollment and the student experience the authority to alter or overrule the decisions of SU’s conduct or appeals board. Dolan Evanovich held the position at the time of the fraternity’s suspension.

Evanovich allowed Crow to include time-served in its one-year suspension, meaning the fraternity could petition to colonize as early as the fall semester. 

SU requested Wednesday that the Onondaga County Supreme Court dismiss the lawsuit. 

Syracuse University’s r… by The Daily Orange on Scribd

SU placed Crow on interim suspension in November after the university determined that members and guests of the fraternity were involved in shouting a racial slur at a Black woman on College Place. Chancellor Kent Syverud said the university placed four members of the fraternity on interim suspension for their alleged involvement in the incident. 

While Crow’s national organization is now suing SU to reverse the suspension, the national organization initially released a statement in November calling its members’ alleged behavior “disgusting.”

“Such loathsome behavior is contrary to Alpha Chi Rho Fraternity principles that aim to cultivate men of word and deed based on character, honor and integrity,” the statement read.

The University Conduct Board found on Dec. 19 that four members of Crow who had been suspended were not responsible for violating the Code of Student Conduct, letters sent to the students show. Disciplinary proceedings continued against the fraternity as a whole.

The conduct board in late January found Crow responsible for violating SU’s conduct code and suspended the fraternity for a year. The conduct board was unable to determine what was said to the woman but concluded that a guest of the fraternity –– a student from Rutgers University — likely said something that “startled or offended” the victim and that he likely attempted to look up her dress.

After the fraternity appealed its suspension in February, SU’s appeals board overturned the conduct board’s decision to lift the sanctions against Crow. But Evanovich announced March 3 that he had rejected the appeals board’s decision and had found the fraternity responsible for violating the conduct code.

Although the conduct board was “unable to determine what exactly was said” to the woman, Evanovich claimed that “it was more likely than not that the guest used a racial slur,” a March 3 letter from Evanovich to Crow states. 

Crow also argued that SU wrongfully suspended the fraternity because the individual who allegedly harassed the woman on College Place was not a fraternity member or recognized guest. Policies from SU’s Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs allow the university to revocate an organization’s recognition for a guest’s incident of misconduct. The policy does not specify that the guest must be an official “recognized” guest. 

The conduct board found in January that the Rutgers student was an “informal guest” of Crow and the fraternity could be held responsible for his actions. Evanovich cited this same reasoning in overturning the appeals board’s decision in March. 

In its February decision to lift the sanctions against Crow, the appeals board determined that it could not find any university policies that allowed SU to hold student organizations accountable for their guests’ conduct. 

Published on August 7, 2020 at 1:38 pm

Contact Chris: cjhippen@syr.edu