<p>You’re not condemning anyone to a life with no possibility – you’re stopping an organization from existing in the future, and I’d bet that the people who care the most are those alumni, who are not affected in their day-to-day lives (as they have other jobs and live elsewhere presumably). Interested students can join another frat or go to another university that has that particular frat. I don’t see at all how this can be compared to the death penalty or permanent deportation since we are talking about an organization. Organizations aren’t sentient beings. And the individuals affected are in fact able to continue living their lives in the place they want to be and even maybe join another organization.</p>
<p>My college abolished fraternities, forced the fraternities to sell their houses to the college, and made it an offense subject to expulsion for a student to be a member of one. This was on a campus which may have had the strongest fraternity presence in the country at the time, and included several fraternities with founding chapters there. The college got much better as a result, and fundraising went way up.</p>
<p>It can be done. It takes spine.</p>
<p>eireann- since youare not aware, let me explain that fraternities are considered a lifetime organization, so if you leave one you can’t jump to another. If you have gone through initiation, that is your group.
Xiggi’s idea is to disband the fraternity on a national level when something happens on a local level. So organizations that have been around for 150+ years are just supposed to go away? I call bull on that. Why should 1,000,000 people wake up one day to find out that they have no say in something that is a part of them? </p>
<p>I personally don’t think that a corporation should be considered a person, so I don’t condone these non-profits being treated as a whole like an individual. </p>
<p>Xiggi- the point of kicking them off campuses in order to rebuild is to get their act together and expell the individuals that are doing harm to the organization. I completely respect the right of the organization to police the members and part of that is dibanding chapters. I just don’t believe that a permanent ban on an entire organization woudl do anything. the same house that has a death at school A is probably the house that contributes the most to charity and produces the most Dean’s List Scholars at college B. Both are charged with upholding the ideals of the fraternity, but when school A fails it is extreme to punish both.</p>
<p>Mizzbee, you said that the death was four years ago, right? So there is not currently a student on that campus who was a member of that fraternity and now has none. I meant if that particular fraternity means so much to a high school student, they are free to select a different college. I’m not sure what you thought I meant.</p>
<p>I thought you were agreeing that the fraterntiy should never be able to return to campus, or as Xiggi suggested, that the entire fraternity be disbanded against the members consent on a national level.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We are talking about organizations, not people. The goal should be to determine what is better for the community-at-large and for future freshmen of a given university. </p>
<p>If someone dies as the result of the hazing culture in a fraternity, they deserve to be banned from the campus permanently. It’s astounding that someone would even question this. If someone dies through hazing, they don’t even have free choice of what is happening to them.</p>
<p>[
</p>
<p>I do agree that they should never be able to return to the campus, since somebody DIED four years ago. I still fail to see how that is condemning anybody to a life without possibility or how there is anybody on the campus currently that is floundering because they were a member of that fraternity.</p>
<p>According to the Supreme Court, organizations are PEOPLE.</p>
<p>Eirann, the seniors who lost there pledge brother four years ago also lost, within days, their college support system and their new best friends. They lost their mentors and then there home. Many have floundered, and a few transferred to other colleges with much regret. </p>
<p>Obviously many of you find no value in the Greek system, and I am not going to become the representative for fraternities (as I am not a member), but I simply can’t see banning an organziation for life unless that policy is the same for all college organizations across the board. So schools would be without bands, varsity football teams, military cadet troups, ROTC units etc. Zero tolerance policies do not make sense to me, even in life or death decisions.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Very poor analogy. This might be true if all college organizations were of equal value. But that is obviously not the case. The organizations you list provide a lot more to a college and to society than any GLO. For example, by training future military leaders and defenders of the country, even the lamest ROTC unit provides far more value to society than the best frats. </p>
<p>At their most benign, the best that can be said for most frats is that they can act as relatively harmless purveyors of social exclusion - for those who for some reason need practice in that cruel art. But I question the value of any organization whose main reason for existence is to decide who gets to join the organization. Sorry to say that Greek orgs are not the only ones drenched in this exclusionary thinking. I take dim view of Mensa and many honor societies for the same reason. They have no purpose other than deciding who can join.</p>
<p>The rather less benign form of frats is when they degenerate into primarily vehicles for delivering casual sex, underage drinking, illegal substance abuse, and dangerous hazing practices to their members. A few minor “service projects” every year don’t come close to compensating for the blight they are on many campuses. Every school I know of that for whatever has banned GLOs is better off for it.</p>
<p>Sorry, I too think that the analogy in Post #28 is flawed. I had outstanding greek friends at college and I know many conscientious folks whom are active in adult chapters. I have seen the positive things that some greek chapters do. But I draw the line at threats to life and limb.</p>
<p>I chose a Greek-free college myself, on purpose. And i have seen a college close up that made a conscious decision to remove Greek influence by banning residential frats (sororities were already non-residential) and limiting their social place. That school has become far more selective and successful since.</p>
<p>However, I have also observed one case, and I imagine there are more, of "underground"frats with their own hazing and rituals, carried out away from official view. I don’t know if it’s better to be “out” or not.</p>
<p>Ohiomom, we should tell our children that under no circumstances should they ever seek admission to any secretive organization that was forced by the norms of decency to “go underground.”</p>
<p>I will tell my S this (he’s still in HS). But in the case I referred to, it’s apparently a big thing to be asked. Perhaps like Skull and Bones, the secrecy is probably part of the attraction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>God I hate it when people who have never been in a fraternity profess to know their “value” and what is “best” about what they offer…</p>
<p>…and a there’s a big envelope in the mail that came a minute ago from an 85% Greek school S applied to.</p>
<p>Hmm.</p>
<p>“God I hate it when people who have never been in a fraternity profess to know their “value” and what is “best” about what they offer…”</p>
<p>Never been in the Klan either…(you hate very easily ;))</p>
<p>What are you saying, mini (other than trying to deliver a back-handed slander)? Are you saying know what it is like to be in the Klan even though you’ve never been in it?</p>
<p>My “hate” did not come easily. It came after numerous threads filled with insulting comments about fraternities by people who were never in one.</p>
<p>No, I am suggesting that people who are in an exclusive society may NOT be those in the best position to ascribe social value to an institution, specifically as it relates to the larger community.</p>
<p>(Just as I would assume a Klan member to put a good face on his institution, I wouldn’t think he is in the best position to ascribe social value to it. In fact, I would think such opinions automatically suspect. They might be right of course, but still suspect.)</p>
<p>By the same token, those who do not know what it is like to be a member of an exclusive society are not in a position to evaluate its value to its members, as it relates to their experience and satisfaction as part of the larger institution.</p>
<p>Just curious, what’s the appropriate response to the hazing incident in FAMU’s marching band? Should it get banned also?</p>