“It’s a mark of shame,” I replied. “It means you don’t care enough about Wabash to know the words to the song, and everyone will be able to see that once you get a W branded onto your shirt.”

“Will I be shunned?” he asked, naïvely.

“Yes,” I lied, “But you don’t have to worry about that because you’re not going to get one.”

He did wind up getting one, as did two more of my freshmen that year. But they quickly discovered, if they did not already know, that I had no intention of shunning them. “I know that you know the words,” I was sure to tell them. “You just messed up a little in the chapel. You got nervous. It happens a lot.”

My earlier claim that they would be shunned was made not so much in the spirit of malice as it was in the spirit of fun. It was what I’d been told, and what I believed, my freshman year. If I had not told them that failure in Chapel Sing had serious implications, they would not have taken Chapel Sing seriously. And had they not taken it seriously, they would not have had fun. We temporally suspended reality, as we often do at Wabash, for the sake of a grand game. There was nothing ungentlemanly about that. We had the freedom to do that. That was the way Wabash traditions worked my sophomore year.

Wabash has changed since then. It is not just the lack of alcohol at freshmen-related events—although that is the first thing most people think when they hear the phrase “Wabash has changed.” As a law-abiding citizen and a teetotaler, I don’t particularly mind its absence. No, the change is more atmospheric than alcoholic. Since the death of Johnny Smith a year ago this month, our sense of freedom has changed. Our sense of trust—our trust in the administration and the administration’s trust in us—has been lost.

This was very apparent in the lead up to this year’s Chapel Sing competition. As we approached Homecoming, a string of rumors began to spread across campus. There were various different incarnations, ranging from the notion that the painting of W’s would be banned from the competition, to the accusation that Dean Raters had somehow managed to ban the Sphinx Club itself. The rumored causes of the changes ranged from the idea that there would be lawyers in the audience, out to prove that Wabash students haze their freshmen, to the idea the Dean Raters was arbitrarily attempting to remake Wabash in his own kid-friendly vision. I already had a Phoenix interview with Dean Raters concerning the Student Judiciary scheduled for the week of Chapel Sing, and I decided to address the various rumors while I was speaking with him.

“To my knowledge, there aren’t changes,” he began after I asked him about the rumors, and then he confirmed that he had spoken with the Sphinx Club. He said that he expected the Sphinx Club “to emphasize with greater clarity” this year certain facts about Chapel Sing. Dean Raters wanted it to be clear that Chapel Sing was “a positive event” and “a gentlemanly event [that] demonstrates responsible citizenry.” On the issue of the dreaded W, he wanted to make certain that everyone knew that it was “a tally sheet” which helps the Sphinx Club keep track of everything during the chaos of the event.

When I asked what spurred these discussions with the Sphinx Club, Dean Raters claimed that such discussions happen every year, but added that “during last year’s tension, we’re foolish if we don’t reexamine what we’re doing, and so I think the Sphinx Club has reexamined what we’re doing.”

“You know,” he reflected, “the Chapel Sing I’ll see on Thursday will be similar but a whole lot different from the one I participated in, very different from the one that Dean Bambrey participated in as well. Similar but quite different from the one a student here five years ago participated in. It is an evolutionary event, but one where we need to again, as I mentioned in my note to the community: ‘at all times’ includes homecoming week—it includes Chapel Sing. And it includes preparation for Chapel Sing, so we all need to understand that. Sometimes we don’t.”

Finally, on the concern over the W’s, he said, “The potential problem is, that you got a W, and now, are you crushed? Are you ridiculed? And, more specifically, are you, even with the W, are you made to feel like you did something from a positive perspective? And I do think that’s where the Sphinx Club is going to be more intentional on Thursday.”

The Sphinx Club did seem more intentional, and seemed to be on the same page as Dean Raters, by the time Chapel Sing rolled around later that week.

“This is a positive event in which students and faculty new to the college can participate in traditions of the past and members of the community can gather to celebrate the higher standards and aspirations that Wabash has come to represent over the years,” Sphinx Club President Will Hoffman announced before the competition began. “Ws will be used by the Sphinx Club as a tally system to help determine which pledge class has mastered the song.”

The Journal Review also covered the story, quoting Sphinx Club member Steve Popovich as emphasizing that “the Ws on the shirts are a way of tallying scores.” The Bachelor ran pieces emphasizing how Chapel Sing is a positive event, and denouncing the rumors on campus as divisive. The smoke, disgusting photos, and “humping dog” that I was taunted with my freshman year were all removed from the competition. Photos featuring freshmen with Ws were not used on the Wabash College website. Freshmen who received Ws during the competition were given an opportunity to “redeem” themselves by singing the school song at Chapel the following week, after which they would be presented with a clean white t-shirt.

There was obviously something at issue with the W’s this fall. It is perhaps the nature of the post-Johnny Smith “new normal” at Wabash that we will never know what. Given this lack of evidence, it is difficult for me to make any judgments about this situation. So I won’t. But I can still make observations.

The situation with Chapel Sing this year highlights the lack of trust on our campus. The talks with the Sphinx Club highlight Dean Raters’s lack of trust in Wabash students to continue their own traditions in a gentlemanly manner. The fact that rumors about that meeting spread so quickly, and that so many were willing to believe the absolute worst, highlight the students’ lack of trust in Dean Raters. This is far from the ideal situation for Wabash.

Dean Raters used to tell a story about his experience at Wabash in 1982, when the Dayton Flyers football team came to town and used the Wabash mall as their own practice field. After receiving a call from a baseball teammate, Raters gathered together some Wabash men and traveled to the north side of campus. The Flyers, it seemed, were staying in the Lew Wallace in that night, and the men of Wabash wanted to get their revenge for team’s invasion of Wabash turf. The time was one o’clock in the morning, and the sound of “Old Wabash” filled the town of Crawfordsville just off campus, as the Little Giants crowded into the Lew Wallace parking lot, singing loudly. The singing was then mixed with taunts and jeers from both the Flyers and the Wallies.

