The Center for Student Life at Georgia Tech’s purpose is to “empower and support registered student organizations to catalyze belonging and create an engaging campus community,” per their website. The over 600 clubs at Tech create a starting point for enhancing the Tech community by providing an inclusive and vibrant space for all to share their voice and interests. As Georgia Tech is a large institution with many organizations, it is necessary to have regulations to continue to promote and uphold these ideals of belonging, inclusivity, an engaging campus, and justice.
THE RSO PROCESS
Organizations must complete the chartering process to become a registered student organization (RSO) at Georgia Tech and register annually to maintain status. Chartering gives the organizations privileges of support, potential funding, and reservation space from Georgia Tech, as long as the organizations follow the outlined RSO policies. Annual registration is a requirement to remain “active” and in “good” standing with the Center of Student Engagement. Per Georgia Tech, the outlined policies for RSOs define “their respective types and categories; establish the institutional requirements for RSO Chartering and Annual Registration; outline requirements for RSO faculty/staff Advisors; provide requirements for RSO governance; and outline the requirements for RSO funding.”
The main points of the policy for RSOs are the following: RSOs must subscribe to and uphold Georgia Tech’s equal opportunity, nondiscrimination, anti-harassment, and Code of Conduct; have a process for selecting or electing student officers; and have an autonomous function outside of their advisor — who is the liaison between the organization and Georgia Tech. Finer details regarding the advisor, bills, budget, constitution, and more specific policies are housed on GT’s policy library website.
THE INVESTIGATION PROCESS
Similar to how most citizens are not fully aware of laws at their state and federal levels, most Georgia Tech students are likely unaware of the finer details of the institution’s Code of Conduct. On average, Georgia Tech has two to four investigations into RSOs per semester. These investigations have caused great challenges for some groups, while effectively bolstering others.
A student or organization will be investigated if an official complaint for a violation of the Student Code of Conduct has been filed with the Office of Student Integrity (OSI). In the case of fraternities and sororities, they have slightly different governing rules established by the Interfraternity Council, which acts as a trade association to promote the common interests and support Georgia Tech fraternities; however, any related investigation would still be handled by OSI. For all organizations, any individual or department can file a complaint, but the Georgia Tech Police, the Housing Department, and the Office of Parking and Transportation most commonly file complaints. The complaint must be submitted within thirty days of the incident or the discovery of the incident; in rare circumstances, OSI can waive this timetable.
The recipient of the filed complaint may choose for a decision to be made via a Student Conduct Administrator (a representative from OSI) or a student conduct panel. Although uncommon, the recipient’s preference for who hears the case can be overwritten by the Associate Vice President of Student Engagement and Well-Being or the Dean of Students. The right to overwrite the recipient’s preference can be the pending graduation of a student, the end of the semester, or other extraordinary circumstances.
If the recipient chooses the student panel path, then the Undergraduate Judiciary Cabinet (UJC) receives the case. A group of justices, from the 18 – 24 active members, will hear the case and make a decision. Students can apply to become a justice on the UJC if they have completed two full semesters at an accredited university, are not a part of any other branch of student government, and are in “good” standing with Georgia Tech. Justices must serve a term of at least two consecutive semesters. Their decision becomes a recommendation to the Director of Students, who makes the final decision on whether the recipient of the violation is responsible or not. If found not responsible, then the case is closed, while a responsible decision for one or more of the alleged violations warrants an appropriate sanction.
Sanctions usually result in disciplinary probation for the first violation, followed by a suspension for the second violation. Any further violations are subject to expulsion.
Per OSI’s website, most of the investigations OSI conducts seem to be related to hazing or distributing alcohol to underage persons. However, there are still rare instances of investigations for violation of a Georgia Tech rule, policy, or regulation. Most organizations investigated by OSI have been fraternities.
The nature of this investigation process, however, has caused both frustration for some and relief for others.
WHAT THE STUDENTS THINK
In the Fall of 2024, accusations of hazing against one Georgia Tech competitive sports team limited their ability to gather as a club and compete. “[It was] frustrating to be cut out of the club,” one representative said. Another representative continued, “We were cut off from all of our friends… it was hard mentally.” The other replied, “Mental health squashed.” The lack of the ability to communicate with team members, practice, and play games took a toll on the whole team.
The three-month-long investigation and accusations caused them to fall in national ranking and forfeit championship games. These were grave consequences for them, only for them to later be found not responsible for the accusation; in other words, incoming players had not been subjected to hazing
During the investigation, all functions of the club were dismantled. Players could not communicate with other team members about the case or the ongoing situation. Representatives said this caused confusion across the team, which increased frustration from not being able to gather, practice, or compete. The team could not register funding requests, meaning that multiple future events will have to be funded out of pocket.
Additionally, the team was told the process would last a couple of weeks. On the months-long delay, the team representatives said they “felt like we were on the back burner.” Representatives further stated that the lengthy investigation was “not an efficient process for us” and that it “felt like they were dragging on something that was not productive.”
Club members expressed more frustration as they referenced other investigations of hazing for their same sport at similar-sized universities lasting only two weeks. The team is still facing the repercussions of the investigation process in “recruitment of players, funding, a lost season, and classes, not to mention some people’s last season [before graduating],” as said by one of the representatives.
It is not clear whether OSI always pauses club activities and functions during an investigation.
Team representatives ultimately summed up the investigation’s length and suspension of functions by stating: “They were so indifferent about the situation. If this [were] an actual hazing case [and] they took so long, something could have happened with how long they took.” Representatives suggested that if a team member was actually being hazed, the long investigation could have exacerbated the problem.
Contrarily, one Georgia Tech political club had a complaint filed against it for discrimination. A complete investigation resulted in the club being deemed not responsible for the allegations of discrimination. Club representatives offer that the Institute “handled [the accusations and investigation] pretty well.”
The investigation made the club representative able to “trust [that] Georgia Tech listens to students and push[es] back against necessary forces.”
They further stated that “Georgia Tech cares a lot about its image and students.” The investigation made the club representative able to “trust [that] Georgia Tech listens to students and push[es] back against necessary forces.” The investigation led to the discovery that there was no unjust discrimination inflicted by the political club, which removed the potential for disciplinary sanctions.
While the process was inefficient for the competitive sports team, it was efficient for the political club. Both of these clubs were ultimately found not responsible for their actions; however, the process was not the same. The length of investigations seems to be inconsistent, though whether that is due to the nature of the complaint is unclear. Was this an unfortunate mishap for that competitive sports team, or is it an issue within OSI’s investigation process? The lack of detailed public information about the cases of clubs found responsible, such organizations’ unwillingness to discuss their violations, and the limited public information regarding clubs found not responsible make it hard to draw concrete conclusions.
Georgia Tech’s Student Life and Dean of Students did not respond to requests for comments on RSO investigations.
Although these student perspectives have different attitudes toward the investigation process, every representative interviewed noted that the process is necessary.
