<p>You might be right on the microlevel, but that only tells one part. When the news of a death by hazing burns the wires, what is there to preclude the national organization to GGGood to denounce the BBBad and advocate for the immediate and permanent ban of BBBad? And do so without equivocation nor malice! </p>
<p>What is there to stop GGGood to come out and pressure the school to make more room for the good fraternities at the expense of the BBBad? By the way, aren’t there crappy movies about that precise theme? </p>
<p>The problem is not a lack of having power or a voice. It is all about the deliberate choices to protect their own, even it if includes the black sheeps. </p>
<p>Millions of people belong to Greek organizations. Millions more belong to other exclusionary organizations- civic, religious, interest based, military exclusionary organizations. Should they all be closed because ‘something bad’ might happen? Should we get rid of little league because some organizations have had administrators steal from the coffers? Get rid of Boy Scouts because of the actions of some leaders? Shut down the Knights of Columbus because they exclude on the basis of sex and religion?</p>
<p>The national associations and the members have invested incredible amounts of money into houses, equipment, personnel at these chapters. The houses at some of the southern schools cost $5M. At Alabama, there are 16 sororities, each with a house that provides housing for 100-200, dining for 300+. Where are these 2000+ women going to live and eat? What is the university going to do with these huge houses (on their property), and how are they going to pay the national housing boards for their losses if the houses are ‘repossessed’ by the university or the bank?</p>
<p>Greek life isn’t shrinking nationwide, it’s growing. Adults who didn’t join as collegians are joining as alum initiates because they want to be involved with the alum activities, supporting the chapters at their colleges, join the same organization as their kids, be involved in the philanthropies, have a new group of friends.</p>
<p>I hope you realize that this intimates that neither the school nor the private sector could replace a product from which there is a demand? If an isolated school such as Williams could do, what would be the problem in schools that are located in less isolated areas. </p>
<p>Everything is a matter of economics, and providing housing in repossesed buildings and serving meals should not be much of a problem … as long as we believe that the schools can do it for the rest of the students at the same school. After all, there are schools that function extremely well without that apparently necessary presence of fraternities on campus. </p>
<p>Pretending that colleges need fratenities to offer basic services is a huge canard, and nothing but a default answer to a problem that does not exist. It all goes back to having the courage to face issues that are challenging and require more than following a path of least resistance.</p>
<p>But again, there is no movement to eradicate Greek life in general. All that most reasonable people hope and expect is the elimination of the chapters that have shown no willingness to amend their egregious behavior. Since there seems no way to convince the members and their leaders, all we can hope for is a more courageous administration and rapidly rising insurance premiums and fewer settlements. </p>
<p>My uncle was in a fraternity at Williams. I don’t think he lived in a house. Houses weren’t nearly the physical size they are now. His daughter went to Williams. I think she lived in a dorm all 4 years. Fine at a small school, not possible at a big school designed for only freshmen to live in the dorms.</p>
<p>At small schools or schools where the greeks are a tiny piece, the university can buy out the houses and turn them into administrative offices or raze them and build dorms. In places where the houses are off campus, the school can just get rid of Pan Hel and IFC and not recognize them as student groups. Nothing would change, as the houses would still be the houses, still have 20-100 members of a group living in them. They wouldn’t be allowed to be an organized group on campus, but then the university would have no control either. Many schools have this ‘arrangement’ including Amherst and Harvard-‘we don’t recognize you so you don’t exist.’ Are those off campus houses safer? At schools like Alabama and Georgia, where the majority of the houses are on land owned by the university and provide housing to a huge percentage of the undergrads, it would be a problem, and very expensive, to just shut them down. Is the university willing to pay $1billion to buy out all the mortgages and shut down a system that the majority of the students WANT?</p>
<p>UVa suspended the Greeks, but those students didn’t move out of the houses the week before finals. The university doesn’t have anywhere to PUT those students. They can’t host any social events, they couldn’t be a ‘group’ at the last football game, I don’t think they are having meetings. Punishment for something that happen at one house 3 years ago. It doesn’t seem fair to me at all. They don’t close all the dorms if one dorm violates the rules and has a party, or if a crime happens in a dorm.</p>
<p>One small but important thing that gets ignored in a lot of these sorts of discussions: For decades, the lobbying group for Greek organizations (yes, there is one, and yes, it’s very powerful) has succeeded in maintaining language in federal law that prohibits public colleges from banning Greek organizations. This isn’t, at least for public institutions, a college-by-college issue, it’s a federal issue.</p>
<p>Civic, religious and interest based organizations are not exclusionary. Anyone can become a Catholic if they want to. Anyone can join my bike club. AFAIK, anyone can join the Chamber of Commerce. These are not exclusionary at all; they are inclusive.</p>
<p>@Cardinal_Fang What is wrong with an exclusionary organization? For many organizations, including some you and I might want to join, exclusion is the whole point. </p>