Wabash Dean of Students Norman C. Moore then made his way to the Lew, unbeknownst to the singing students. He was not happy about the disturbance. He told all of the students to go home, or else. The students decided that going home was the better of those two options, and they made their way back to campus. On the way back, however, they were able to hear Dean Moore, from his office window, whisper, “Nice job, boys.”

I don’t know if that could happen at Wabash anymore. I don’t know if Wabash students could steal the Monon Bell from the DePauw campus anymore. I don’t know if I would tell my freshmen that a W is a mark of shame anymore. I don’t know if I’d yell at them to prepare them at Chapel Sing practice anymore. I don’t know if my idea of a gentleman lines up with Dean Raters’s idea of a gentleman. We live with uncertainty now.

In his first Chapel Talk as Dean of Students, Dean Raters claimed that his new job was all about balance. The point of his story about Dean Moore was balance—balance between “mercy and standards,” as he put it. That balance has been thrown off since the events of last year, and it has become more and more difficult to achieve. I don’t think that we have found it yet.

That is not to say that we won’t, or that one side or the other is particularly to blame for the current imbalance. Again, I don’t really know enough to blame. But here is an observation: The struggle of our College for the next few years—while I’m here, and after I’m graduated—will be to find that balance again. I hope that we do. Because what we had my sophomore year is sorely missed.

Related posts:

1. Dean Raters on Chapel Sing
2. Tradition Freely Chosen: Independents in Chapel Sing
3. The Death of the Student Judiciary: The Inside Story of the Idea’s Rise and Fall

“Here’s what I would advocate if elected to the student senate,” wrote Andrew Forrester ’11 during the campaign, “A Gentleman’s Rule Panel, comprised of students who would be responsible for taking action when a fellow student violates the Gentleman’s Rule.” As for the makeup of the panel, Forrester claimed that it would be comprised of “a select group of students – some appointed by the administration and others elected by the student senate.”

Billy Evans ’11 similarly proposed a “Judiciary Committee,” which would be comprised of “Students, Faculty, and Admin.,” to be used as “a learning process and for handing out rulings on whether students break the rule, or an appeals process from a judgment that has been handed out by the Deans.”

As part of his “5 point plan to reestablish student autonomy at Wabash College,” Anthony Tellez ’10 proposed “[t]he establishment of a Judicial Branch appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.” This new branch of student government, he claimed, would “be responsible for judging actions taken by students that are declared as ungentlemanly.” The reasoning behind such a panel, he claimed, was to allow “students to police themselves with recommendations from the Dean and define cases of when the Gentleman’s Rule is being broken,” adding the qualification that the panel “would cover minor issues and not take over the complete role of the Dean.”

Following the elections, and a full semester of committees looking into the proposals, we now have the final result: the Dean’s Presidents Council, a small group of club presidents that meets with Dean of Students Michael Raters on a regular basis to discuss various complexities with regards to the Dean’s decision-making. “It’s a discussion,” says Dean Raters of the Council. “It’s not an appellate court. It’s not a trial-level court. It’s a discussion. It’s a council. It’s a two-way council.”

So how, after all of the upheaval and rebellion on the part of students, did we end up with a “discussion” instead of a judiciary? This is the story of the Wabash College student judiciary – its conception, and its ultimate death.

The Breakdown of Trust

Delta Tau Delta freshman Johnny Dupree Smith died of acute alcohol poisoning early on the morning of October 5, 2008. Many, if not most, students at Wabash received the news of his passing as early as breakfast. Everyone was talking about the freshman Delt who had passed away after Homecoming—everyone, that is, except the Wabash College administration, who at least publicly kept quiet on the matter. The media apparently heard the news as well. By dusk, the Channel 8 News van was parked on the corner of Wabash and Grant. Some students received phone calls from media outlets, asking for confirmation of a death. The College was notified of these calls, and a brief “!everyone” email from President Patrick White concerning the death was sent to the Wabash community later that night.

Even in the first hours following Johnny Smith’s death, the seeds of distrust between Wabash students and their administration had been thoroughly sown. In the following weeks, the divisions would grow even deeper. Following a mandatory Chapel Talk, in which President White expressed his disappointment with the ungentlemanly, but still unidentified, actions which had been discovered in the Delt house leading up to Smith’s death, the decision was made to close the fraternity down entirely.

“I think that it’s not unfair to say that there was a breakdown in communication in a lot of ways,” says Dr. Rick Warner, who served as Associate Dean of Students at the time. Not only were the students—the Delts included—taken aback by the sudden closing, the faculty were also not notified until about four hours after the decision was made. “The ball was dropped,” Dr. Warner says with regards to communication with the faculty. As faculty members dealt with shocked and angry Delt students in their classes, without any knowledge of what was taking place, the divisions with the administration grew even deeper.

By the time Monon Bell season rolled around, the name of Dean Raters frequently replaced that of DePauw in the traditional “DePauw Swallows” chant. The Senior Council hosted a special “town hall” with Deans Raters and Warner, in which it became clear to students that they were not going to learn any details about why the administration was taking the actions it was taking. “I know what I know, and I can’t not know it,” was the most definitive information Dean Raters was willing to provide about the Delt closing. Both the students and Dean Raters were impassioned and raised their voices at the forum, and little common ground was found.

The breakdown of trust that semester was a two-way collapse. “Trust and confidence had been shaken,” says Dean Raters of those times. “Most of that discussion was from the students towards the administration, towards the Dean’s Office. I think that by the end of the semester, it was obvious that—I wouldn’t say ‘trust’ necessarily—I’d say confidence from me to students had been shaken. I still am really surprised and disappointed in what I found by some of the behaviors in our students, decision-making by our students, and the reactions by our students to things.”

Wabash was experiencing, as Dr. Warner puts it, a “cultural crisis.” It was within this context that discussions about a student judiciary began to take place.

