<p>If all the administration has is Lohse, SAE wins hands down. They need other SAE brothers to come forward.</p>
<p>Or they need an idiot who took pictures of illegal acts. The armed forces seem to have no shortage of them. :(</p>
<p>BTW, the fact that someone is reportedly making Animal House into a Broadway musical even as we speak is not going to have a positive effect on D’s reputation…</p>
<p>SAE is accused of violating the College’s Standards of Conduct in both 2009 and 2011.</p>
<p>All 27 individuals are charged only with offenses in 2011. </p>
<p>SAE has fessed up to minor stuff in 2009, but is pretty firm that it worked with the Dartmouth administration to make sure the 2011 pledge process was OK with the College. So far the only person who claims there was any problem in 2011 is Lohse. And no evidence backs up what he says.</p>
<p>The fact that the charges reportedly all involve 2011, when SAE was working with the administration, really is bizarre. Or is Lohse alleging that they did additional stuff that the administrators didn’t know about? Certainly, the SAE who wrote the piece for DartBlog said that they made a practice of hiding the more extreme activities from their alum advisor. DartmouthMom, have you read his account? What do you think of it?</p>
<p>Dartmouth has the reputation in the Ivy League that Goldman Sucks has on Wall Street. It is a cesspool.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, right.</p>
<p>hahaha … nice catch ^^^</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Erm… no it doesn’t. Thanks for your germane and insightful remarks, though. </p>
<p>At any rate, as an outsider looking in, I’ve come to the conclusion that no conclusion can be made. Facts are explicitly countering facts, and both are nothing more than hearsay. Not to discredit the arguments of either side, it’s just simply that there is no way to know what truly happened. Though there may be truth in what both are saying, I can’t help but feel there is a lot of sensationalizing going on… especially with Lohse.</p>
<p>According to my daughter, who is a '13, it is widely-known on campus that many (not all) the frats regularly violate hazing rules in disgusting ways. Whether that means that the exact things Lohse alleges actually happened cannot be known except by those who were actually there. But this wide-spread knowledge suggests that the general scope of the accusations, if not the exact details, is probably correct and thus in need of reform. Where there is smoke there is fire, and smoke has been pouring out of SAE for years now.</p>
<p>Which generally accounts for the tone and approach of those defending the frats. Very few have come forward and flatly denied the accusations. The defense of frats much more commonly takes one or more of these forms:
- Lohse is a lousy guy
- He’s exaggerating. It wasn’t quite that bad
- It’s unfair that 27 be blamed for the actions of a few
- Proper administrative procedure is not being followed here
- It’s a terrible thing that Lohse has signed a contract with Rolling Stone magazine.
- Big deal. Hazing has always been a part of frat life. </p>
<p>All of which are red herrings designed to try to change the subject rather than own up to the problems and solve them.</p>
<p>Coureur:</p>
<p>You are just flat out wrong.</p>
<p>All 27 individuals charged have denied Dartmouth’s allegations that they engaged in hazing in 2011. </p>
<p>What SAE has admitted to is, as their President put it, “to certain practices from 2009 that were in violation of College policy (though to be clear, Lohse has invented and exaggerated a large number of claims against my fraternity).” Note that the individuals charged were not full members of SAE back in 2009, and so were in no position to haze anyone.</p>
<p>But, in the words of SAE’s President, “starting in the spring of 2011, I had numerous conversations with administrators about student safety in Greek houses. In the fall of 2011, I worked with Wes Schaub and brothers in my own house to design a better pledge program and eliminate any house traditions that we deemed at all problematic. In response to Dartmouth administration inquiries, SAE’s goal has not been to cover anything up but to provide evidence of what did and did not occur. SAE’s incoming president this spring has met with half a dozen administrators already with a goal to make fraternity pledge terms safer and more transparent. The College deviated from this constructive approach when it responded to Lohse’s new allegations by charging 27 brothers without a shred of real evidence.”</p>
<p>Read the whole thing at:</p>
<p>[TheDartmouth.com:</a> Mahoney: How Not to Combat Hazing](<a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2012/03/07/opinion/mahoney]TheDartmouth.com:”>http://thedartmouth.com/2012/03/07/opinion/mahoney)</p>
<p>coureur, given the broad definition of hazing, it is undeniable that it occurs at Dartmouth, in virtually every fraternity and sorority. Having accepted that fact, people fall back on your 1-6 list to argue that even if there is hazing, it just isn’t as bad as you think. </p>
