<p>Are they viewed in a positive light?</p>
<p>Yes, Swat does. People cannot live in frats, and almost all of their parties are open to the campus as a whole. I live in ML, which might give me a rather different view of the frats, but they are usually seen in a neutral light. Most people I know either have never gone to their parties or have not liked the ones they have gone to, but I wouldn't say people really care if other students are members.</p>
<p>Yes. Swarthmore has two small, non-residential frats. About 7% of the male students belong, mostly all varsity athletes. Each frat rents a small stone lodge (picture Hansel and Grettle's cottage) on campus where they hang out and throw parties. The frats are not affiliated with any national frat organizations -- all Swat frats dropped their national ties back in the days the national organizations had rules against Jewish members.</p>
<p>Sororities were abolished in the 1930's when a female student (Molly Yard, her obit was in the NYTimes this week) organized a student vote because she objected to her sorority not accepting Jewish members. The students voted to abolish the sororities.</p>
<p>Some kid named Michael Dukakis organized a similar vote concerning the frats in the 1950s, but failed to get sufficient votes to abolish the frats. But, the number has steadily declined from seven to two over the years.</p>
<p>How are they viewed on campus? First, the frats at Swarthmore aren't exclusive in any way. They are pretty desperate for members and welcome anyone at their parties. The frat members live in regular dorms and are pretty much normal card-carrying, book-totin' Swatties. </p>
<p>They do the usual "stupid frat-boy tricks" and their parties can always be counted on a good place to go drink and dance -- although there are campus wide parties in other venues. A few times a year, the frats throw big theme parties for the whole campus, getting money from the student activities budget just like all the other groups on campus who host parties. At Swat, even a group of friends in a dorm can get funding to throw a campus-wide party. </p>
<p>The frats are also a good place to go watch Monday Night Football or a World Series Game if the big screen in the dorm has been commandeered for a DVD movie or the Simpsons.</p>
<p>I would say that most of the campus views them with "tolerance", mostly because they get the beer pong games out of the dorms. Arador's got it right it seems. The majority of the students just steer clear for the most part, but most students don't really care if somebody wants to be a frat boy as long as they aren't bothering them.</p>
<p>Basically, the two frat lodges are just a place for the athletic teams to hang out, along with anyone else who cares to join them on a given night. In a way, they are almost parody organizations.</p>
<p>For the most part, the frats behave semi-responsibly, although they get put on probation every couple of years for one dumb stunt or another. (The lastest being a lawsuit from a 19-year old townie who crashed a frat party, got plastered, started a fight, and got the crap beat out of him. His lawyer is hopin' the college pays some "shut up and go away" money because the kid was too drunk to identify who was actually involved in the fight to the police when they found him passed out next to the railroad tracks the night of the incident. Nobody really knows who beat the kid up, it may have been a couple of his own friends who crashed the party with him, it may have been a few drunk frat-boys "escorting" the lad off campus. No charges were ever filed after a police investigation and an investigation by Dean Gross. So, sue the college.) </p>
<p>The frat hazing activities are seemingly pretty mild -- at least to the extent that they come to light. For example, one frat has pledges dress up in a cow costume and walk around with a tray of milk cartons in the dining hall asking everyone if they want milk. Last year, a group of pledges who had been drinking were running up and down the open staircase in Mertz dorm. A couple of them blew lunch and a dorm RA reported them to the dean for creating a disturbance. The Dean chewed them out for hazing and put the frat on probation.</p>
<p>They know that it wouldn't be too hard for some eager-beaver to organize a vote and I don't think they'd want to take their chances at the ballot box, although they might survive another squeaker.</p>
<p>I take back everything semi-nice I wrote about the frats at Swarthmore. Some news of an incredible "stupid frat-boy trick" this weekend is going to hit the Phoenix on Thursday. </p>
<p>I hope Dean Gross lowers the boom and expect that he will. College policy is that being drunk does not excuse responsibility for one's actions at Swarthmore.</p>
<p>my s just returned from his overnight there. His host was boasting about how trashed he got drinking on Saturday night. So there is certainly an amount that goes on there in some circles. However, s's impression was that most of the drinking, as interesteddad has stated before, is reasonable.
