The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student-run nonprofit.

Please support us by disabling your ad blocker on our site.

The Psi Upsilon fraternity will not try to prevent the University from implementing its Community Service program planned for the fraternity's former chapter house, known as the Castle, according to Psi U attorneys. "We have no plans to oppose the use of the house as planned by the University, at least at this point," Psi U attorney John Ledwith said yesterday. "They have essentially affirmed the punishment given by the University, but they only reviewed the procedures used by the University to see if they were fair," Ledwith said. "It's very possible that the Supreme Court could reverse the lower and. . . we could return to campus." The University will file a response to Psi U's recent request "shortly," according to University General Counsel Shelley Green. In May, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the University's right to punish the fraternity for an incident two years ago involving Psi U's kidnapping of a member of another fraternity. After the University's Judicial Inquiry Officer determined that the fraternity bore collective responsibility for the incident, the University imposed one of its strictest sanctions on Psi U, kicking the fraternity out of its center campus chapter house and revoking its recognition indefinitely, with no chance to apply for re-recognition until 1993. Green said the motion will explain to the court why it should not grant the appeal, by explaining that lower courts were correct in their rulings. "We think the lower courts were exaclty correct," Green said this week. "We will file a document that [says] the court concluded properly." Green also said the University will argue that legal precedent already exists for the case. "We think the matter has been correctly decided to this point. We think the issues are well-settled," she added. "The courts were following precedents. They were very much in accord with the mainstream of law." According to Psi U's petition, its case does present issues which have never been addressed by the Supreme Court, and thus should be heard. The petition, submitted by Ledwith two weeks ago, contends that the Supreme Court "has never addressed the issue regarding the standard for a fair disciplinary hearing at a university. . . [and] has never determined whether the concept of punishment pursuant to a theory of 'collective responsibility'is constitutional." The fraternity's petition also claims that "the Superior Court erred by drawing numerous conclusions of fact which were unsupported by the record and the trial court opinion."

Comments powered by Disqus

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.