<p>I am always amused by the “common campus knowledge” argument in cases like this. College campuses are giant rumor mill, hear a rumor enough times and it becomes “fact”. Every hazing story every told was exaggerated. Every single one. Even the most extreme hazing that goes on will be exaggerated when it is retold. When I was on campus there was a rumor that one of the fraternities forced their pledges to eat dog poop after the pledges had failed to clean up after the house dog. The story got around so many times that people talked about it like it was fact. The reality was that it never happened. I’m not saying your daughter is ignorant, just that the stories that are passed around Dartmouth are not real. If you peal back the levels of exaggeration, you would most likely get to a truth that might still fall into the definition of hazing, but does not offend your sensibilities. </p>
<p>The kiddie pool thing is a perfect example. The SAE kiddie pool holds about 4 inches of water, you could barely kneel in it. There is no fecal matter or other bodily fluid. Yet the story that the whole country has heard is that SAE pledges are literally swimming in feces. In the GLOS contract that all new pledges must sign, the college comments- “ask yourself if you could satisfactorily explain a questionable activity to your parent”. I can explain kneeling in water. That is easy. It is the exaggeration of the story that tips the scale into the “unexplainable”. </p>
<p>The sad thing is that hazing is defined so poorly that it prevents houses from having an open discussion about it with the administration. Until the administration will acknowledge that there is hazing and HAZING, it will all be denials. IMHO the college made a major mistake when one of the first actions taken by the new GLOS administrator was outlawing the AXA sirens. I have known plenty of AXA’s and none of them considered wearing those hats to be hazing, they all saw it as a source of pride. When the college outlawed those, the message the fraternities heard was that the administration did not intend to differentiate between hazing and HAZING, they would simply be lumped together. If wearing a red baseball cap can get you charged for hazing then there will not be an open dialog about hazing in the Dartmouth community, which is a real shame. </p>
<p>You say that the system should own up to the problem and try to solve it. I agree, even though the problem isn’t nearly as bad as the rumors, hazing should be openly discussed and the disgusting hazing should be eliminated completely. But the administration is taking the wrong approach if they hope to have the cooperation of greek leadership.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Right. That hazing is undeniable is exactly my point. And it “isn’t as bad as you think” was point #2 on my list of defenses used by frat boosters concerning this scandal. </p>
<p>So let’s ask a larger a question. Why is any hazing needed at all? Why can’t the frats just decide at the end of the rush period whom they want to admit and welcome them into the club? </p>
<p>There wouldn’t be a problem if the frats could just confine themselves to benign forms of hazing, but more than a century of experience with Greek orgs has consistently shown that they can’t. It’s only a matter a time before one frat or another starts pushing the edge of the hazing envelope, and the next thing you know they are engaging in “certain practices” (as the SAE president so mildly calls them) that get them in the newspapers and in trouble.</p>
<p>The truest thing you can say about hazing is that as long as it is allowed there will always be abuses and another scandal. It’s only a question of when.</p>
<p>It is my–perhaps misinformed–understanding that the AXA sirens were banned because trying to take them away became a sport for some, and the AXA pledges were honor-bound to defend the. After an ugly incident involving a freshman athlete attacking an AXA pledge, the hats were banned. (And let us note that the attacker, as a freshman, was NOT a greek.) The hats themselves were obviously harmless.</p>
<p>Consolation, safety was a reason given by GLOS, although they banned Chi Gam’s signs at the same time without similar reasoning. Those hats have been worn for many years without violence. Banning them was hardly necessary. I’m not normally one to support things on dartblog, but this post sums it up [SchaubStirs</a> - Dartlog - The Dartmouth Review](<a href=“http://dartreview.com/dartlog/2011/10/21/schaub-stirs.html]SchaubStirs”>http://dartreview.com/dartlog/2011/10/21/schaub-stirs.html)</p>
<p>Coureur, I have two responses to your idea of abandoning pledge period, though you might dislike them both. </p>
<p>First, in my own experience, pledge period is an important and worthwhile part of the fraternity experience. I think having some houses without a pledge period would be a good idea for any college, so that students have the option, but I wouldn’t have taken that option. Of the guys I pledged with, I only knew about 25% going into pledge period, but I knew them all well coming out of it. Many of the pledge activities could be construed as hazing using a strict definition, but we didn’t consider them hazing and they were almost all a ton of fun. Obviously there is potential for abuse and that should be addressed by leadership using education and awareness. But I wouldn’t give up pledge period just because some houses or some people take it too far. Being put in a position of relative weakness and relative power and learning to deal with those two things actually has value in life. I’m not talking about extreme hazing, that is not defensible. But done the right way, the social structure of a fraternity can teach you life skills that you will never learn in a college classroom. I think you will find many greek alums who went on to successful careers who would tell you that the leadership skills they learned in their fraternity have served them very well in life. Having a pledge period is a part of of that development. </p>
