BUILDING BETTER PREDATORY MEN

The allegations surrounding Chi Phi should not be examined as if this fraternity never had issues. Public reporting dating back more than two decades raises serious concerns about the culture that Chi Phi’s own alumni leadership has tolerated and uplifted.

In 2005, GQ profiled Rob Shuck, then a 31-year-old Cornell undergraduate who had enrolled in 1993 and had spent over a decade living in the basement of the Chi Phi fraternity house. The profile portrayed Shuck’s extended undergraduate life as something of a campus legend. His annual birthday celebration had grown into a 150-person wine tour centered heavily around drinking. Shuck also openly discussed having dated an 18-year-old Cornell freshman the previous year, when he was 30. He acknowledged that their age difference eventually became an issue. It begs the question, how many other teenagers did this adult attempt to groom?

Two years later, the Cornell Daily Sun reported that Shuck was still taking classes and still living in Chi Phi’s basement at age 32, roughly thirteen years after first enrolling at Cornell. By then, his prolonged fraternity lifestyle had become so well known that he had been featured in GQ, appeared on The View, and become the subject of a short documentary titled 32 Yr. Old Frat Boy. Once again, this grown adult man’s behavior was being glorified. It was as if they didn’t want us to realize how incredibly creepy it was for him to be living in a house with teens and young, immature, vulnerable adults.

This history matters because Shuck did not simply fade away as an eccentric former fraternity member. In 2006, while he was still a longtime undergraduate, the Cornell Daily Sun identified him as Chi Phi’s chapter advisor. Years later, Cornell records identified him as president of the Chi Phi Chapter House Association. Today, Chi Phi’s own website lists him in that same leadership position. The Chapter House Association says it advises the active chapter, handles operational matters, represents undergraduate interests, and acts as the primary alumni interface between Chi Phi and Cornell.

That progression is what deserves persecution. A man who spent more than a decade embedded in an undergraduate fraternity environment and publicly discussed dating a freshman half a generation younger than himself should never be glorified. Shuck became nationally known for refusing to grow up and act his age. Chi Phi leadership should have forced him out. They never should have condoned this behavior. He never should have been placed in a position of authority over the chapter.

None of that proves that Shuck knew about or participated in the conduct alleged in the current lawsuit. It does, however, raise a legitimate broader question: What behaviors has Chi Phi historically considered as acceptable? What kinds of boundaries has its leadership chosen to normalize?

What else has this fraternity done that Chi Phi was able to sweep under the rug? My opinion is that this case is only the tip of the iceberg and we are soon going to unravel much more than we ever expected.

Chi Phi’s own national risk-management policy now states that the fraternity will not tolerate or condone sexually abusive behavior and requires members to respect the dignity of others. When an organization has to publicly adopt those standards, its past and present leadership are fair subjects for persecution. That is not only for what they prohibit on paper, but for the culture they have cultivated in practice.