The Our Take published last week in the Red & Black was utter nonsense.

Simply because the editorial board holds great disdain for Chi Phi and simply because a few members of the fraternity have made poor decisions is not a sufficient reason to urge an organization’s property rights to be deprived.

Chi Phi obviously believes it has a good faith claim to remain on the property it currently occupies and believes it has documentation to substantiate this claim.

Should it relinquish this claim simply because the University desires its land or because the Red & Black does not think fraternity houses should occupy such prime real estate?

Of course not.

If the government wanted to seize the Red & Black building, the Red & Black, as rightful occupants, would certainly demand as beneficial a deal for themselves as possible.

The seizure of the Chi Phi house is not much different (though the University does not attempt to use eminent domain to seize the land).

If the University demonstrates that Chi Phi does not have rightful possession of the land, then Chi Phi will have to accept a force-out agreement such as the other fraternities have done.

However, if Chi Phi does have a right to possess and occupy the land where it currently resides, the fraternity should be free to remain on the property or have their rights purchased from them in as beneficial a manner as they can negotiate.

Neither the Red & Black’s disdain for Chi Phi nor the fact that the University would like to have the piece of land the fraternity occupies is a sufficient reason for the fraternity to give up its land unwillingly or relinquish what it believes is a good faith right to possess and occupy its current location on campus before negotiating as beneficial a deal as possible to ensure the fraternity’s survival.

ANDY STANCIL
Alumnus, Buford
Law