The Raters Committee

In late October, Dean Raters called a “Gentleman’s Rule Summit” to begin to address the issues raised by Johnny Smith’s death and the tumultuous weeks that followed. The summit was an invitation-only event which consisted of administrators, faculty, staff, parents, alumni, and students. Two separate committees were formed as a result of this summit. The first was the Health and Safety Committee, chaired by Dean Warner, to look into issues of safety with regards especially to alcohol. The second was the Judicial Committee, comprised of faculty, staff, parents, alumni, and students handpicked by Dean Raters.

The Raters Committee looked into three options: 1) creating a judicial branch of student government that would work as an appeals board, 2) creating an advisory board that would offer its advice to the Dean’s office in disciplinary decision making, or 3) keeping the system the way it is.

Details about the individual choices were never fully worked out. But broadly speaking, the appeals board was meant to function as a venue for students who were unhappy with the disciplinary decisions made by the Dean of Students. They would have the option to take their case before the Student Judiciary, which would then have the ability to consider and debate the decision, and express its approval or disapproval to the administration. The Dean of Students would then make the final decision.

The second option—the advisory board—would function as a supplement to the Dean of Student’s decision-making process. The student to be disciplined, in certain circumstances, would be able to first go before the student judiciary, which would be given information on the particular case. The Judiciary would then make a recommendation to send to the Dean of Students, who would make the final decision.
According to Dean Raters, the committee very quickly ran into complexities with the first two options. “A lot of questions came into play that we spent a lot of time on,” he says, “the most significant being, ‘So who will be on this board?’” The committee discussed the possibilities of creating an “honor board” of prominent Wabash students, an elected board, or an appointed board. “So there was a lot of discussion about the organization of such a thing,” says Dean Raters, “regardless of which way it went.”

Eventually, the Raters Committee began to tend toward the advisory board model. This was a cause of concern for some students, but Jacob Moore ’11, who was involved with both the Raters Committee and the separate committee created by the Student Senate, claims that he favored the Raters approach. “I think personally—and I know that a fair amount of people disagree with this—that Dean Raters’ committee would work better because an appeal to a decision that has already been made, in my opinion–it’s a little bit harder to have something change,” he says. Providing student input before punishments are made, he claims, creates a greater opportunity to influence the decision. With the appellate board, the Dean would still make a decision completely independent of student opinion, and “99.999 percent of the time, that punishment is going to stick.”

The Nossett Committee

Following the disbandment of Delta Tau Delta, members of the fraternity were asked by the administration to resign from their leadership roles in clubs on campus. As rumors of forced resignations began to spread across campus, the Student Senate decided to respond. Invoking the Student Organization Leadership Act (SOLA), the Student Senate condemned the administration for tampering in student affairs. Also that night, they began work on a Student Judiciary panel.

“It was written the night of…the meeting where some of the Delts were asked to give up their roles and responsibilities in clubs on campus,” Class Representative Cody Stipes ’11 recalls, “That’s where the legislation came from originally.” At the next Student Senate session, former Phoenix Editor-in-Chief and then Senator Sean Clerget ’09 proposed a resolution calling for the assembly of an exploratory committee in the spring semester to look into creating a student judiciary. It was passed overwhelmingly.
Campaigning for the student government elections began shortly thereafter. Many candidates publicly advocated a Student Judiciary as a part of their campaigns, with the notable exception of Mark Thomas ’10, the representative who would ultimately be elected Student Body President. “Instead of creating more committees and councils,” Thomas wrote in his campaign platform, “I will use my power within Senior Council to address the issues that are in conflict with the Gentleman’s Rule.”

After becoming Student Body President in January, Thomas nonetheless appointed a committee as prescribed by the earlier resolution. He appointed Michael Nossett ’11 to chair the committee, which was comprised of members of the Student Senate. “Personally, I was at first fully against that idea because I did not want to expand our student government just to [create a new branch],” Thomas now says, “but through the thorough research done by our committee, I soon found myself looking at several possibilities.”

Nossett took a similarly cautious approach while investigating the possibilities of a judicial branch. His first goal with the committee, he claims, was to fix the problem of Wabash’s ambiguous disciplinary process. He wanted to make the process more clear, not necessarily to check the Dean’s authority. “We’re 950 students,” he says, “We’re only here seven to eight semesters, and so you can’t get that much experience. You can’t know everything at 18 to 22. And you shouldn’t be put in a position of authority over your peers. The Dean’s Office is the authority in charge.”

“The only thing that student government can rightfully do,” he says, is write a letter to the Dean in support of the student being disciplined. “In the end of the day, student government can only do so much.”

In the pursuit of creating a clearer disciplinary process, the Nossett Committee proposed a Student Disciplinary Bill of Rights, which included the right to appeal. It was approved nearly unanimously by the Student Senate. Morris Hall Senator Kyle Nagdeman ’10, was a lonely vote against the measure, claiming the bill was redundant and that it paved the way for an unnecessary judiciary. “The student has rights as it is,” he says, “Why have a bill or a law that states the same damn thing that they already know that they have?”

As the investigation went on, many students on the committee began to tend toward the appellate model. Cody Stipes believed it was a much better model than the one being formed by Dean Raters. “Basically, it seemed like the Dean’s committee would be more of a situation where Dean Raters would go to them with limited amounts of material in terms of what the decision he made was. It didn’t seem to me it was enough for anyone to make a full, critical assessment of the situation and then be able to make a decision off of that,” he says. “I felt like it was very limiting to the members involved and that it really wouldn’t do a lot of good, to be honest…I felt [the appellate model] would do more than the Dean’s committee would do because they would be able to gain as much information as the member was willing to share, and then from there make a decision based on the decision that was made by the Dean and say, ‘You know, I just don’t think that was the right decision.’”

