TEXAS HOLDEM ONLINE POKER

The rise of poker tournaments as fundraisers for various student organizations has forced the Tufts administration to reevaluate some of its antiquated policies.

According to state law, in which gambling is illegal, universities in Massachusetts are required to prohibit Texas Holdem poker games played strictly for money.

This has put universities in the difficult position of reconciling their rules with state law, and university policies are often be unclear.

Many student groups on campus are organizing Texas Holdem poker tournaments to raise money for their respective causes, in which an entry fee is charged and the proceeds go to charity.

Because prizes are often awarded to the winners, however, the administration is faced with the issue of whether or not this constitutes gambling, and thus whether University policy on the subject is in accordance with state law.

Office of Student Activities Director Jodie Nealley questioned the adequacy of Tufts' policies for dealing with these issues.

"The only policy we have deals specifically with raffles," she said. In her nine years at Tufts, she said, Texas Holdem poker tournaments were never a large issue, and the old policy had always been sufficient.

The raffle policy stipulates how to conduct raffles as fundraisers. It states that if game costs money to play, awards prizes of more than twenty five dollars, and if it is strictly based on chance, then it qualifies as gambling and requires a gambling license.

To avoid the controversy surrounding acquiring a license, organizations often award prizes worth twenty five dollars or less, or give free tickets in order to promote a cause or group.

According to the policy, students need to "coordinate [their] efforts with the Office of Student Activities" if any of the three conditions are present. Yet, it is unclear how this policy applies to poker and other forms of fundraising.

University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) administrators became involved with gambling issues at UPenn in November 2004. A UPenn fraternity decided to hold a poker tournament, where the ten dollar buy-in would go to charity, and winners would receive prizes instead of cash.

The UPenn administration, however, shut down the Texas Holdem tournament at the last minute, saying that because the prizes awarded were of higher value than the ten dollar buy in, playing in the tournament would be gambling.

Tufts' own Zeta Psi fraternity has already held a poker tournament this year.

"Our poker tournaments went like the ones at UPenn. We donated to the Haitian Hurricane Relief Fund and the Korrinna L. Denehey Education Fund," former president Sam Chavarria said. "Buy-ins were $15 and American Express gift certificates were awarded to the top three finishers."

Zeta Psi is going to be holding another tournament in the near future to benefit the victims of the tsunami in Southeast Asia. President Josh Cohn said that the reason it is permitted is because no cash is awarded, and that nobody at the fraternity is making money off of the event.

"There's no profit being made by anyone here, it's just going to great causes. It's great that there's been no controversy [like the one at UPenn]," he said.

Cohn said that Zeta Psi chose poker over other fundraising options because of its popularity. "We know that people will come. We know that people play Texas Holdem poker -- in the past year it's become so huge," he said.

The tournaments were cleared by Head of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs Todd Sullivan, who said his job was "making sure it wasn't gambling -- where students win actual money."

The administration recognizes the benefits of such fundraising efforts, despite the means. "If these students want to raise money for an important cause, I want to help them with that," Sullivan said.

Nealley, however, believes that the University's policies are inadequate. During the spring semester, she said, several meetings and seminars will be held to develop a comprehensive policy that will appear in the Pachyderm next year.

Although neither Nealley nor Sullivan expressed concern that a controversy similar to what happened at UPenn would occur here, Nealley emphasized that nothing is certain until all the issues are examined at the meetings this spring.