Widgets Magazine


University statement on Chi Theta Chi lease discussions

Stanford University and the Chi Theta Chi Alumni Board have been actively engaged in a dialogue regarding the status of the Chi Theta Chi house at 576 Alvarado Row. The University has listened to the concerns of students and alumni and has decided to enter into a re-structured agreement with Chi Theta Chi alumni organization that will govern the house for a minimum of two years.

The University has exercised its option not to renew the current lease for the house, effective September 1, 2012, at which time the University will have legal ownership of the house, collect student funds for housing, and pay for repairs; however, the alumni organization will continue to be responsible for the ongoing management and oversight of the residential program, food/board provision, and student staffing. This arrangement allows the Chi Theta Chi alumni organization to demonstrate that it is qualified to take over and sustain management of the house once the University has confidence that the alumni organization will maintain a reliably safe, healthy and productive educational experience and living environment for Stanford undergraduates.

Stanford University has a long-standing commitment to independent houses and sees them as a vital and important piece of the rich cultural fabric of the undergraduate experience. This does not preclude the University from having expectations for these communities. Chi Theta Chi is indeed a special place, as is evidenced by the passionate commitment of its residents and alumni. Our ideal is for Chi Theta Chi to regain its independence while also meeting or exceeding our shared expectations. Specific expectations and details of this arrangement are still being worked out.

Our expectation is that the alumni organization of Chi Theta Chi will take the next two to three years to demonstrate the sustained ability to manage house staffing, establish corporate self-governance, and create an effective partnership with the University that will ensure the house is operated with a commitment to life safety and University community values.


Greg Boardman

Vice Provost for Student Affairs 

Shirley Everett

Senior Associate Vice Provost for Residential & Dining Enterprises


  • Student

    “The University has listened to the concerns of students”

    Which students? The residents? Certainly not. Greg and Shirley – neither of you has communicated with residents whatsoever. That’s pretty clear.

    “Stanford University has a long-standing commitment to independent houses and sees them as a vital and important piece of the rich cultural fabric of the undergraduate experience.”

    Is that why there are only two of them? Oh wait, now only one?

    “our shared expectations”

    You mean your expectations that exceed even legal code stipulations and go beyond what many students are accustomed to living with in their own homes?

    Be real Boardman and Everett. Can we get a little honesty? Can you maybe communicate with residents as human beings instead of emailing updates to the Daily?

    And seriously. We all need to stop referring to these decisions as those of  “the University.” It’s you two making these decisions. Own up.

  • A View from Outside

    It has been clear from the beginning that the goal of the housing administrators has been to “tame” XOX, making it like Synergy or EBF,bringing it under their control.  The various minor health and safety  infractions have all been dealt with, or are in the process of being fixed. They are a red herring.  All of the student residents, and scores of alumni, have made it clear that the independent ownership of the house, with its shared community rooted in the need to maintain all aspects of  the physical plant, is the foundation which underpins the house’s unique character. The independent house inculcates a deep sense of responsibility, especially towards their fellow students.  The house officers care deeply about doing the best job they can to manage every aspect of house life.  The proposed two year “shared” management would remove this responsibility, fatally weakening the processes that make XOX unique.

    A better alternative would be to put the house on a two year probation, with periodic inspections followed by follow-up meetings.  That way the house and Alumni board will be given a chance to show that they can still deliver the goods, and the things that make XOX unique can be given a chance to survive.  By following this path, Mr. Boardman and Ms. Everett can be seen as being “fair” to the students and yet preserve the pressure to fix the things they believe need mending.

  • Old fashioned values

    “You shall not steal.
    You shall not give false evidence against your neighbor.
    You shall not covet your neighbor’s house.”

    Boardman and Everett violate the last three of the Ten Commandments in their act to take ownership of Chi Theta Chi away from its alumni, making false charges of “life safety issues” to justify it, when XOX was as safe or safer than 7 other dorms in the latest inspection.  Who are these people?  How did they get in such a position of power and status while they mock the foundational moral principles of this nation?