He also took note that the RA had a large apparatus for using with another substance right in plain sight in his room.</p>
<p>interesteddad is the frat Christmas Tree story true? Andison was told that a long time ago some frat kids cut down a tree to decorate for Christmas that was a valuable plant in the arboretum.</p>
<p>Some people drink, and do other othings. A lot of people don't.</p>
<p>And yea, the frat boys were a bit stupid this past weekened. At least the non-frat individual involved seemed alright at debate last night (If we are talking about the same vent, that is.)</p>
<p>I'd like to note that only 2 or 3 of the 15 people on my hall drinkmore than the tiniest amount. The same goes for a decent number of people here.</p>
<p>andi,
I hope your S was not turned off to Swat by his host. I have followed your saga over the past 6 months or so. Your S and mine (a Swat junior) sound very much alike in many ways. My S does not drink, and does not talk about his friends drinking. He is loving his time there. I had to respond to your post because it really aggravates me to hear that someone like Andison gets placed with a host like that! I don't have the impression that what Andison's host described is the norm.</p>
<p>I second momof3sons's post. This is my problem with overnights - your experience is to a huge degree determined by your host, and may not be indicative of the general school environment at all. I hope Andison got to sit on some classes and meet other type of students as well...</p>
<p>
[quote]
So there is certainly an amount that goes on there in some circles.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No question. As Mini likes to point out, a 30% binge drinking rate is still a lot of booze. Just nowhere near as much as a 60% binge drinking rate. The majority of Swarthmore students are either non-drinkers or light drinkers or moderate drinkers.</p>
<p>Arador's percentages were similar to the freshmen on my daughter's hall last year. Just two or three out of 16 that she identified as notable "partiers". Not to say that the others were necessarily teetotallers.</p>
<p>Saturday night's events involved an innocent bystander who suffered direct negative consequences of incredibly stupid behavior by at least one of a group of students who had been at a frat pledge event earlier in evening. Fortunately, and I mean fortunately, the innocent bystander is fine.</p>
<p>My hunch is that Saturday night's stupidity will probably trigger some consequences -- at least for the student(s) directly involved. Maybe beyond that group. The college emphasizes to students that being drunk is not an excuse for irresponsible behavior and that, as adults, Swarthmore students will be held accountable for their behavior.</p>
<p>This is my first post on these forums, as my name suggests I'm a Swat student class of '08, and I would just like to point out that as of this point in time as far as I know it has not been proven who was responsible for the incident and why it occured. If you know something I don't then I would be really interested in learning of your source. It may well turn out that the Frats were responsible, but I would like to remind you of your own analysis of the Train tracks incident and of the infamous cake/Intercultural center incident of a few years ago. Jumping to conclusions does not neccesarily benifit anyone, and I stand by this even if it does emerge that the Frats are responsible. </p>
<p>As an aside, the Phoenix is only a semi-reliable source of information. The deans don't neccisarily take it very seriously, and every year there are major inaccuracies, including a big retraction or two.</p>
<p>Thank you</p>
<p>Probably not the best discussion to be having on CC, but I was told that one of the victims knew the perpetrator. This was second hand, however, so it could well be inaccurate.</p>
<p>Also, while Phi (Omega) Psi is no longer part of a national Fraternity, Delta Upsilon still is.</p>
<p>I don't know what is going to be in the Phoenix article.</p>
<p>As I understand it, the student responsible for the incident Saturday night originally made his identity clear to student PAs on the scene. But, by the time the Dean on call got involved and began asking questions, the group of students "couldn't remember" what happened. So, I guess it depends on your definition of "offically" identified.</p>
<p>I could be wrong, but my guess is that the Dean's office will take this very seriously. I would further guess that, if the student's memory does not improve, the entire group may face sanctions. I don't see that Dean Gross has any real alternative. He can't have students expected to behave responsibly recklessly endangering Swatties. </p>
<p>You and I both know that this wasn't an "accident" by any stretch of the imagination. A table doesn't just get "accidently" nudged up and over the railing of a balcony in Sharples. I don't think Swatties should have to worry about getting hit in the head by a falling table everytime they get a glass of water in the dining hall. Kinda puts a damper on a fun Saturday night.</p>
<p>I also don't know whether ramifications of the incident will extend to the frat house where there had supposedly been drinking at a pledge event earlier in the evening. My hunch is that this is the kind of incident that doesn't help the last two remaining frats at Swarthmore solidify support on campus.</p>
<p>The Phoenix article about the Sharples party table-throwing incident has been posted.</p>
<p><a href="http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/</a></p>
<p>As I guessed, this is being viewed as a serious offense. A little background. College policy calls for offenses with likely sanctions short of suspension to be handled by a Dean. More serious offenses are refered to the College Judiciary Committee -- a standing committee comprised of several deans, two faculty members, a college staff member, and two elected student members. The results of all CJC hearings are posted in a public letter to the campus. </p>
<p>Searching the Swat website only turns up one or two such hearings a year. In most cases, they are for academic dishonesty with the results ranging from no credit in a course to suspensions. The only case involving assault or injury to a student in recent years came back in 1999. That case resulted in a two-year suspension.</p>