<p>I am not sure what such statement should be logical. Would it be harder for UT in Austin to get rid of its fraternity housing than it was for Williams? Could someone think that the process is harder at a school that has to offer a residential solution to all of its students than one that does only serves a … fraction of it. </p>
<p>Simply stated the mere presence of outside residential solution clearly indicates that there is NO need to rely on fraternities, but that the availability is a matter of choice versus necessity. </p>
<p>By the way, schools can declare the mere participation in a fraternity on or off campus to be a violation of the students’ code if it might decide to do so. Ain’t gonna happen at many places, but there are multiple ways to chip at organizations that are hardly essential to academics and the well-being of the students. </p>
[quote]
Punishment for something that happen at one house 3 years ago. It doesn’t seem fair to me at all [/quote</p>
<p>Perhaps considering that it took three long years for the powers to be at UVA to issue a mild slap on the wrist might fit the term unfair a bit better. The punishment is indeed inappropriate but typical of the lengths taken by the schools to address burning issues. There is little to applaud at how UVA has been handling this. </p>
<p>As far as “what the students want” … should we let a bunch of clueless teenagers dictate how a campus should operate? Isn’t it time for schools to focus on academics as opposed to be so intent to provide 24/7 entertainment and glorified country clubs with rockclimbing and other non-sense? </p>
And good doctors should be at the forefront of reporting the bad apples, the one’s they’d never let treat a member of their family. And good investment professionals should be leading the charge to rid the field of those taking advantage of a naive public. Yet the “conspiracy of silence” among doctors is well known (see <a href=“http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371519”>http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371519</a>). Brokerage houses fight tooth-and-nail against being held to a fiduciary standard.</p>
<p>I could go on and on with examples, but since none of these things happen perhaps the behavior of the “good fraternities” is no different from that of people in all walks of life.</p>
<p>^The difference here is that the AMA did not turn some people down for membership…people who would otherwise have spent their free time throwing salt in the proverbial wound every time a Doctor did something unethical or immoral.</p>
<p>I have a big problem with people who cannot tell the difference between a violent criminal and a bunch of tween-age idiots. As offensive as it might be, shouting slogans is protected speech.</p>
<p>Address the actual offenders and leave the rest to freely associate.</p>
<p>xiggi, I’m not sure that Williams HAD houses to replace (I’ll ask my uncle), or if they did if they were owned by the university or small houses in the town that housed 8-10 guys. I know they weren’t 30,000 square foot palaces that house 200 and feed meals to 350 every day. I know that at some major universities, the town couldn’t absorb 4000 Greek students into dorms, apartments, or houses overnight. Williams didn’t have to do that. Amherst didn’t have to do that.</p>
<p>But it is really not an issue because the schools LIKE the Greek system and it isn’t going anywhere soon.</p>
<p>If the buildings exist, the only thing that needs to change is the title or the name of the renter. The schools or the private sector would not have to find new buildings. </p>
<p>Yes, this housing claim is confusing me. Closing down a frat doesn’t make the building disappear or reduce the number of beds in buildings adjacent to or close to campus. So Delta Delta Delta’s physical premises is leased by the university, and it becomes the Theme house for kids interested in playing chess or doing Civil War re-enactments on the weekend. The kids formerly living in the frat get absorbed into the inventory of available housing. Same number of students as before, presumably the same number of beds. You just put different kids into them to reduce the concentration of problematic social behaviors.</p>
<p>Banning all fraternities is an overly simplistic fix. Not all fraternities are the same across all campuses. Pretty sure that the Phi Psi’s at the small LAC my D attends are a very different type of guys than those at UVA</p>
<p>"When the news of a death by hazing burns the wires, what is there to preclude the national organization to GGGood to denounce the BBBad and advocate for the immediate and permanent ban of BBBad? And do so without equivocation nor malice!</p>
<p>What is there to stop GGGood to come out and pressure the school to make more room for the good fraternities at the expense of the BBBad? By the way, aren’t there crappy movies about that precise theme?"</p>
<p>Nothing <em>stops</em> the national organization of GGGood from denouncing the BBBad, but it’s just not meaningful. Who cares what Sigma Chi national has to say about Phi Psi at UVA? It’s not as though Phi Psi is going to go … oh, my goodness, Sigma Chi – you have a point, rape is bad, we probably shouldn’t allow rapists, thanks for the heads-up there. And why should Sigma Chi want to burn bridges with the Phi Kappa Psis at schools where the Phi Psis ARE “good”? What is the utility of that? You keep thinking as though there is some kind of shared unity or influence among these national organizations. There really isn’t. They each go and do their own thing for the most part. </p>
<p>It is and it is so simplistic that it will only happen in extreme rare cases. However, the simplistic solution should still be better than the present cynical attitude displayed by school officials and the usual callous reaction from the fraternity supporters in response to the accumulation of egregious behavior. </p>
<p>It could be, but we will never know as the mice defend the rats. By refusing to condemn the actions of the bad apple (to maintain good relations) all they do is tacitly condoning the business as usual. </p>
<p>If good fraternities or sororities were interested in convincing the “world” of their goodness, they should consider displaying some of that goodness. I do not think they can. </p>