The Mock Trials

Initially, the Dean’s Office was unaware of Nossett’s committee. “Shortly after the Gentleman’s Rule Summit, the Student Senate began, independent from us, and quite frankly, unbeknownst to us, a look at similar sorts of elements,” says Dean Raters. Dr. Warner agrees with that assessment of the situation. “I wasn’t aware of the Student Senate piece of this for quite a while,” he says. “They don’t report to the Dean’s Office.”
The Student Senate, however, was very aware of Dean Raters’ committee. Quoted in the April 17 issue of The Bachelor, Sean Clerget claimed that having two separate committees was “counterproductive to the process.”

“It is a clear conflict when the Dean handpicks a group of students to work on an idea that was meant, originally, to check the Dean’s power,” he said. “If the administration really wants student involvement, I urge Dean Raters to bring the different committees together under the leadership of the Senate committee to make a proposal. We need a fair process for students when disciplinary action is taken, and we get off on the wrong foot when the process for creating that process is hijacked.”

After learning of the Student Senate committee and the growing discontent, Dean Warner advocated bringing the groups together. “My own personal style about dealing with things like this is to bring people in,” he told Dean Raters, “so let’s join the two groups.” After thinking it over for a while, Dean Raters agreed.

So late in the semester, the two groups came together and began to hold mock trials. The committees held trials using both versions of the Student Judiciary, and they began to run into trouble with issues of privacy rights, small school politics, and the judiciary’s makeup.

Some students changed their position on the idea following these sessions. “I liked the idea of a Student Judiciary from the beginning,” says Class Representative Andrew Forrester ’11, “but the more that we’ve looked into it, I’ve realized that it’s not as feasible or clear-cut as it is at other schools.”

“I think that we learned what we liked and what we didn’t like if we were going to have one,” says Nossett of the mock trials, “but I don’t think that it convinced anyone that we needed one.”

Dean Raters claims that both committees eventually found common ground. “Going through those hearings, I think, both groups had an eye-opening experience—that situations are more complex than they might appear, that there is a reason that we’ve had the system that we’ve had as long as we’ve had it,” he says. “My sense was that both groups agreed that we weren’t at a place at that point to have a specific, well-designed ‘X,’ and if you don’t have a specific, well-designed ‘X,’ then to tinker with something is not a good idea.” By the end of the semester, the two groups had stopped meeting.

Dean Raters says that he was able to draw good ideas from the efforts. There was “a whole lot of hard work, good thought, really pushing the envelope, thinking outside the box, a lot of creativity,” he says. And from those ideas, he claims, he decided to create a “Dean’s Presidents Council,” which consists of the presidents of the Student Body, the IFC, the IMA, the Sphinx Club, and the MXI. He claims that the council is all about “keeping one’s cool, taking one’s time, dealing with the facts, rather than reacting to opinion.” Dean Raters intends to meet with the council every other week, in a manner similar to his meetings with fraternity presidents.

Our Take

It might seem odd that we are writing an article on the student judiciary issue after its timely demise. The powers that be in the Student Senate recognized that having a student judiciary panel would be problematic, as was earlier detailed. However, it is fitting that we discuss some of the basic reasons why, in hindsight, the concept of a student judiciary panel as it arose out of last year’s events should be doomed to the ash-heap of history.

We do not deny that there are legitimate concerns rising out of the events of last year. As Dr. Warner acknowledged, there were serious lapses of communication between the administration and the student body (and the Wabash community in general). While actions were condemned, no one was informed as to what those depraved actions were. A fraternity house was closed without much prior knowledge on the part of the fraternity brothers. Rumors were allowed to fly across the campus with little done by the administration to provide contrary information. All of these were failures on the part of the administration with regards to the death of Johnny D. Smith and the closing of Delta Tau Delta.

That being said, those problems require a look at how the administration acted – not a student judiciary panel which will stand in judgment over their peers. In relation to the events of last year, it is doubtful that things could have been handled differently had there been a student judiciary panel. Legal matters were undoubtedly in play throughout the situation. Such matters are responsibility of the administration – not the student body or some elite gathering of student judges. While we students are an integral part of Wabash, we must remember that we alone do not make Wabash. The administration – including the Deans – maintains Wabash and her traditions by acting as guardians. Whether we students recognize this or not, this is undeniably true. This does not mean that we need to agree with their every decision. However, this does mean that a certain deference is owed to the administration. Even if we do not agree with the administration’s decision, we should not question their dedication to the College or the students.

It was through such questioning that the recent manifestation of the student judiciary panel came into being. The unspoken premise behind the panel was that the Deans wronged the student body through their punishment of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity, and so there needed to some basic check on the power of the deans. This is not to say that the members of the Student Senate who supported the concept at its various stages held this premise themselves. However, it is safe to say that much of the general support for the panel was due to this questioning of the intentions of the administration.

To some extent, the concept of the student judiciary panel was based upon some doctrine of the deserved omniscience of the students. Students should know everything that happens at every level at the College, and students can make rational decisions that are inevitably best for the College. Michael Nossett said it best when he said that we as students cannot know everything at the ages of 18-22. We do not know what the best courses of action are. Some of us may be quite mature and seemingly wise beyond our years, but that doesn’t mean that we have the absolute right to have an authoritative say at every level of decision making at Wabash College.

Let us take a quick look at the mission statement of our college: “Wabash College educates men to think critically, act responsibly, lead effectively, and live humanely.” Note the verb; it’s active. Wabash “educates” us. Over our four years here, we learn to do those four things through both personal devotion to the ideals of the Gentleman’s Rule and the careful, occasional prodding of our faculty and administration. We are still works in progress, and are therefore liable to err. While it is one thing to give a peer advice, it is another to lay down a punishment that could have uncertain ramifications and consequences.

