Is there anyone here in support of hazing that involves putting students in dangerous situations and / or drinking to excess? Anyone? Bueller?
<<<
[/QUOTE]
Such pablum does not answer the question I posed regarding the chapters that HAVE caused death beyond any reasonable doubt.
Obviously nobody would claim to be in favor of hazing or applauding the morons who urinated on others. The question is how should we deal with the rotten apples.
In clear terms, should the chapter that killed Gordie Bailey ever have gotten back to business? And yes, they are again in operation as a lifetime ban means 5 years for the spineless college leaders we have.
What I won't do is take this incident and use it to tarnish the reputation of other ZBT chapters nationwide. There is no correlation between the actions of several members of one chapter and the thousands of other ZBT brothers and alumni. I don't see any point in punishing the masses for the actions of a few.<<<
[/QUOTE]
Again, it is not about generalizations, but dealing with the abusers. What does being accountable really means in the ZBT case? How and for how long?
@ Recent denials to the contrary, my impression is that over and over again you have tarred all fraternities and their members with the same brush, and have called for them to be abolished.
I am really not a fan of the Greek system myself, but I have found that IRL they do not all share the negative stereotypes you so eagerly embrace. I am very mush opposed to group guilt and lynch mobs operating on absence of facts.
My S is a proud AEPi alum. Absolutely no hazing permitted in his chapter and none done. Check. Charitable good works? Check. Opportunity for my son to meet a wonderful group of guys from many different walks of life and work together for something good? Check.
Do I absolutely despise all fraternity bad behavior and hope that chapters are expelled from campus when guilt is established? Check.
I understand that many of you feel there is no value to the Greek system. But, you really are condemning the many for the actions of the few. It’s like any other news story. You always hear about the bad stuff. And you should. The good stuff isn’t “interesting enough” to hold the public’s attention.
S did choose to join a fraternity at his university. His brothers are extremely respectful and kind. I have been fortunate to meet several of them. They are not only involved in the fraternity, but other activities on campus too. They write for the school newspaper, are athletic team managers, are involved in student government, and are RAs. They raise lots of money and volunteer many hours helping others. They support other sororities and fraternities on their campus as they have fundraisers, too. The members are from many different backgrounds and cultures. There is no hazing. They also go to concerts and athletic events together. And yes, they do have parties and tailgate too. When S was ill, his chapter members brought him meals and ran errands for him. Three of them went to class for him and took notes. The friends were not in the classes and did this without S asking. S was fortunate to hold a leadership position in his chapter and gained valuable experience. S has graduated, but still supports his brothers/friends as they continue to do good work and support each other and others in their city.
I agree with not framing ZBT. I have not heard of this kind of behavior from other chapters. We don’t know what percentage of the members at this school were behaving poorly. It is about the choices of the students involved, and this should be dealt with appropriately.
The response is correct and reasonable. It does, however, lack the most important factor being that the removal should be irrevocable and timeless.
Temporary removals are what contributes to the continuing problems. If there are indeed so few offenders, the Greek world should survive nicely without a handful of rotten apples. Hence, the absolute need to stop imposing mere slaps on the wrist with permitted rebirth after a few years.
My problem is that when we’re talking about bad behavior from fraternities, they just aren’t that few. For example, they are WAY more common than bad behavior from marching bands, at least in terms of what’s reported.
My parents always said that when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. It’s a pretty good axiom, even if not all dogs have fleas.
@TransferGopher As you frequently say, when the shoe in on the other foot (e.g. bad frat behavior should not be conflated with so-called “good frats”)–what does this have to do with the subject at hand?
I think the analogy might be - suppose, Hunt, you found out that a former Yale classmate was an axe murderer, or swindled a lot of people out of their life savings, or molested children, or did something else that’s reprehensible. You might feel an abstract bond to that person because they went to Yale, but you’d be resentful if it was implied that you were culpable or that you should have “spoken out” against axe murdering or molestation otherwise you’re complicit in it. That is kind of how the Greek system works - the ZBTs at another school may have a tight bond amongst themselves, but their bond with the ZBTs at Florida is kind of like the bond that you have with fellow Yale classmates that you might not have known - there’s something shared, but it’s not to the level of endorsing everything they do or having power over them to stop them from doing bad things.
@boolaHI – It doesn’t really have to do with anything. I just know if I don’t post it nobody will see it because everyone thinks all fraternities are rape dungeons. If a fraternity does something bad it should be looked at just as much as if a fraternity does something good.
But how many axe murderers would Yale have to produce before legitimate questions began to arise about whether Yale was, in fact, doing something that encouraged or enabled axe murderers? To give another analogy, I don’t think the scandal at Penn State necessarily tells you much about what’s going on in football programs elsewhere; whereas a number of scandals about no-show classes do (in my opinion) suggest a bigger problem. So it’s all about how to take the number of scandals involving Greek organizations–how many do there have to be to create valid concerns about how the system as a whole is working? (I will note, in passing, that if reports about good deeds done by some chapters are supposed to reflect on the system as a whole, then bad deeds can as well.)
Stop with this argument. When a very small percentage of fraternity members do bad things it is the end of the world, and fraternities promote bad things. But when a small percentage of police officers, soldiers, or athletes for example do bad things it is totally different.
So should we end football? Does being a football player promote cheating?
Such a small percentage of fraternity members do bad things. The media loves to hate traditional fraternities and that is why you hear about it often.
You are wrong on this. All fraternities have philanthropic and charitable organizations that they support. All fraternities volunteer. This should reflect on all of them because they all do good things. Very few fraternity members do bad things.
But, see, I don’t agree with this. In fact, I think very many fraternity members do bad things, including hazing, encouraging underage members to drink to excess, and many other things. Maybe (relatively) few of them do bad things and then get caught, but anybody who’s gone to a college with a lot of Greeks know that they do bad things all the time.
If I pick ten colleges at random, and search for sanctions on fraternities for bad behavior, what do you think I will find?
@TransferGopher You make the rather lucid observation that all “fraternities have philanthropic and charitable organizations”—hmmn, then why is it, from a purely risk management level, they are the 6th most volatile activity to insure. Ahead of all things, the transport of toxic waste-----hmmmn, something sounds a tad-off here sir??
So, while I will concede that many do worthwhile and appreciably solid things for both their institutions and surrounding communities, it also a non-starter, to say “very few” do bad things. If that were the case they would still be able to obtain traditional insurance and not go the route of “self-insurance”–if you are not familiar, “self-insurance” is often used in situations where the insurer is unable to monitor all activities and, the level of risky activities outweigh the benefit to the insurer of providing a regular policy. So, in that regard you need to get your facts straight…