Just to emphasize the point that this is not just a Dartmouth problem ...

<p>55 colleges and universities are under investigation for alleged title IX violations relating to sexual assaults and the handling thereof: <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/05/01/college_title_ix_investigation_names_feds_name_targets.html"&gt;http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/05/01/college_title_ix_investigation_names_feds_name_targets.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>(I would have linked to the DoE website, but it's down -- and much slower than Slate even when it's up.) </p>

<p>Of course it is not just a Dartmouth problem. But at the same time here’s a quote from the estimable DOE:</p>

<p>" ‘We hope this increased transparency will spur community dialogue about this important issue,’ Catherine E. Lhamon, the department’s assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement.</p>

<p>Lhamon said a school’s appearance on the list does not mean it has violated the law but that an investigation is ongoing."</p>

<p>I wonder if an attorney or two could comment on the legality of releasing names of schools, including Dartmouth, which have not been charged with anything. At the very least it is a very cynical strategy on the part of the DOE, in my opinion. There is criticism so the DOE releases a long list of institutions which includes some of the most well known names in higher ed. There are so many names that it is difficult to focus on one or two so maybe the 55 will not complain too loudly but at the same time the DOE can claim “transparency”, for whatever that’s worth. Keep in mind that these investigations revolve around implementing Title IX law, yet for most the 55 will be assumed to be indifferent to the many sexual predators crawling around their campuses. </p>

<p>“Of course it is not just a Dartmouth problem.” Right, but you might not know from some of the posts on various threads here, so I thought the information deserved attention. On your other question, I see no legal issue with an announcement that such-and-such school is under investigation. It’s a fact. </p>

<p>There is not overwhelming greek system at Harvard, Princeton, Amherst, Chicago and Swarthmore. Do you think for one second that people are going to stop applying to and attending these schools?</p>

<p>^^ Just for the record, Amherst banned its greek system in 1985.</p>

<p>Oops, was off a year. Amherst banned in '84.</p>

<p>Just to go back to my original point, none of these schools is charged. They are being “investigated”. Normally you would not spread information like this around to protect the innocent, but see my post above to uncover a probable political motivation for the release of information. </p>

<p>Sexual assault and rape are serious criminal matters. Tell me again why the Department of Education is so involved here? </p>

<br>

<br>

<p>I don’t know about the others, but there certainly NOT an overwhelming Greek system at Harvard. There is barely any Greek presence at all. There are only a handful of Greek frats and sororities and none of them are residential - the students preferring to live in the their on-campus residence Houses. The final clubs are more visible at Harvard than the Greeks are, and even they constitute only a small minority. Only about 10% of Harvard men belong to a final club, and the percentage is even lower for women. </p>

<p>In addition, neither the final clubs nor the Greeks have any sort of affiliation with or recognition by Harvard itself. They are off-campus private clubs. For nearly every student there, their social lives revolves around their Houses. A large majority of the students at Harvard spend their four years with the neither the final clubs nor the Greeks having any effect on their lives at all. </p>

<p>kaukana, you really have to look up the whole issue of Title IX and associated recommendations and procedures. It has been discussed on CC at great length.</p>

<p>The 55 schools are not schools where there is more sexual assault than other places. Many of them earned their place on this list because they had a group of students who were sufficiently activist to file a Title IX complaint.</p>

<p>I think that it is a very good thing that this has become a matter of national attention. It’s great that VP Biden is leading an effort to publicize the problem and make change. At the same time, it is important to realize that the cited schools are not only not alone in having sexual assault on campus, but quite possibly not even among the places where it is most prevalent (if that could even be determined). Alas, when the publicity ball gets rolling… Janet Reitman of Rolling Stone isn’t going to go hang out and party with kids at all 55 schools. She’s going to pick her targets.</p>

<p>BTW, Amherst may have abolished its fraternity system, but they still have frats, as recent events–the pig roast poster?–have proven.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think that is correct for Chicago either, where the student newspaper reports that only ~10% of undergrads are active in the Greek system. Contrast that with well over half of the upper class students at D (Soph-Sr).</p>

<p>Underground frats not sanctioned by a national office do not count. They are just like any other student group. Anyone can form a group of guys and call themselves a frat. That is very different than a true Greek system. Hey, the French club could call themselves a frat if they want.</p>

<p>Fair enough consolation. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>my bad, typing fast in the wee hours of the morning, I meant to say that they do not have a greek system</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Says who?</p>

<p>^^ I believe the difference here is we are using different definitions.</p>

<p>However, for the sake of your example pig roast example though, I will grant you that underground frats count. </p>

<p>The bigger issue here is there is a serious slippery slope when people start telling others what they can do in private. This group is not on campus and not sanctioned by Amherst. A set of dumb guys are free to get together and still do dumb things. We may not like it and may be offended, but it is still a private act by a private party. </p>

<p>I do think, however, that we just need to be very careful when offended by private acts that somehow we reflexively attempt to dictate others’ private behavior. The slippery slope is at some point the private behavior controllers come for you too.</p>

<p>This is not a defense of anyone’s actions in the least, but caution of the instinct people now have that if offended then there is some right to dictate someone else’s private behavior. Is this pig roast shirt a despicable act? Yes. Are a lot of dumb things frats do despicable? Yes. But, if private, I am not comfortable dictating anyone’s actions to stop, even if the actions are offensive and stupid. So the idea they should have been punished beyond an apology makes me uncomfortable. And worse, the concept of trying to outlaw private behavior just seems dangerous to a free society. </p>

<p>It will be interesting to see what is said about the 55 schools because granted many actions investigated probably will be deemed private actions. And, at what point does the government think it can dictate private acts, even if those acts offend others? I see many a court cases coming. </p>