The idea of the student judiciary panel has come and gone. May the good Lord have mercy on its soul in the next life and prevent its ugly resurrection here at Wabash. Insofar as the concept of the panel was to create student ownership over our college, it was positive. However, there were dangers that lurked in the background of this. At its heart, it forgot that we are students. We are young and prone to err, and it might behoove us to remember that. This does not mean that we should blindly accept the administration and not occasionally challenge them. However, that should be done with respect and with the recognition of who we are. If we remember the Gentleman’s Rule, and if we remember that we are students, we will find that the student judiciary panel is unnecessary.

Related posts:

1. New Phoenix: The Death of the Student Judiciary
2. The Dreaded “W”: A Story of Tradition and Lost Trust
3. The Ides of March: A Story of Death and Rebirth

The Fraternity Cleaning Initiative began back in May 2006 when the Board of Trustees began to express maintenance concerns with the administration of the college. The Board’s simplest concern was the proper upkeep of their housing investments, fraternities, in which after the construction of the new Kappa Sigma house, will exceed forty million dollars total. Over the course of the next year, during the numerous meetings of the Trustees, the members began a continuing discussion as how to address their concerns in the fraternities. The initial move by the college was to monitor and observe the cleanliness in the fraternities over an extended evaluation period.

When the college reported their findings this past summer to the Board of Trustees, it became evident to the alumni that an initiative was needed. Dean Raters said that “for the members of the Board and staff that went through the houses during or just prior to this past January’s Board Meeting, the phrasing that was used was ‘there is a clear difference between the level of cleanliness and structural care that was seen and felt while walking into residence halls as compared to walking into our fraternities.’” After these observations, the Board began to discuss immediate measures to help improve the quality of living in the fraternities. The Board awarded a one-year improvement and evaluation period to the college. It was at this point that students of the college started to become aware of the situation facing the fraternities and general concern began to grow. The college created a new position, the Fraternity Cleaning Supervisor, to act as a liaison between the fraternities and the college. This position is now occupied by Charley McCormick, a member of the Campus Services’ staff for six years.

According to Dean Raters, this new position has three fundamental tasks. First, and most importantly, to create a “trusting, mutually respected relationship with the house managers especially and the critical mass of each fraternity.” This fundamental task is necessary to be successful in the other goals of the position. The second task that the administration has given to Charley is to get everyone on the same page. He is charged with the task of explaining and actively displaying the standard of cleaning that needs to be met by all fraternity houses this semester. Finally, the third task is to help assist, through various means, the houses that are below the standard, to achieve a new level of success deemed satisfactory. Dean Raters said that he believed Charley has successfully created the respectful relationships with the fraternities that are crucial to the success of the Fraternity Cleaning Initiative.

When Charley McCormick was asked whether these relationships had been established, he felt that he has indeed connected with the house managers from each fraternity house. Throughout the interview, Charley continued to stress his care for the men of this college and the important space that they occupy in his life. He commented “One thing scares me, I love all you guys and it makes me feel bad when I have to say bad things to you, but I do not want the fraternity system to be lost. They are great places with great guys and we just need to get together to conquer these issues. Help your neighbor to succeed.” Repeatedly, during his interview, Charley reiterated his sentimental feelings towards the men of this college and wanted to see us succeed as a whole. His care and attention can be seen through the multiple programs that he has established to help the fraternity men succeed.

Charley has offered to walk through each house inspection with the house manager, an upperclassmen, or anyone who wants to help. He has offered a number of cleaning seminars but only one house on campus has elected to utilize this program. In these seminars he offers, Charley, himself, goes into the fraternity that has requested help, and demonstrates personally, how to clean a certain area of the house and to the level of standard that is being expected. Charley also admitted that he welcomes positive criticism from the men in the fraternities as well. To create the respectful relationships needed to make this initiative successful, he feels the need to have a reciprocal and open dialogue between him and the fraternities. Charley, when all is said and done, believes that the fraternity men will prevail and that we shall be successful come May’s evaluation. He said that “we are making great strides now.” The improvement that he has seen so far into this semester gives him a great sense of achievement and hope that the cleaning responsibilities will stay in the fraternities next fall.

Charley has put into place the tools that we, the fraternities, need to combat and defeat this challenge presented to us by the college. On the same note, Dean Raters shares the feelings with Charley. The willingness of the administration to stand up to the Board of Trustees and tell them that we are able to resolve this issue together shows their support for us. Dean Raters shares the same sentimental outcome that Charley does in that he believes we will be successful come May.

We have been given the opportunity to succeed from the defense of the Deans and the tools and assistance being given to us by Charley, but now it is up to us, as a Wabash community and combined fraternal brotherhood to display our ability to prevail.

———————————————————————————————————————

This portion of the article is littered with numerous rhetorical questions for personal intellection. The questions concerning the structural form of, what might become, the new cleaning service are simply logistical inquiries. On the other hand, the questions that begin to outline the effects this service may have upon the culture of fraternities and its members will include a degree of personal speculation based on my thoughts and experience. Take them for what they are worth and ponder them for yourself.

No one truly has answers or actual responses to these following queries because of the current state of the cleaning initiative. And as the author learned in the interview with Dean Raters, the administration is not willing to speculate on these conditions because if they do, they believe they will have already accepted the defeat of the fraternity men. However, it is my conviction that there is an absolute and unfaltering need to consider the ramifications that could arise following the college’s decision at the May board meeting.

First of all, logistical questions arise concerning the composition of the cleaning service itself. Will the college simply expand the existing custodial staff to cover the new cleaning responsibilities or will the college hire an outside cleaning service? What will the cleaning schedule be in the fraternities? Depending on when the service comes to clean, how will it affect the daily routines of fraternity men? Will the fraternity men not be able to move inside their house for an hour each day while the staff is cleaning as to not interrupt their work?

What will these staff members think about cleaning a fraternity house on Sunday following a three-house joint fraternity party? All of the fraternity men know what condition a fraternity house is in following a social event and what do you think the cleaning service will think when they see the bathrooms? One can only wait to hear the complaints being filed in the Dean’s Office by the cleaning staff.

