SAE loses housing indefinitely after second investigation
The University has revoked SAE's housing indefinitely following a new investigation by the Title IX office and Office of Community Standards. (NICK SALAZAR/The Stanford Daily)

SAE loses housing indefinitely after second investigation

According to a statement released earlier today, the fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) has now indefinitely lost its on-campus house — among other privileges — due to another investigation that began in March related to the fraternity’s compliance with its current alcohol and social suspension.

The investigation — which was conducted jointly by the Title IX Office and the Office of Community Standards — involved two separate occasions in recent months, both in violation of the University policy. The first involved an incident in which SAE members deterred a female student from reporting a potential Title IX concern involving SAE, while the second involved intimidating and retaliatory conduct — including acts of cyberbullying — directed at another student based on a false belief that the student had reported Title IX concerns about SAE.

The March investigation also discovered that members of the fraternity held social events at the house with non-members and had alcohol in common areas of the house on several occasions in recent months, in violation of previous sanctions imposed by the University in February.

Aside from the indefinite loss of its on-campus housing, SAE will be on a probationary status for three academic years in which the chapter will continue to be recognized as a student organization but not be considered to be one in good standing. SAE will also not be allowed to have alcohol in the current house or in the surrounding property and is not permitted to have non-member guests in the house or sponsor any social events.

SAE will have the opportunity to appeal the decision to Provost John Etchemendy.

Furthermore, representatives from the SAE national headquarters and alumni — in partnership with Stanford — will conduct a full review of the current chapter members, which is to be completed by the end of the fall 2015 academic quarter. This review is to determine whether individual members are living up to the standards and ideals of the fraternity, and if found otherwise, SAE will be expected to dismiss any such member.

A previous University investigation into SAE resulted in the loss of its housing privileges for a two-year period. The earlier investigation, which concluded in December 2014, was undertaken by the University due to sexual harassment concerns.

This previous investigation reported that an SAE event last spring had created a hostile environment for female students and that the fraternity had not provided a sufficient response to concerns about the event, violating the University’s sexual harassment policy. The investigation, spearheaded by the Title IX office, stated that the removal of housing was a “Title IX remedy to ensure a safe, non-hostile environment for students.”

Following this, SAE lost an appeal to keep its house in March of this year, and the house appeared as non-themed row house “1047 Campus Drive” on the 2015-16 housing draw.

SAE representatives declined to comment.

 

This article will be updated.

 

Nitish Kulkarni and Andrew Vogeley contributed reporting to this article.

Contact Catherine Zaw at czaw13 ‘at’ stanford.edu.

About Catherine Zaw

Catherine Zaw was formerly the Managing Editor of News for Vol. 245 and Vol. 246. To contact her, please email czaw13@gmail.com.
  • Diego

    I smell bullshit. Under “preponderance of evidence”, in many cases, everything comes down to whose side of the testimonies Title IX wants to believe in.
    I’m very disappointed to see that the recent Title IX recommendations were not applied to this case and that no panel of judges was selected. So long as one single person makes all the decisions, confirmation bias will plague the process.

  • jon

    That said, if it’s true that SAE was intimidating people into not reporting them for sexual harassment, they definitely deserve to lose their house.

  • Thomas

    it’s a false story

  • Jonathan Poto

    What recent recommendations are you referring to?