<p>^^
At the risk of repeating the trite argument ad nauseam, it is obvious that not all fraternities are bad. It is also obvious that the fraternities, despite some of the attacks in the press, are not going anywhere. However, the defense that is based on “we are not worse than other associated groups” or that the statistics indicate no real variation from the masses of students in college is missing the point. And that point is none other than “some” fraternities have been bad and for a long time. </p>
<p>Bay, for instance, wants numbers. I assume that a few links such as the 60 deaths in less than a decade won’t sway her, and the numbers of deaths at the hand of a fraternity such as SAE will not do anything to convince! Anyone with a google access will see how many there are have been in just the past years. </p>
<p>The point is not to establish a set of statistics that are clearly indicating a higher number of egregious behavior. After all, we have statistics on drinking in the 15 to 21 age group, and … nothing positive has resulted from the various studies or, even worse, the same utterly worthless “commissions” similar to what Dr. Kim proposed as a solution at Dartmouth. The French have a say for such strategies: it is called “noyer le poisson” or drown the fish! </p>
<p>In the meantime, one can feel reassured that the statistics will work for their loved ones, and rely of the incredibly small reported number of incidents. And … others can read the stories or follow threads as this one to realize that the bright eyed and naive 17 or 18 years old will be subject to plenty of peer pressure and plenty of potential danger lurking in the dark corners of a campus. A place that should be safer than most roads outside. </p>
<p>It is all a matter of perspective and personal biases. I have no doubt that 10 years from now, and in a couple of decades (when I will be dealing with parental decision) we will still have the same dialogue (humm) and that the same egregious behavior will still exist and be protected. </p>
<p>Won’t <em>sway</em> me? My position is that I haven’t seen the factual data that supports the premise that fraternities are bastions of party deaths and rape. No one has provided that, yet many are convinced that the premise is true. They are the ones who will not be <em>swayed,</em> even when made aware that there are no facts supporting their conclusions!</p>
<p>Of course, that does not mean the premise is not true, but it also does not mean that the premise is true.</p>
<p>Regarding that Bloomberg article, is there back-up for the statement that there have been “60 fraternity-related deaths” in less than a decade? I would like to know what “fraternity-related” means. If there is evidence, or even logic, that none of those deaths would have occurred <em>but for</em> the existence of fraternities, then that is significant. If it is a list of college students who got drunk and then died in an accident, well, I don’t see how one can necessarily come to the conclusion that the fraternity caused or contributed to their deaths.</p>
<p>Bay, have you or you kids attended a college that had one or more fraternities that had many serious problems over the years, including numerous disciplinary problems of various kinds? If you haven’t observed that, perhaps you may find it harder to understand why some of us are as skeptical about fraternities as we are. At my alma mater, one of the fraternities has had a well-earned bad reputation since my time there, and it has had numerous problems in recent years as well. My kids are quite conscious of the kinds of men who are concentrated there, and it’s a recipe for bad behavior. I don’t know for sure that things would be better if they weren’t concentrated there–indeed, perhaps in some ways it’s better to get them off campus into their own compound, as long as women understand that it’s not a good idea to go to parties there.</p>
<p>Bay, with all due respect, attempting to provide you links or articles is pointless. Even the best documented evidence will just yield the typical litany of denial: </p>
<ol>
<li>What are the sources?</li>
<li>Who says that the deaths or accidents were fraternity induced or caused?<br></li>
<li>Who was quoted or admitted to the misdeeds?</li>
<li>Add an endless list of the same </li>
</ol>
<p>If a kid drinks too much at a frat house and wanders drunk in the woods and dies under a bridge, will you ever admit there is some culpability of the frat boys? I think we know your answer. It will be a matter of personal responsibility! Probably same result for the girls who wandered inside a frat house and accepted a drink that might have led to “unconsented” actions. After all, it was her fault she accepted the invitation to enter. And the list goes! </p>
<p>In the end, one decides to look at the evidence (or lack thereof) and make a judgment. Unless I miss the spirit of your posts, you are simply determined to find it uncompelling. Others, and I am one of those, look at the numbers (which I believe to be massively underreporting the non-lethal incidents) as alarming. If the number of death in 2013 was 4 or 12 makes no difference … it should be a flat zero as not a single one of those deaths made any sense. </p>
<p>Again, if the incidents that chagrin some of us are so rare, why would anyone object to the just punishment of the rare lone wolves? What is the real problem if 12 frat houses would be close permanently among the thousands that exist? </p>
<p>We are not talking about statistics … it is utterly pointless. We are talking about doling punishment when the evidence is a clear and compelling as the one that convicted the bandleader at FAMU. </p>
<p>I understand that you look at the evidence to the lenses of your own experience or that of your children. But, perhaps, you should also understand that some of us have had personal experiences that “cloud” our judgments in a much more negative manner. </p>
<p>I have never personally heard of any fraternity-related deaths or rapes in my experience, nor from my H or kids (5 different universities). </p>
<p>Of course, that does not mean none happened, but if they did, it was not widely known because I believe I am fairly clued-in about those things. </p>
<p>This would also include your alma mater’s fraternity of which you are concerned, as my D went there as well. No deaths or rapes occurred there during her experience, of which she is aware. As I wrote before, she is friendly with some of the members, some of whom I have met as well, and they appeared to be fine young men, on the outside at least.</p>
