On brownstone decision, more transparency

Though the “drug bust” remains an unresolved issue both at Columbia and in the courts, students have anticipated the administration’s official response. Thursday’s decision to revoke the housing of the three fraternities whose members allegedly sold drugs—Pi Kappa Alpha, Psi Upsilon, and Alpha Epsilon Pi—was met with a combination of shock, indifference, and approval.

Though the University’s decision to revoke the fraternities’ housing comes as the first step in addressing an ongoing and divisive issue, it by no means offers a clear resolution.

After the decision was made public, questions and criticism regarding the methodology behind the University’s decision have flourished. One of the major points of contention is the lack of sanctions against the Intercultural Resource Center, where one of the students who allegedly sold drugs lived.

In reviewing the fraternities and IRC, the division of Student Affairs based their decisions in part on the contributions that each group gave to the community. The IRC, which holds numerous cultural events, speakers, and discussions, was cited as a positive contributor to Columbia—more so than the fraternities in question.

Since fraternities and the IRC serve different functions, it seems unfair to judge them against the same standard. Fraternities provide social opportunities and cohesion to many on campus, while the IRC focuses on creating a comfortable environment for diverse students—both of which are valuable to Columbia.

That being said, we agree that the IRC offers more positive contributions to the community in its active and engaged role on campus, but we wonder if this criterion—however indefinite it may be—is appropriate given the situation at hand.

Academic and judicial issues were also taken into account. The good academic standing and few judicial incidents of students in the IRC in comparison to those in the fraternities were part of the reason why the IRC emerged unscathed.

Other than imprecise references to students’ academic and judicial standing and an attempt to weigh the community impact of the fraternities against that of the IRC, however, the University shed little light on the process that led to the decision.

The University has made it clear that its decisions have not been based on the level of complicity or knowledge that the members had of their brothers’ actions—but perhaps they should have been.

This indicates a large disconnect between the reason for the investigation and the rationale given for revoking the fraternities’ housing. The fraternities and IRC came under investigation because their members were accused of selling drugs—not because they failed to contribute to Columbia in a worthwhile way. By claiming that the drug bust offered the opportunity to evaluate these student groups and then basing their recommendations on an unrelated set of standards, the administration imparts conflicting messages. Students are left with the image of an administrator weighing the IRC and fraternities on a golden scale whose calibration is a total mystery.

Since we question the procedure by which the decision to revoke the fraternities’ housing was made, we cannot stand behind or against the decision. We hope, however, that the division of Student Affairs’ method was more impartial and systematized than their imprecise statements. Only then can we know if their actions were just.

The administration must be held to a higher standard in their process of adjudicating—and illuminating—matters of this magnitude.