The logistical details of the new program do not serve the most important part for this article. The most significant questions, however, are those that begin to outline the greater changes in fraternity culture and how it will affect Wabash men and the college as a whole. This section of the article is not intended to serve as a scare tactic, but rather to illuminate the greater consequences of this program that should be central in the minds of all fraternity men. How will the culture of the fraternities change with the adoption of this new system? To begin to address this question, let us first outline one of the desired outcomes the administration wants to see before our three month deadline expires.

The college, through the means of this initiative, wants to see a shift in the personal responsibility and care of the men in fraternities. They would like to see more guardianship coming from the Greek men but also more emphasis on personal responsibility and cleaning habits. If the College elects to hire and switch to a cleaning service, will that not just systemically and effectively destroy all of the personal responsibility, in respect to cleaning, currently standing and being developed in the fraternities. The college wants the fraternity men to take better care of their houses by improving their own personal cleaning habits.

I agree that each man should and does have a great responsibility to himself, his house, and his brothers to clean up after himself in an effort to alleviate extended cleaning. But how will the college instill the need of personal responsibility to clean up after themselves if the men are aware that someone else, not related to the fraternity in any means, will take care of that cleaning for them. This argument defines the exact attitude that is affecting the cleaning initiative in the most negative way but removing all need for personal responsibility by hiring a cleaning service will not solve this problem. It will only assist in the further dissipation of the personal cleaning responsibility in its men the college holds so dearly to the success of this initiative.

By keeping the responsibility of cleaning in the fraternities, the college will, at the very least, be leaving a chance to change these attitudes which are greatly affecting the upkeep of the fraternities. The specific and individual occurrences which are being labeled as the root cause for the poor cleanliness of the fraternities can and will be dealt with within the brotherhoods. Whether it be through behavioral consequences inside each fraternity or through a ‘brother’s keeper’ campaign, the personal cleaning responsibility will change for the better if left in the hands of the fraternities.

But cleaning responsibility is not the only personal characteristic that would be negatively affected by bringing cleaning services into the fraternities. One of Wabash’s numerous unadvertised benefits is its innate ability to teach helpful and successful life skills. It is true, I have seen it with my own eyes, that some young men who come to this college have no idea how to cook, clean, or even do their own laundry. As much as someone may wish to argue otherwise, an active role in the cleaning of a fraternity house teaches its men how to clean, a domestic skill that will be very helpful during a student’s time here and especially following graduation. These life skills are important to the success of anyone in the ‘real world.’ By removing the cleaning responsibility from the willing and able hands of the fraternity men, the college will be denying to teach a crucial life skill to its men that will no doubt help them to succeed in the future.

The effect the cleaning initiative will have on the personal characteristics of the fraternities is only one issue within the broader cultural consequences facing the fraternities. Most fraternities place the responsibility of daily cleaning on the shoulders of our freshmen. If the cleaning responsibilities are removed from our duties, most, if not all, fraternity pledgeships will have to be greatly restructured and redesigned only increasing the work needed to constantly adapt to the changing society around us.

To the fraternity men, let us take this tough scrutiny and evaluation period as an opportunity for us to change it for ourselves. The aims and goals of the college are only going to make fraternity life better than it already stands. We have failed in the eyes of the Board of Trustees but let us learn and grow from out mistakes. To the college, do not abandon us nor the values that you yourself, Wabash College, holds, so loftily and rightly so, as your mission statement. Let the fraternity men ‘think critically’ to evaluate our situation and develop creative solutions to absolve the cleanliness concerns of our alumni. Give us a chance to redefine and raise our standard to ‘act responsibly’ within our fraternities and on campus. Let us ‘live humanely’ and continue to develop the pride and love for our fraternities that we may have lost sight of in recent years. Finally, allow your students to ‘lead effectively’ the charge to a higher standard of cleanliness and set an example for the younger men of Wabash for years to come.

Related posts:

1. The Fraternity System: Its Place at Wabash College
2. A Conservative Institution: A Perspective on Fraternities
3. Dean Raters on Chapel Sing

Rovenstine: Could you comment on Chapel Sing? I’ve heard a lot of rumors about changes this year.

Raters: To my knowledge, there aren’t changes. What I’ve discussed with the Sphinx Club is, do you know why you do what you do, and, more significantly, does everybody else know why you do what you do, and is what you do legal, is it gentlemanly, does it need to be…which is of the tradition, which is to have every Wabash man who would like to participate in this tradition, learn our song, learn the words, so that as they progress, and they stand and sing the song, and they look around and see the ninety-year-old alumnus doing so that they — you’ve got a common bond there, a common experience. And I think the Spinx Club is, I know the Sphinx Club is going to be — to emphasize with greater clarity, what this is, why we do it, that sort of thing.

Rovenstine: I was told that they were going to be getting new shirts or something, after the W’s were sprayed on them. To your knowledge, that’s not true?

Raters: Um…Well, I can tell you that’s not a mandate. I mean, I’ve heard that idea as well. We’ll see what the guys decide to do there. I think that — well, I know as that was being discussed, the concern was, again: do the students understand that the “W” is a tally sheet that helps as part of the chaos of the event, it helps the guys in the Sphinx Club to better monitor who did well and who didn’t and who’s the winner. And at the same time, make certain that all the students understand that this is sort of a rite of passage event — positive event, that it is to be an uplifting event that they’ve gone through, and something again that most Wabash men have, and it is in keeping with everything that we do. It’s a gentlemanly event, it demonstrates responsible citizenry, and so on.

Rovenstine: Did anything spur these discussions [with the Sphinx Club], or was it just in general the events of last year?

