Its listed in a reference in both the Atlantic article and in the last link.
Or if I need to also paraphrase for youâŠâsixth worst risk in the insurance industry, and number seven was hazardous waste disposal companiesâ
boolaHI: Thank you for posting the links again. The Atlantic article certainly got my attention last year and confirmed my general sense of what was going on.
353, PG wrote: [quote] The devil as always is in the details. Obviously here there was a video in living color. How can / should nationals monitor the behaviors of 100 individuals x 100 chapters, hundreds and thousands of miles away from national HQ? I'd like to hear a REAL proposal on how to accomplish that, not a generic "well, they just should." Let's assume we have a "good" national. Are they supposed to hire alums to chaperone all events? Seriously interested in a real proposal.
[/quote]
At least in some cases we have a traditional culture of racism and sexism. It is the norm within the group. The only way to change it, in my opinion, is to either pledge new members who wonât participate in that culture, have National do some kind of really intense and serious educational intervention to convince groups this isnât tolerated, or to close the groups down. To me, closing the groups down is the only realistic choice. All other choices have been on the table for decades. Nothing happened.
Poetgrl (before she left this discussion which is now years long for some of us) said her husband was volunteering time at his (good) fraternity and warning those guys that if all the groups didnât shape up, they were all going to be gone. I donât think her husband is the only one trying to save the good groups, but there doesnât seem to be any significant cultural shift.
Are you ready to start closing some groups down? All that donât conform to a gentlemanly standard of behavior? Can we agree on that?
ETA: What is your proposal? I hope we are in agreement something needs to change.
Whether or not the national SAE can rehabilitate its members AND its image is yet to be determined. I do wonder how proactive other Greek life organizations will be in cleaning up their own houses where necessary.
Ok. Iâm not going to read all the articles to find a list. It sounds like there is no list, just the phrase you quoted above. It probably isnât helpful to see the list anyway, but it could put the risk more in perspective.
I think when you are ahead of portable hazardous waste it does speaks volumes, and so while certainly the âdevil is in the detailsâ, I am not sure how anyone, even a professional PR/crisis team could spin that factoid into a positive note. Again, one is the transportation of materials we ALL collectively would not want near any of our homes and communities, and the other is an optional fraternal social organization based in higher education, but yet the latter is much more volatile from a perspective of insurance exposureâŠdoes that not strike you as even remotely odd and bizarre?
I think it sounds sensational, yes. The hazardous waste removal industry is probably extremely highly regulated and inspected, so perhaps the risk of spills is really not that great. I donât know this; just speculating to argue that where something falls on âthe listâ doesnât necessarily mean much.
While I guess in theory they could, I donât think that will ever happen. What they can do is not allow them on campus. Every fraternity and sorority must be recognized by the school to exist on the campus. So, for most undergraduate fraternities, if your school does not allow a chapter, you cannot join as an undergrad. Since most of the fraternities in the news are undergraduate based for the most part, this would basically ban them from joining.
I know this because when I went to Yale in the late 70âs, all fraternities and sororities were banned (though the secret societies were thriving). I could not join the sorority my whole family belonged to and to which I had dreamed of joining my whole life. Because AA sororities and fraternities are active for life, alumni chapters are very popular and many people join way after graduation. I finally realized my dream and joined mine when I was 50 and I am a very active member.
These are the first four items in the FIPGâs risk management rules:
They are widely ignored. Every time a fraternity gets in the news, it was violating these rules, and very obviously had a pattern of violating them. So, what does it mean that fraternities who are supposedly bound by these rules donât follow them? Does it mean that their insurance doesnât cover the lawsuits?
My Sâs chapter house has a dry policy; as do the dorms. Only those aged 21 can purchase alcohol at fraternity events; no chapter funds can be used for purchase of alcohol at all; all sanctioned social events (versus people informally getting together in their rooms or chapter room) must be held off-campus.
Regarding lawsuits against the national fraternity for violations, I have no specific knowledge about how this works, just general knowledge that when âdeep pocketsâ exist, plaintiffs will name them in their lawsuit. In other words, if a college student dies of alcohol poisoning or is raped at a fraternity house, the national organization is going to be named in any lawsuit because it exists and has âdeep pockets,â i.e., insurance. If a college student dies of alcohol poisoning or is raped at her off-campus apartment, there is less likely to be a âdeep-pocketâ to include as a defendant.
The current strategy employed by most F/S is self-insurance, but with an easy triggerâany illegal behavior and you are dropped from by the insurance plan, and the frat itself. Then, they come after your parents personal home-owners policyâŠhow is that for camaraderie and esprit de corps?
I imagine this is the same thing that happens to defendants who are not in fraternities.
Actually, they can officially as my LAC demonstrated since the 1870s and several other colleges like Middlebury after 1990 or so.
One condition of matriculation and continuing enrollment is one cannot join or be a member of any fraternity/sorority, socially exclusive organizations on basis other than academic merit* or any other âsecret societiesâ. I recalled from my student handbook that being caught as a member in such proscribed organizations while an undergrad even if they met off-campus could be met with serious judicial sanctions upto and including expulsion.
Then again, my LAC has long had a reputation for not being big on pan-hellenic greek organizations or social exclusive organizations of its ilk so students who aspire to join such organizations are free to apply/enroll elsewhere.
- This loophole exists for academic honor societies like Phi Beta Kappa.
@BAY, I would say somewhat similar accept, that in the latter example, you have have not already paid into an insurance fund as a term and condition of membership. So, this is where I think some of institutional dichotomy resides: at least for Frats, it is in many cases, that there will be drinking in spite of âdry rulesââso, the entity is then covered, and the individual then placed outside the circle of insurance coverage, despite already having paid into the systemâŠ
boolahi,
I am a big proponent of personal responsibility by adults, so I am not going to argue that individual members should not be held personally liable for their bad acts, even if they have paid something to get some protection.
Well, there is certainly an assumption of the risk as it applies to the Greek system, and price of coverage for these entities reflects those costs from a nominal vantage. See: http://www.pavlacklawfirm.com/blog/2012/10/05/fraternity-university-liability-for-hazing-114806/
Iâm a big believer in responsibility as well. And thatâs why I think itâs contemptible that a fraternity hazes or has a party with gallons of alcohol, a student dies, and then the fraternity says theyâre shocked, shocked that hazing was going on or that students were drinking alcohol, and theyâre not responsible.
Consistent with my support of personal responsibility, is my opinion that âhazingâ is engaged in voluntarily by adult participants, and they alone should bear the consequences of participating (absent criminal activity -not including hazing laws- by other people). In other words, I do not support the criminalization of hazing.
Organizations and corporations have responsibilities.
Of course. And when employees and members act outside of the established rules, they are terminated.