So...again, I haven't blamed the victim, nor have I ever said it was ok. Glad we're on the same page.

LOL. Lime green jacket, red pants, and wizard hat is "obnoxious?" People have thin skin.

The account given in the article states that it was a recent alum who led the anti-gay expedition. Prior to the recent alum's heteromasculinity, people were simply being amused by the guy's outfit.

Private security or not, asking a person to leave does not have to include questions of sexual orientation and anti-gay comments. That's all.

You're such a moron.

Well, victim precipitation can border on victim blame depending on the crime and the actions of the victim.

Ranting about "common sense" and an annoying gay dude is along the lines of saying that he essentially waved his ass in the air for it to get kicked.

That isn't to say that he couldn't have been smarter to prevent dumbass fraternity men from doing dumbass stuff. But how unsmart he was is up for debate. Moreover, I don't care how dumb someone is, when you use homophobic slurs you are making it about your opinion of homosexuals rather than how annoying that particular person is.

Personally I haven't said anything about common sense, and I've stated explicitly it isn't his fault, and assaulting someone is wrong, no matter who the victim is. They had every right to kick him out, but no right to cause physical harm. Basically, I think the homophobia is a whole separate matter. Which is, unfortunately, much harder to deal with. The fact that they felt comfortable saying these things in a public setting makes me doubt that they'll see the error of their ways. :(

Drole and DrPhil are right - I am blaming the victim, because in my opinion he did not use very good judgment. It still does not excuse what the fraternity men did, though.

If this gay guy was just walking down the street and out of the blue these fraternity guys attacked him, for the same reason, then yes, the fraternity men are at fault.


BUT!!! This gay guy walked into a private party in a private residence, looking out of place, and it started some trouble. I'm sure this gay guy knows the fraternity culture on this campus, so I don't think he so innocent as some of you are trying to make him out to be.

Oh yeah you just agreed with what sigmadiva said about common sense.

So, the fraternity men were wrong in gay bashing and assaulting him. Exactly. That other stuff is blurring the issue.

Oh wow.

I suppose I should have been more direct when agreeing. Again, I do not think it was his fault he was assaulted because it is not ok to assault someone. I obviously do not support anyone gay bashing.

Yes! Given the circumstance of this situation, this gay guy will need to accept his part of the blame.

He put himself in a situation that was potentially volatile, and it was. He walked into that party, no one forced him in there. It still does not excuse what they fraternity men did.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but I do want to point out that Emory is very different from other schools in the south. The fraternities are also nothing like what people think of when they think of "southern, white fraternities." I don't want to put down the SEC (I know that Emory isn't in the SEC, but it's an example of the southern white fraternity stereotype), but imagine a school like Alabama or Ole Miss with a chapter president sharing the same name as chapter president named in the article? Emory is a really cool place in the way it's like a little oasis in the south.

I went to a party at this very house at Emory. They don't necessarily have open parties, but they also don't usually have invite lists. We walked right in--but I suppose it was a big group of sorority girls. What kind of fraternity would turn them away? Haha

This whole story seems complicated and obviously some of the people involved acted extremely inappropriately. I feel bad for the kid involved, but I do wonder what he expected. Especially when he didn't know anybody there!

That's the thing though. He should've had an expectation he might be asked to leave. He shouldn't have had an expectation that he'd get his ass kicked. If they just said "Leave" and no more it wouldn't have been an issue. No one forced them to do/say what they did, either.

This gay guy.
This gay guy.
This gay guy.

How do you know that he knew that he was putting himself in a potentially volatile situation. That is presumptuous and superdramatic. He chose to go to a party at an off-campus fraternity house with some friends. Nothing ground breaking and wooptydoo there.

I don't believe that you really think it doesn't excuse what the fraternity men did because you are overstating what "this gay guy" did. That makes me think you are partially excusing what the fraternity men did. That may not be your intention but that is the outcome. Afterall, "this gay guy" knew better.

He knew his friends who were at the party. The article didn't paint him as some stray who wandered off the street.

Was this some kind of early Halloween/theme party?