Raters: No, I think we always have — we’re always having discussions, as you’ve heard me say from time to time. You either get better, or you get worse, you don’t say the same. We’re always trying to get better. So I had the same sort of conversation with the leadership last year, Dean Bambrey’s had those conversations with the Sphinx Club leadership every year since I’ve been here when I was Associate Dean. I think it’s — when I talked with the guys, the Sphinx Club members especially, it’s similar to approaches to all matters at Wabash. All the time? You know, sure, during last year’s tension, we’re foolish if we don’t reexamine what we’re doing, and so I think the Sphinx Club has reexamined what we’re doing. Are we intentional enough and clear enough. On Thursday we’ll find out if I’ve got to make sure that — do I have to be more intentional to make sure that either a group of students or individual students here and there need a better understanding to reach that higher expectation that we make pretty darn clear.

From later in the interview:

It’s one of those examples of guys having an opportunity to learn the concept of time and tradition. You know, the Chapel Sing I’ll see on Thursday will be similar but a whole lot different from the one I participated in, very different from the one that Dean Bambrey participated in as well. Similar but quite different from the one a student here five years ago participated in. It is an evolutionary event, but one where we need to again, as I mentioned in my note to the community (you can use that if you like as well), “at all times” includes homecoming week, it includes Chapel Sing. And it includes preparation for Chapel Sing, so we all need to understand that. Sometimes we don’t.

Rovenstine: I just don’t want the W’s to go away. You know, I hated Chapel Sing until I didn’t get a W, and then it was the greatest thing in my life. I wore that white t-shirt all day, and it was like forty degrees out.

Raters: Ha, ha. Well, there you go. The potential problem is, that you got a W, and now, are you crushed? Are you ridiculed? And, more specifically, are you, even with the W, are you made to feel like you did something from a positive perspective? And I do think that’s where the Sphinx Club is going to be more intentional on Thursday. And I do hope so. Because, again, the positive rite of passage is the best thing we’ve got going.

Related posts:

1. A Song of Chapel Sing: On Freshman Homecoming 2011
2. Tradition Freely Chosen: Independents in Chapel Sing
3. The Dreaded “W”: A Story of Tradition and Lost Trust

On October 28, 2007, Wabash College freshman Patrick Woehnker, 19, fell to his death after gaining access to the roof of an academic building. Woehnker and four other students entered the building via an underground maintenance tunnel.

The five underage students had consumed alcohol, but it was ruled out as a factor in the accident.

College officials claimed the students had entered the tunnel through a man hole and that the building was secure. However, following an unrelated investigation the following year, an incident report surfaced that showed the college found earlier the same week that students were entering the building through the tunnel. The incident report completed by campus security for the Associate Dean’s office, just six days before Woehnker’s death, stated that there were “footprints coming from the tunnels in goodrich [the academic
building]” and that it “lokks [sic] like someone has been in tunnels.”

It is not clear what, if any, action the college took to keep students out of the building following the October 22nd report of the student entry.

However, even more devastating is a Crawfordsville police report requested by The Phoenix staff that revealed the group specifically went to Goodrich Hall because, as one student stated, “Patrick said he wanted to go to Goodrich hall [sic] because he did the other night.”

Though it was possible that Woehnker was the same student who accessed the building six days before his death, the October 22nd incident report in which the college acknowledged
the entry was not made public during the investigation or ensuing media inquires. College officials denied the opportunity to immediately comment on this investigation.

Even more unanswered questions surround the college’s recent disbandment of the Beta Psi Chapter of Delta Tau Delta Fraternity. On November 6, 2008, President White sent an e-mail informing the campus community of their decision to withdraw recognition of the fraternity and declared the house a residence hall “effective immediately.”

In a statement released by the college explaining the decision, President White cited “a culture and practice of ungentlemanly behavior and irresponsible citizenship, which are inconsistent with Wabash’s Gentleman’s Rule, mission, and core values.”

Delta Tau Delta students informed The Phoenix staff that they were told by the college that a decision on the fate of their house would be made at the end of the joint investigation being conducted by Wabash College and Delta Tau Delta International.

However, at 10:00 on the evening of November 5, the men of Delta Tau Delta were informed that their attendance was required at a meeting with college administrators at 7:15 the following morning. At this meeting, Dean of Students Michael Raters informed the men that the college was disbanding Delta Tau Delta, terminating its lease, and requiring students over the age of 21 to move out within 72 hours.

Though the college claimed to have reached this decision in conjunction with Delta Tau Delta International, a division president called the decision “unilateral” and “disappointing,”
and the Executive Vice President of Delta Tau Delta Jim Russell said, as quoted in The Paper of Montgomery County, “we were hopeful, upon the investigation’s completion, in partnering with the college on an appropriate joint course of action.”

A Practice of Irresponsible Citizenship

“Woehnker fell Sunday from the top of Goodrich Hall, an academic building that was closed at the time.” Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, October 30, 2007

Little else came from the investigation. It was a simple but sad story in which a young made a foolish mistake, like most of us have done on any number of occasions. Unfortunately, this one cost him his life. The campus grieved for the loss of a brother, sent sympathies and prayers to his family, and eventually recovered. The only other news received was a quiet and almost unnoticed coroner’s report a few weeks after the tragedy that stated the nineteen-year-old’s blood alcohol content of .04%.

Roughly three months after his death, The Phoenix staff was investigating campus security issues and made a formal request for a copy of the college’s daily crime log, a public log which is federally mandated by the Jeanne Clery Act. The law gives the college 48 hours to comply with public requests, but the college did not meet the deadline. No explanation was given other than ignorance of the specific stipulation requiring the crime log.

The consequences of non-compliance are very grave. The Secretary of the Department of Education (DoE) is required to report non-compliant institutions to appropriate congressional committees and fine said institutions up to $27,700 per infraction. As a result of the January request, The Phoenix staff sent the administration a copy of the federal law and a DoE compliance handbook, but a story on the log was not published.

Eight months later at the end of September, and at the end of National Campus Safety Awareness Month (named so by Congress July 2008), another request was made for the daily crime log for a Bachelor investigation. By the 48th hour, it was evident that the college would not only miss the deadline but that Wabash still did not have a log.

