Concerns about the alcohol, drug and hazing policies of the NIU Interfraternity Council were raised at Wednesday’s University Council meeting.

Philosophy Professor Sherman Stanage raised the issue saying the IFC, at its April 7 meeting, rejected incorporating policies established by its own national office’s Fraternity Insurance Purchasing Group’s (FIPG) Risk Management Policy.

Stanage said, “There are ten provisions under alcohol and drugs, some of these relate to conformity to state laws. The question is why weren’t these incorporated into the local policies?”

Student Association Vice President Anastasia Criscione said she felt the issue could be a misunderstanding because the IFC does have policies regarding hazing and alcohol abuse.

“I don’t believe that Dawn Sturma (activities adviser for Greek Affairs) or the IFC or Panhel would say ‘its okay, its alright to haze,’ or ‘okay let’s get everybody smashed and throw them down on the street.’

“There’s no way Student Affairs or the Student Association would let an organization haze or abuse alcohol. And when they are caught doing something like that they are brought up for investigation,” Criscione said.

According to the IFC’s minutes of the April 7 meeting, “A motion to adopt FIPG alcohol policy into (IFC) current alcohol policy was rejected by a 10 to 4 vote.

“There was a motion to adopt the sexual abuse policy in FIPG, but not the hazing. This was passed by a 14 to 0 vote.”

Stanage said the partial rejection of the policies raised three questions. “One, since the IFC rejected the provisions on alcohol, drugs and hazing, which are written into the risk management policy of the FIPG, which is acting for the National Interfraternity Council, then exactly what is the status of the policy of this management relating to the local council and each of the fraternities?

“Secondly, are the NIU IFC policies, or any one of these policies, now in some degree of non-conformity with university policies or city, county and state laws?

“And then, specifically, what about hazing? The local IFC rejection of a hazing policy promulgated by its own national council does not mean that the local council is permitting some degree of hazing on campus. But on the other hand, this particular policy of hazing is so clear and distinct and is such a commonplace—what is being denied?” Stanage asked.

Political Science Professor Lawrence Finkelstein said the insurance policy status of fraternities was not really the concern of the council.

However, he said the possibility of hazing or the possible violation of university policies was its concern and he suggested that Student Affairs Vice-President Barbara Henley look into the matter.

Criscione said, “All these organizations are SA recognized and are fully aware of the SA restrictions (against hazing and alcohol abuse). I can’t possibly imagine them saying that hazing is acceptable.

“I would be really surprised if they passed something like that. They would be up in my office for review because their recognition, for all of them, would be yanked because it is against our constitution and bylaws,” Criscione said.

“But I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that that’s not happening. I would be really surprised, but I think Henley should look into it and I will definitely look into it,” she said.

However, she said the permitting of hazing or alcohol abuse would be totally contrary to everything the IFC has done. She said the IFC “has been very aware of alcohol abuse and alcohol management and proper carding at parties.”