The administration has admitted authoring the document obtained by leaders in the Greek community which suggests they intend to move rush to Winter as soon as the 2005 academic year, however Royster Harper is denying it is anything more than a “brainstorm.”:

“Harper recognized the document as her own personal brainstorm, but said she had no knowledge of how it landed in IFCÂ?s hands.

“I understand (IFC’s) anger because they are reading this out of context, without any conversation. What I don’t understand is how that happened,” Harper said. “I do take full responsibility for it, but I didn’t send it.”

The administration said there are no official plans for any modifications to the Greek system and added that the next step calls for a dialogue with students.

“We are still developing a process and schedule for discussion, feedback and sharing,” said University spokeswoman Julie Peterson. …”

> From “IFC members upset over supposed ‘U’ Proposals”

And the Daily’s editorial board takes the opportunity to weigh in, encouraging Greeks themselves to consider delaying rush: “While it is beyond the responsibility of the University to suggest and promote specific housing proposals for the Greek system, not all the policies should be disregarded. The Greek system should thoroughly consider moving Rush back to the winter semester.”

I think the flow of information in this story is interesting. Somehow, IFC obtained the administration document revealing them doing something they do all the time – secretly planning what will happen before getting any student “input.” (Generally input from people already closely connected with the administration – people who intern in Fleming, serve on Royster’s “roundtable,” and generally are inducted into secret societies) After I posted about the proposed changes (tipped off by a friend in the Greek system), and the information was circulated via e-mail among Greeks, members of MSA, many who read this website, dedicated much of their meeting this week to discussing it. Throughout this process, the Daily has played a typically reactionary role – they have dutifully covered the discussion, but never once taking the lead and aggressively trying to figure out what actually happened or actually disseminating the relevant information to the student body. Today’s Daily story comes the closest to doing this, but even it was written under the pretext of covering the IFC meeting – and at this point, most people who might be interested have already heard about the proposal (the truth, or the rumors) through private channels.

Author: Rob