<p>In the Phoenix, Dean Westphal is quoted about Saturday night's incident, "Once the evidence is collected about a situation, a determination is made if the college judicial system would hear the case or if it will be heard by a dean. Given the seriousness of the offense, whoever did this could go to the College Judiciary Committee".</p>
<p>It turns out that a dining hall computer swipe card reader (located on he balcony just a few feet from where the table was thrown, if I recall) was also smashed. Dean Westphal had this to say about that:</p>
<p>"A student has taken responsibility for breaking the Sharples card-swiper, and administrators referred that student to Counseling Associate Tom Elverson for evaluation since alcohol was a factor in the misbehavior. Westphal said the student will also be referred to the College Judicial Committee."</p>
<p>I suspect that one reason for the continued investigation is to see if the these two incidents were related beyond the close physical proximity, either the same student or the same group of students and what the implications of that may be (for example, if it turns out that the group had come from pledge activities).</p>
<p>Does this student judicial committee hear all sorts of cases? I heard that a few years back a student was arrested for having and sending out child pornography and got convicted and sent to jail but was allowed to return to Swarthmore. Is this true?</p>
<p>CJC hearings are very rare, and might even take place only if someone is at risk of being kicked out or asked to take some time off from school. I'm not entirely sure what qualifies as a CJC case and what the College just handles informally, but I do know they deal with cases related to both disciplinary and academic issues. My guess would be that the College would handle a case like the one described by kellymegreener, but I'm not really sure. I would also like to reiterate that the Phoenix article makes no connection between the incidents at the party and either of the Fraternities. The investigation has not yet come to a conclusion, and I am going to hold off on passing judgment until it does.</p>
<p>Also, as an aside, I erroneously indicated above that Phi Psi had adopted the name Phi Omega Psi when they split from their national fraternity in the 1960s. The name they adopted was actually Phi Omicron Psi, but everyone just calls the Phi Psi. (They really should add an editing function to this forum)</p>
<p>Actually, I think that case was centered around a college student having internet chat room conversations with two minors (16 and 17) and subsequent phone sex with the 17 year old. The student was arrested, cooperated fully, entered a treatment program, and pled guilty with a sentence that included weekends in a juvenile facility followed by a period of monitored house arrest, along with continuation of counselling treatment. </p>
<p>The student left Swarthmore (could have been voluntary or otherwise) once charges had been filed. I don't think it went to the College Judicial Committee at that point...it was all pretty much automatic based on the arrest and conviction.</p>
<p>Following the completion of the house arrest and a year of treatment, the student applied for readmission to the college. At that point, the decision went to the College Judicial Committee, which must have approved readmission because the student graduated last year. Everything I've read in the Swarthmore paper from the time of the arrest going forward was that this was a 19 year old kid who had messed up, paid the penalty, gotten the appropriate counseling, and wasn't a threat to anyone. There had never been any allegations of physical contact with minors, nor was it a case of a "child pornography ring" or distribution enterprise. </p>
<p>There was some brouhaha over whether the student should be allowed to live on campus. I don't know how that was resolved. I suspect that a common sense decision for off-campus housing was made by all parties, but I don't know.</p>
<p>Did the college handle it the right way? I don't know. I can see arguments on both sides. I guess they must have figured the student warranted a second chance. The student had certainly not gotten off lightly. If anything, the prosecutor might have been a little overzealous in refusing a plea bargain. The courts would be pretty full if we threw the book at every 18 or 19 year old kid having phone sex or trading pictures with a 17 year old girlfriend.</p>
<p>
[quote]
CJC hearings are very rare, and might even take place only if someone is at risk of being kicked out or asked to take some time off from school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's the dividing line stated in the college handbook. Cases where the likely sanction is less than suspension are handled by a dean. Cases where a suspension or expulsion are in play are referred to the CJC for a hearing. I believe that would include essentially all charges of academic dishonesty. From what I can tell, intentional academic dishonesty virtually guarantees a semester suspension. In advertent or unintentional plagiarism, such as failing to properly cite a paraphrased or quote source typically receives a no credit for the paper or course, but not a suspension.</p>
<p>As I read the handbook, a case of physical assault or injuring a student is pretty much automatic referral to the CJC. My guess is that the table will earn a one semester suspension if the student fesses up and gets alcohol counseling. Worse if memories don't improve. The PAs know who did it and so does the girl who got hit on the head.</p>
<p>Interestdad, thank you for the link to the Swarthmore student paper. There is so much information there about the school and student life.</p>
<p>I found articles about the case I asked about, and I think you were either really wrong or spinning the truth to downplay it. He was not calling his girlfriend, and he was not even calling a girl. And his computer was full of illegal pictures.</p>
<p>Did the liberal administration definitely let this person back in? Are they lenient about everything, as it seems to appear?</p>