After a meeting with Dean Raters on October 2, 2008, it was obvious that the college had not made any effort to solve the problem which was brought to its attention nine months earlier. Dean Raters admitted the school did not have a log. “The point of debate where I would agree with your point is that, do we have a daily log? Well, apparently we don’t. I didn’t keep a daily log. You’ve asked for one a couple times and not gotten it,” said Dean Raters, “but I don’t think that is from the DoE perspective—The paper work that they send is what they look at to see if we’re in compliance—in my mind—and therefore we are in compliance.”

The interview indicated that the college did not understand the law and had yet to carefully read the compliance guide sent nine months earlier.

Sadly, two nights later on October 4, 2008, Johnny Smith, age 18, died of acute alcohol poisoning. Due to the sensitivity of the events and the inevitable media coverage the campus would be receiving, a report on the crime log investigation did not run in The Bachelor that week.

After the campus climate started to return to some sort of normalcy, another crime log request was made so that the investigation could continue. However, this time the administration responded immediately and made available a “daily crime log” of sorts that had supposedly existed all along unbeknownst to the administration.

The log was an internal document maintained by Campus Security which listed summaries of incident reports made to the Associate Dean. Most of the incidents were not of the type required to be maintained in the federally mandated log. Some entries named students or discussed sensitive but non-criminal incidents which some could argue were not in the college’s best interest to make public. It certainly did not appear to be maintained
for public viewing.

The entry for October 22, 2007, just six days before Patrick Woehnker’s death, is pictured below.

In the very next entry dated October 28, 2007, the comment section reads, “It was found that the subject entered tunnel by man hole by hays hall. Entered goodrich where he gained acsess to the roof. [sic]” The rest of the details need not be shared here.

Despite the existence of an incident report, initial news articles reported that the college had no idea how the students gained access to a secured building. Spokesperson Jim Amidon told the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, “They’re [roofs] extremely dangerous places to be…The building itself was secure.” Though details about the students gaining entry through the maintenance tunnels were publicly acknowledged, the log entry made six days earlier was not.

It is unclear what actions the college took to mitigate the problem brought to their attention in the October 22, 2007 incident report. Recent events have raised similar concerns about the college administration’s decisions.

A Culture of Ungentlemanly Behavior

On November 6, 2008, the college decided to withdraw recognition of the Beta Psi chapter of Delta Tau Delta due to a “culture and practice of ungentlemanly behavior and irresponsible citizenship, which are inconsistent with Wabash’s Gentleman’s Rule, mission, and core values.” The decision was met with surprise from students, alumni, and international fraternity leadership.

After all, the college initially offered support to the men of Delta Tau Delta. In a letter dated October 15, 2008, President White informed college alumni that “Our first concern in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy was the welfare of the young men in Delta Tau Delta and Johnny’s friends in the Class of 2012.”

However, later in the process of the investigation, the college failed to keep students, alumni, and the international fraternity informed. “We received more information from the police than the college administration,” said Delta Tau Delta senior Matthew Lee, “it’s the same thing that’s been going on for the last five or six weeks. He [Dean Raters] comes in and talks for a long time and doesn’t really say anything.”

Though the students and alumni were told the conclusion of an official investigation would determine the future of their house, the college acted swiftly and—literally—overnight to disband the fraternity. The campus community, as well the alumni, and international fraternity were shocked by the surprise decision. Eastern Division President of Delta Tau Delta International, Larry Altenburg, said, “I expect the college is doing what they need to do to cover their own interests.”

Details on the culture and practice of ungentlemanly behavior and irresponsible citizenship were not given, and many have disagreed with the administration’s characterization of the men in the house.

The men of Delta Tau Delta have had a very difficult semester. They’ve endured three investigations. All of the members have gone through counseling, and some are receiving medical treatment related to the emotional trauma.

Wabash College President Patrick White was away from campus and unavailable for immediate comment. The Dean of Students, Michael Raters, abruptly cancelled a scheduled interview and declined to answer the questions until the following week.

Authors’ Note

It is important not to confuse these new findings. Patrick Woehnker broke the Gentleman’s Rule in entering the tunnels and Goodrich Hall. Let that not be forgotten. However, it is our belief that the above facts suggest that the college administration has also promoted and practiced a culture of ungentlemanly behavior and irresponsible citizenship, which are inconsistent with Wabash’s Gentleman’s Rule, mission, and core values.

Did the administration submit the October 22, 2007 incident report to police? If not, did they believe it was irrelevant to the investigation?

The administration was also unresponsive to investigations into possible violation of federal law.

Seemingly to protect their interests, the college manipulated and misled the brothers of Delta Tau Delta, and, under questionable circumstances before an investigation was even completed, the administration issued a verdict condemning the brothers and casting them out on their own.

The administration will defend students in so far as it does not threaten the administration’s own interests. It is ironic that the administration should cite the Gentleman’s Rule against the brothers of Delta Tau Delta when the administration itself has threatened the integrity of the same rule.

Certainly some questions will be raised in to the appropriateness of this investigation. When the facts came to our attention, we discussed at length those very questions. Is writing this story the right thing to do? Are the consequences it will have on the college worth it? Is it morally just not to publish this story?

Ultimately, we decided that by not making the results of our investigation public, we would be aiding in covering it up. Though there are considerable consequences to this article, we are doing what we think is right because the college did not.

If we, as a college, are to gain anything from these tragedies, all parties involved must share the responsibility. This administration, however, has placed the burden solely on students. It is time that the college takes an objective look inside its own house, because the trust between the students and the current administration is broken. After all, in the very least the Gentleman’s Rule means following the law and taking care of each other.

Related posts:

1. The Phoenix Mission
2. The Death of the Student Judiciary: The Inside Story of the Idea’s Rise and Fall
3. Remembering What We Used to Say About Our Students