<p>Yes, if that “kid” is an adult, and unless there is evidence that he was coerced into drinking, then you are correct about my conclusion. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no quibble with permanently closing houses for egregious activity. I just don’t think it solves anything. If you understood how fraternities work, there is a completely new membership every four years. Membership that existed 10 years prior can have a completely “reputation” than the membership today. A temporary ban of at least four years, seems fine. Anything longer seems superfluous, because by then you are not “punishing” anyone.</p>
<p>I’d also like to add, that if that “kid” who died in the woods was my own fraternity-member son, I would not blame the fraternity. It would not cross my mind to do so, unless he was forced to drink against his will.</p>
<p>Bay, the DKEs at Yale had a horrible reputation when I was there decades ago, they had a horrible reputation when they were sanctioned a few years ago, and they have a horrible reputation now. Perhaps your daughter was there in a period when they actually lived up to their charter. (It’s worth noting that specific chapters change over time, and new leadership can change them markedly for the better or worse.) At present, for example, they are known for being very sexually aggressive at their parties.</p>
<p>Yes, of course I am aware of that incident. The fraternity was suspended. My statement stands, however, about no rapes or deaths that I am aware of. </p>
<p>It’s impossible to know if any of the recent sexual assaults at Yale occurred at DKE, because those details are not necessarily released. But DKE at Yale is bad news, and it has been for decades. There may be some decent guys in it, but my personal opinion is that they will end up being less decent than they were when they joined. If your daughter had good experiences there, in my opinion she was very lucky.</p>
<p>If this is true and well known, then presumably the women who attend their parties must like sexually aggressive men. I don’t think there is anything wrong with sexually aggressive men so long as they do not cross the boundary into sexual assault, and many women are probably attracted to them. </p>
<p>Well you are asking where they were reported, but you must be aware that the University was just fined by the DOE for failing to report sex crimes honestly. Given that, it does not seem reasonable to expect that they would have been reported.</p>
I understand that you are determined to defend this particular nest of low-life individuals no matter what anybody says, and I suppose there are women even at Yale who are willing to be treated like raw meat, but I wouldn’t want my daughter going there. Well, she did go there one time, and will never go again, based on the creepy vibe there.</p>
<p>Well, needless to say that I could not disagree more. The problems --and they are real problems-- is with that precise attitude when it comes to punishment. Longer than 4 years is not superfluous, it falls way short of what a permanent death penalty for that chapter should mean. As we know, there are fraternities, starting with SAE with a long and undistiguishe history of multiple egregious behavior. </p>
<p>Closing a local chapter should be only the start of a national policy that encompasses ALL colleges. One proven lethal incident and THAT frat should be gone and forever. The “reaffiliation” of a deadly fraternity is an marked insult and despicable at all levels. In fact, the national organizations should NEVER support such a relisting … if they had an ounce of integrity. </p>
<p>Anyhow, I think that we have clearly marked our “terrain” and that the line drawn in the ground is much wider than anticipated. I am afraid, and perhaps wrongly, I think that you are only interested in “protecting” the history and the virtual turf of fraternities. Supporting slaps on the wrists is what is precluding better solutions. Of course, we think it won’t solve anything and that is why we prefer not to try permanent fixes. As usual, we will get to the “right” thing after exhausting all other avenues. That is the way America works! </p>
<p>Obviously, we will never agree what such “better solutions” entail. And, for the record, I also believe that the number of people who share your views greatly exceed the ones who see the fraternities as havens of egregious behavior and dare to challenge the notion that is only “boys having fun” and that the associations are a right worth preserving … at all costs. </p>
<p>I happen to think that the solution to curbing the non-sensical penchant for violence and excesses is to hit the offenders hard and their supporters even harder in financial terms. But I do not expect to agree with that. And that is fine! </p>
<p>@Bay “My position is that I haven’t seen the factual data that supports the premise that fraternities are bastions of party deaths and rape. No one has provided that, yet many are convinced that the premise is true.”</p>
<p>How can you assert that all of the news articles that have been posted are not “factual data?” </p>
<p>Absolutely not. I am interested in protecting a standard of justice that requires factual evidence in order to condemn people. I am against defamation per se, like calling men “rapists” (or "rapey,’ the trendy code-word) without any evidence that they have committed rape. </p>
<p>As I have said over and over, bring on the numbers and I’ll come on over to your side. The deaths numbers didn’t pan out, and there are no rape numbers. </p>
<p>Bay, this might not be clear, but my reason for posting in this thread is not bring you over to “my” side. As I wrote before, the people who need to be convinced or brought over are the administrators and officials in charge of ensuring the safety of the young people attending colleges and universities. </p>
<p>I also believe in a standard of justice and integrity and, it is for that reason, that I remain incensed by events such as this:</p>
<p>In the earlier posts, we discussed the slap on the wrist and the 4 years ban for fraternities who murdered one of their own through sheer stupidity. The fact that this chapter/group/whatever you call it was allowed to regain a presence on campus is an insult to the memory of the young man who died. Interestingly enough, I have no doubt that Gordie himself would be more tolerant than I’d ever be on this issue. </p>
<p>And, perhaps, it is knowing that such a great and wonderful person was robbed out a bright future (and our society robbed of his contributions) through such asinine circumstances represents my impetus to remain steadfast in my belief that organizations that engage in such egregious behavior have NO place in our schools.</p>
<p>Statistics are one thing --and one thing I understand well-- but you really only need one case to anchor your thoughts. Unfaily perhaps, but life is rather unfair. In a way, it would much easier for me to speak on behalf of the rights of the younger to be wild and crazy, and make sure our rights to party are protected. </p>