Groups respond to RGAC scores

Stakeholders in the residential group assessment process gathered Wednesday to discuss the process and its results and determined more discussion was needed before changes to the process or delays to the section selection process scheduled for Sunday could be made.

The two-and-a-half hour, occasionally heated meeting revealed concerns that the process was opaque, inconsistent and discriminated against some living groups, while its results would have unintended consequences on the University’s established social scene. Attendees included Interfraternity Council and Selective Living Group representatives, Campus Council leaders, Residential Group Assessment Committee co-chairs and Residence Life and Housing Services and Student Affairs administrators. Approximately 60 people attended the event.

“You want someone to say, ‘All right, you won.’ That can’t happen at this point,” Zoila Airall, assistant vice president for student affairs, said at the end of the meeting. “What I am saying is we’re all going to talk, and that’s the best I can do.”

Members of IFC fraternities, including IFC President Eric Kaufman, a senior, expressed concerns that their organizations were given little or poor information about the “murky at best” process, that their groups were poorly represented and that the scoring categories were unfairly tailored to the missions of a few groups.

RGAC is composed of four internally selected IFC representatives, four internally chosen selective house council members and four elected Campus Council representatives. The scoring committee consists of two IFC, two selective house council, two Campus Council and one independent quadrangle representatives. RGAC co-Chair Sean Puneky, a senior, said there was low variance among each of the judges’ scores, which he said showed consistency among their evaluation of qualitative measures.

But Kaufman said it was difficult to know what was expected from groups and what earned a good score.

Junior Ben Klitus, IFC vice president for chapter services IFC representative for RGAC, said there was no way for RGAC liaisons or for the scorers themselves to interpret the information. Rubrics came with very few guidelines and there was no discussion among the panel of scorers.

“My scores, I will tell you, are a complete joke. I don’t know where they were factored in, but you say there’s not much score deviation,” Klitus said. “I don’t see how that’s possible. The idea of student involvement is great, but in practice I actually think student involvement is one of the biggest problems with this process because there is no way to make it unbiased.”

Several groups also called into question the criteria RGAC uses to evaluate groups, which committee members said is an event-driven process.

Selective living groups, including Scott House, Round Table, Prism and several fraternities, pointed out that the criteria used to evaluate groups do not necessarily reflect their efforts or their missions. Kaufman said in a previous interview the process attempts to “compare apples and oranges.”

Associate Dean for Residential Life Joe Gonzalez, said the categories were not designed to suit any group perfectly. Rather, they reflect what the creators of the RGAC process thought separated groups from large blocks and represented the organizations’ responsibilities to the greater community.

Supplemental categories allow groups to choose what they wish to be judged on outside of the fundamental categories. Supplemental categories include intellectual focus, service and philanthropy, faculty and staff interaction and social programming.

Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity President Kevin Lincoln, a junior and Recess music editor, said there was a possibility that groups like Round Table—which had the highest average score—are by nature “better suited” to the RGAC process. Round Table co-Coordinator Hilary Robbins, a senior, said “that’s fair.”

Some other concerns pertained to the new sections for groups.

Jen Frank, assistant director of accommodations for RLHS, said the Campus Council Executive Committee worked with RLHS to design the menu for SLGs.

She said officials started with the floor plans of all West Campus dormitories and reduced it to sections that would better spread groups across campus. The new sections offer four fewer dedicated common rooms and “three or four” fewer first-floor downstairs sections to better reflect the distribution of independents, Frank said.

“It’s not a fair judgment that a group can use a common room better than an independent,” Temple said. “I would be remiss if I didn’t represent the third voice here... and say that 70 percent of West is independents.”

But fraternity representatives said the changes will make it much more difficult for them to host events that independents attend. Several said the new sections give groups little incentive to perform well because they have privileges equivalent to those of a large block.

“I think you’re going to find groups utilizing their off-campus facilities more often, I think as a result of that you might see an increase in who knows what,” Kaufman said in an interview Monday. “I don’t think groups are going to have an incentive to contribute to residential life because a lot of the groups feel like they’ve been shafted by the process, and regardless of what the bare-boned truth slash facts are, perception makes a difference.”

Many attendees agreed that RGAC did force groups to improve themselves and reminded them that residential space is a privilege.

“This hasn’t been brought up and it’s something I think should be mentioned—sororities don’t have living space,” Robbins said in the meeting. “Women as a large group don’t have living space, so you really should have to earn your space on campus.”

Several administrators, Campus Council members and RGAC committee co-chairs remained for more than two and a half hours after the meeting ended, leaving the meeting room at 2:45 a.m. After, Temple said they were still considering many options.

Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly attributed a quote, "that's fair," to Andrew Zonderman. The quote should have only been attributed to Hillary Robbins. The Chronicle regrets the error.