Have Penn State’s Greek life reforms made a difference? What a program review shows
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Reforms since 2017 improved event control but failed to curb risky behaviors.
- Shift to university oversight weakened Greek self-governance and stakeholder trust.
- Unresolved issues include hazing, alcohol misuse, and inequities in facility access.
An external review of Penn State’s fraternity and sorority life program found that while reforms put into place in 2017 improved some aspects, they have not “meaningfully reduced risks or negative behaviors associated with fraternal organizations.”
Penn State announced in October its Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life will work with RISE Partnerships to review the current state of Greek life at the university and the impact of changes made since 2017. The university made the 61-page report publicly available in the spring, with a number of initiatives they planned to incorporate on the student affairs website.
The reforms, which came after the hazing death of pledge Timothy J. Piazza in 2017, included a deferred recruitment/rush process and university control of the fraternity and sorority organization misconduct and adjudication process. Reforms led to two noteworthy improvements, the review states: the social event management practices have reduced large, disruptive gatherings in fraternity/sorority neighborhoods, and the organization-level misconduct process is an improvement on the previous accountability system.
“Besides these indicators of progress, the reforms have not meaningfully reduced risks or negative behaviors associated with fraternal organizations. Several issues remain and new challenges have emerged,” the review states. It lists six examples of issues and new challenges:
- Issues continue with student safety and misconduct, especially related to high-risk alcohol use and hazing
- Student agency, engagement and the capacity for self-governance “have eroded”
- Organizations that are unrecognized by the university put “fraternities and sororities at a competitive disadvantage”
- Relationships with alumni advisors and other stakeholders can be contentious
- There’s limited positive or aspirational messaging about the Greek life experience to parents, alumni and incoming students
- Organizations have limited access to meeting and programming spaces that meet their needs
“These remaining issues and new challenges ultimately stem from the dramatic shift from a self-governance philosophy to a university-imposed redesign of the support system for fraternity/sorority life around a compliance approach,” the review states.
“There is also no clear indication that simply reversing any or all of the reforms would reduce risks or negative behaviors. Instead, an alternate approach that accounts for the complex and overlapping governance structures in fraternity/sorority life is needed.”
Recommendations include reexamining the credit hour requirement in the eligibility policy, adopting a strategic prevention approach to address “risky behavior,” showing a positive vision for Greek life at Penn State, aligning programming around a revised standard of excellence, and strengthening engagement with stakeholders in the organizational conduct and accountability process.
A website for the report outlines some initiatives that are underway and more updates are planned for the start of the semester, a spokesperson for the university said.
“Looking ahead, implementation of the recommendations is ongoing and will continue throughout the academic year, with progress updates published to the website as new developments occur,” Tyra McGarvie, communications and news specialist for the Office of Strategic Communications said in an email.
Impact of the 2017 Greek life reforms at Penn State
The review looked at the overall state of the fraternity/sorority community at Penn State, the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life, and the impact of the 2017 reforms, with several points to each topic.
Initiatives were designed for problems with social events and hazing, the review states. For example, some reforms were geared toward controlling large, disruptive gatherings and increasing safety at events with alcohol. The university reinstated the Neighborhood Enforcement Alcohol Team, added restrictions on the number and type of social events with alcohol, and more programming. Organizations can only have 10 events each semester, only serve beer and wine, and have to use RAMP trained bartenders.
The review found these helped with cutting down large, disruptive gatherings and events are run more smoothly.
Compared to peer institutions, Penn State is more involved in event management than others. The review states most will require event registration but defer management and monitoring of it to council leaders.
Although the changes have helped, some who participated in the focus group — about 60 stakeholders were part of the groups, including chapter and council leaders, alumni advisors and others — were frustrated by event management changes.
“They feel the event management practices are intrusive and establish a combative relationship. Alumni advisors and undergraduate fraternity leaders suggested the current policies create a situation that encourages students to pre-game before attending fraternity events, resulting in guests who arrive intoxicated and create problems and a risk for the organization.”
While there may be increased safety at registered social events, some stakeholders said unregistered events are significantly less safe.
The reforms also included measures to prevent hazing. At the time of the review, there had been 19 hazing violations since 2017, with 74% of the cases associated with IFC fraternities. There have also been hazing allegations with unrecognized groups, but those are not included in the total.
