It is my opinion that the intent of that sticky was to discourage and prohibit posts like "I heard the Alphas at FAMU are hazing their pledges" - posts we used to get with regularity.

The original post links to an article from a media source, rather than originating from a poster.

It was not my intention to post anything that is not from a credible source. I did not make up the story but read it from a newspaper article. The article says the chapter is being investigated. I have posted other links that say other chapters are being investigated.

Dear Sen,

thank you for the GC "history" lesson/explanation, and I will take that into consideration.

The news source citation leads to an anonymous letter in an article in a university student newspaper. I'm frankly surprised that they even published it, or got their hands on it in the first place, as this should be an internal investigation, should it not? However, I'm not familiar with the workings of their institution. I do know that at the University of Arizona, nothing would be published or public until the DOS and/or Office of Greek Life had completed their investigation(s) (see my thread started this morning about a fraternity closure at my campus).

kind regards,
AzTheta

But come on Flirt, an anonymous letter is not a credible source and none of the allegations have been proved yet. It sounds too much like the anonymous writer had an ax to grind with the chapter, and sent this letter. Most of the chapters I have worked with have no problem going over their advisors' heads to talk to the Province President, so I too have a hard time believing that the anonymous writer is a leader in the chapter and had no idea that she could contact her advisor, her Province President or a National Council Officer.

It would have been more prudent of you to have posted something factual(and I don't consider an anonymous letter credible or factual), rather than what you chose to post. If any of these allegations are proven to be real, then by all means post it, if that floats your boat.

What I find most interesting about the credibility of the article is the editor's note: a staff member is a former ZTA.

Interesting, indeed! Did the the University release the letter to the student newspaper or was it obtained by other means?

It is news. Get off her back.

She didn't post the letter. She posted a link to an article that discusses the letter.

Yep. And that article specifically says that the paper hasn't been able to independently verify anything in the letter.

Whether the paper should have reported on the letter, or posted it (in redacted form at least) is another question. But it did, and it reports that an investigation is indeed happening. I think that makes it appropriate for this forum.

it is conjecture.

Agreed. :rolleyes:

Interesting how the posts about whether or not Flirt erred in posting the link greatly outnumber the posts about the original topic.

Yep.

Anonymous letters are a bunch of hooey.

Also agreed. This forum has always been a posting place for news. Once something is published/printed in a paper, it's news, whether or not the source the paper got the information from is as credible as some may like.

Regardless of the credibility of the accusations, the chapter is under investigation. That isn't in doubt, their national organization has confirmed it (unless someone is claiming that the student newspaper is just making that up). One of the paper's editors has been questioned by the Dean of Students. The University is treating this as legit. That makes it news, like it or not.

The thread title is that ZTA is under investigation. That is true. Nothing about this thread in any way violates the moderator's suggestion for forum use. It's not conjecture. And it's certainly not the OP's fault that the school is taking the letter seriously enough to open an investigation! Blame the paper and the school if you like, but don't blame OP for posting a link to an actual news story.

I agree 100%. Most all the threads in "Risk Management" have linked articles. Many of these are articles written prior to any guilty findings and could damage the group in question. The person who posted this did nothing wrong. Don't shoot the messenger.

"Former" being the word of most interest to me. Why "former"? Could she have an axe to grind? Inquiring minds want to know!