<p>Second, it is naive to think that not having a pledge period would eliminate hazing. There are plenty of examples of hazing without a pledge period aspect. The worst hazing I have experienced in my life was high school football. It was physical violence and it was brutal. The wrestling team had it even worse, MUCH worse. Dartmouth athletic teams have hazing as well, some of it benign, some not so benign. Anytime you have a social hierarchy with some people in a position of power, there will be potential for those people to abuse that power. Better to have a highly structured pledge period with pledge events being operated by people who have discussed the nature of the event, the purpose of the event and are aware of where the line is. There should always be multiple brothers present for any pledge event and they should be sober. Checks and balances.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Who said any anything about getting rid of the pledge period? I said get rid of the hazing.</p>
<p>What would a hazing-free pledge period look like? Probably a series of social events and activities where the pledges and frats size each other up and decide whether there is going to be a mutual fit. Humiliation, degradation, and punishment add nothing of value to the process and should be eliminated. No hazing = no hazing scandals, which would be a good thing.</p>
<p>Coureur, you said “Why can’t the frats just decide at the end of the rush period whom they want to admit and welcome them into the club?”</p>
<p>That means two days of rush and then no pledge period? I don’t think anybody is arguing that humiliation, degradation and punishment hazing is a good thing.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You’re right. I meant to say at the end of pledge period, not rush period </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Those who defend the current Greek system are. There has been a steady drip, drip, drip of frat hazing scandals, underage drinking scandals, and drug busts at for my entire life. Probably well before that too. Anyone who defends the current system against reform is indeed embracing a lot of very bad things and pretending they are good.</p>
<p>One guy makes some outrageous accusations and suddenly all greeks haze and anybody who supports them thinks that humiliation and degradation is good? Come on now, that is a ridiculous claim. </p>
<p>“Defending” the existence of the greek system at Dartmouth is hardly akin to supporting humiliation and degradation. This hazing scandal has created a huge amount of dialog about hazing within the Dartmouth community, that is a good thing. From time to time, you need some dialog to make sure that everybody is aware of the risks inherent within the social dynamic in a fraternity. I wish that there was more awareness about high school athletics hazing. But the accusations being made in this case are neither factual nor representative of the greek experience at Dartmouth. There are tens of thousands of greek alumni who support the greek system, without supporting hardcore hazing. We are not “pretending they are good”. I don’t know why you can’t understand that. </p>
<p>I think you and I need to agree to disagree.</p>
<p>Dart Alum, I 100% agree with everything you state in your posts on this. D is in a sorority, and there was absolutely nothing that any sane person would consider hazing. She loved all the bonding activities. Dartmouth has one person claiming all of this, and he has lots of reasons to make false accusations. Until they get more proof, there is no way 27 kids should have to face any charges. Dartmouth is full of very smart kids…do we all really think that no one else would come forward and substantiate these claims if they were true? We all agree true hazing is deplorable. When I first heard this story, I thought it might be true. But after hearing numerous conversations about this, I believe this is more of a kid with an axe to grind.</p>
<p>When I look at our cousins who are 5-10 years older than my kids (who are between late HS and early college) I see a world of difference in how they socialized. They all came out of pretty much the same private schools and went to similar colleges. The older cousins though had a much more sane and responsible environment both in HS and college. What I’ve been able to see is that binge drinking is way on the rise. I completely agree with DartAlum about pledging experience bonding students for life, and how it is necessary for being in a frat/srat; what has changed perhaps are the “responsible” brothers. There seems to be more in your face drunkenness on the part of those that are supposed to be responsible who can make decisions that can adversely affect the pledges. I dont know whether this is on my part a nostalgia for the “good ol’ days” or a realistic observation.</p>