The safety measures didn’t do enough to address “the role alcohol plays in recruitment and new member education” for some IFC fraternities, according to the review.
“Many of the behaviors that the social event policies intended to address persist through unregistered social events, recruitment events, new member education practices, and informal activities,” the review states.
Another reform changed the minimum joining requirement: students had to have completed 14 credit hours, have a 2.5 GPA and have no history of misconduct at the university, with different standards in place for transfer students. Therefore, most students could not join IFC and Panhellenic chapters until the second semester of their first year. The policy has changed slightly over the years in terms of its behavioral standard, the report states.
The review shows more data and analysis is needed to determine if this standard is still appropriate. A 2022 focus group report found some appreciated the deferred joining as it gave them more time to explore their options and become informed. But the review states this was “overshadowed” by misconduct and safety data trends.
It also created a decline in Panhellenic housing occupancy and a competitive advantage for unrecognized groups.
“Aside from the findings in this report regarding the impact of eligibility policies at Penn State, consensus in the fraternity/sorority industry is that there is limited evidence or literature to indicate whether the time of joining has a meaningful impact on safety or student success,” the review states.
The accountability process was another change under the 2017 reforms. According to the review, prior to the reforms, councils were given responsibility for managing fraternal organization violations of the council policy and student code of conduct. But the council responses to misconduct were “problematic” and did not lead to corrective behavior.
The reforms gave the university responsibility for organizational misconduct, followed by some changes in 2024 to streamline the process in an effort to reduce a high caseload. But that led to additional confusion and mistrust among stakeholders, the review states.
Lack of trust was already an issue in relation to misconduct proceedings. The review states it has led to some alumni interfering with proceedings.
“Stakeholders shared examples of alumni advising students not to respond or participate, attempting to respond on behalf of students, deflecting responsibility, and abusing the opportunity to attend hearings. These behaviors led (Office of Student Accountability and Conflict Response) to limit who is involved in the process, further reducing trust and transparency,” the review states.
According to the review, the university taking responsibility over organization misconduct diminished the Greek life community’s capacity for self-governance.
Stakeholders are interested in moving away from the compliance model toward a shared leadership approach.
In March, three fraternities created an independent State College Interfraternity Council with a student-led governing model. Fraternities Pi Kappa Alpha, Sigma Chi and Tau Kappa Epsilon — two of which were previously suspended from Penn State — are the founding members. A main reason they formed the council, Sam Lanza, founding president of the SCIFC and former president of the Sigma Chi chapter said at the time, was to free themselves of some university reforms.
“We recognize the need for a compliance focused environment that empowers chapters to lead themselves. This student-led approach is particularly important for freshmen recruitment as it fosters a welcoming atmosphere centered on positive activities and community involvement,” Lanza said during a press conference in March. “We also want to stress that as an independent IFC, we are self governing and we’re able to rush freshmen, who then benefit from a longer and more fulfilling Greek life experience. The bottom line is that we want our chapter to be free from the compliance environment that has existed since the Piazza agreement went into place.”
Are any changes underway?
The review listed several recommendations for the university: develop alignment and trust with stakeholders, adopt a strategic prevention approach for risky behavior, amplify a positive vision for Greek life, align Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life programming and coaching with an updated Standards of Excellence, strengthen stakeholder engagement in conduct and accountability processes, support the committee exploring Panhellenic residential and programming space and reexamine the credit hour requirement for joining eligibility.
Many initiatives were already in progress before the program review was completed, according to the website for the report, including elevating positive messages and information about fraternity and sorority life, advancing signature events and spaces, rebuilding OFSL staff, hazing prevention efforts, the accountability process, communications about unrecognized groups and common space for Panhellenic groups.
One change in progress is the IFC, OFSL and OSACR are working together to include council involvement in the accountability process. Another is creating a committee to find solutions for Panhellenic community needs and common space. They also will develop and advance a design for a new National Pan-Hellenic Council plot on campus.
Additionally, the university has a hazing prevention committee evaluating evidence-based practices and a marketing and communication plan.
Over the summer, the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life worked to make progress on a number of other initiatives, like enhancing prevention staffing, developing additional resources and training and revising the chapter coaching model.
