Connect with us


UN Climate Summit To Emit More CO2 Than 8,200 American Homes Do In A Year

An unnamed administrator told the Sigma Chi fraternity that they should take down the American flag that was flown in front of the house if they want to improve their reputation on campus, according to a Stanforwd review report.

Sigma Chi is a fraternity that no longer exists due to “accountability issues,” according to Breitbart. During the fraternity’s probation period, the house was assigned an administrator that would work as a liaison between Sigma Chi and the Residential Education.

The administrator supported the fraternity while the chapter was looking to avoid suspension “make itself an ally of the university” and gave them advice that would help their survival, according to Stanford Review. Even though Sigma Chi failed to raise above its problems, it’s worth noting the anti-American suggestion that they received from a member of the Stanford administration.

The unnamed administrator recommended that Sigma Chi remove the American flag, suggesting that it does more harm than good with regard to the fraternity’s image.

Note: The administrator in the Stanford review report is referred to as Mr. Z, while Lozano is the student who is named as the primary source for the account.

“Mr. Z’s recommendation insinuated not only that the flag made others uncomfortable but that its being flown tainted Sigma Chi’s reputation and, presumably, worsened its chance of survival. Lozano understood Mr. Z to imply that the American flag, as a symbol, could be intimidating, aggressive or alienating. Mr. Z’s tone further signaled to Lozano that he found the mere sight of the American flag to be offensive,” read the report.

Despite the friendly relationship that the fraternity house had with the assigned administrator, they didn’t like the suggestion he made regarding the American flag flown in front of the house and “many found the proposal weird.”  Sigma Chi couldn’t see how the American flag would be regarded as “offensive,” or “intimidating,” according to the report.

In response to the administrator’s suggestion, the house decided not only to refuse to take his advice but, to buy a bigger flag to replace the one they were advised to take down. Lozano said that this decision was a “silent but visible protest” against the way in which the administrator characterized the symbol of the flag, according to the report.

In the end, the house replaced the older flag with the new one and “framed and placed [the former one] on display inside the house.”

The administrator’s remark that the American flag is somehow “offensive” on American soil is shockingly absurd. Criticizing the actions of the U.S. government is one thing but, implying that the flag is “alienating” is an entirely different story.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *