It is very concerning to me that we seem to have this emerging trend around the country where if one group does something stupid, all are made to suffer. I am hoping national offices and conferences are taking note of this, because over time, this sort of overreaction is what will force Greek organizations into operating off-campus, completely outside of the regulatory oversight of the schools.

I don't think in any of these cases, these types of actions have occurred after one incident. There is one incident that tips the scales after a whole bunch of other incidents.

Well even two incidents from different houses.. or in a 20-chapter conference, 4 incidents.. whatever. In all of these cases, the vast majority of the chapters on campus had no demonstrable issues and yet were still punished for things completely beyond their control.

I believe it was Arizona who suspended all houses and had them reapply as if they were applying for new recognition. I think that's okay. In fact, that's part of what my chapter does every single year in a way. We deliver extensive reports to the school and to our HQ regarding our candidate process, risk management.

I understand the Greek Life office is in touch with us and knows who we are, but I suspect these decisions to place the entire system on probation come from higher ups who don't know that there is a huge difference between the various chapters. I'd like to think that if we play by the rules and manage ourselves well, we can avoid the adverse consequences of other people's stupidity, but maybe not.

I wouldn't look for the ban to stick permanently. Schools with long established Greek Life, know a large part of alumni funding comes from Greek alumni. They need that funding. They also need Greeks to help promote their campuses to prospective freshmen. When money starts drying up, they will look to bring Greek Life back...or maybe back from the underground.

I think a lot of these cases with Greeks anyway are due to lack of FIPG education. Sororities may often depend on the fraternities for their parties, but in so doing, they forget that they are violating their own organizations policies by partaking in risky events such as these.

I don't think our organizations do enough across the board with individual chapters in promoting risk policy from a safety point of view vs. a "we have this policy in hopes we won't get sued" perspective.

I don't think chapter risk education across the board does enough to show our members real life/true examples of court cases/lawsuits that have happened as a result of these types of events and education with how far liability can be traced. I think NPC's Something of Value (SOV) Program is an excellent start, but there needs to be a follow up program for the campuses that it comes to. Lack of a follow up program is where the program fails. I would love for the NIC to do something similar with their groups. I've been to four SOVs myself--lack of FIPG knowledge and above things I mentioned are what I see regularly. Every SOV I've been to has mentioned that there are a growing number of law firms that are specializing in the suing of Greek organizations. This is another reason why risk education is so important.

I think lack of active and present advisors (and lack of knowledge on the advisors' parts on risk policy) are also contributors to some of these issues.

A lot of the issues stem from campus cultures, cultures that won't change with the elimination of Greek Life, but education is key to reducing incidents. Nothing will ever 100% eliminate risk and all incidents though.

I wouldn't either.

Right. In many cases, advisers don't even know much about FIPG, which is crazy. I'm sure the Greek Life Office knows what FIPG is. And really, the cost for a major university to be sued is hard to quantify since they typically have a general counsel's office staffed with attorneys who handle this sort of thing.. and really, it's tough to make a case for the GLO to be at fault in this these cases and it's even tougher to hold the university liable, so I think there is something of an overabundance of caution being exercised here.

I am just going to assume in this case that the Greek Life office wasn't really consulted very much in this decision and I really wouldn't expect provosts and deans and such to know what FIPG is.

I think we underestimate our collegian members. I think it's okay to tell them that the reason we no longer haze is because financially, we can't afford to, rather than "it is immoral and against our values." That's a tough argument to buy when your parents have such great stories about the good 'ol days, which somehow, they survived.

[/quote]

+1

[/QUOTE]

I think when it comes to hazing the conversation is a little different than that of unregistered/unsafe policies/alcohol, etc. Hazing is certainly risky and lawsuits can come from those same as other violations, but to your point, when it comes to hazing I think the education on why we don't do that should be both risk of lawsuit/financial reasons and it does not support the values and ritual of our organizations--because both are the truth!

Making pledgeship so easy that becoming a member with all its demands is a rude jolt and often results in self-termination is something that organizations can't afford, either.

I was NOT hazed, but you knew for that pledge time, you were going to have to work and it was worth it in the end. It seems that reassurance isn't there for a lot of members anymore, or is backwards.

The other issue is that the turnover is so fast on college campuses...you have to continuously educate members because after a couple years, no one is aware of a major one-time educational effort or one-time program. I also notice a certain amount of "we're still going to do this, but we'll just be sneakier about it," instead of real change, and inappropriate practices that can sneak in and quickly become part of the culture...because of the turnover, no one realizes that this risky/borderline tradition was recently started by a peer with poor compliance behavior. Although they know it's inappropriate, they think there's some tradition involved that they're powerless to change. Underlying all of it is age, developing decision-making skills (which may be compromised by alcohol use), groupthink, feelings of invincibility, etc., which really underscore the need for proactive advisors who have a strong rapport with members and the respect of the chapter

Yes!

I'm gonna go ahead and say that when even one fraternity on campus has a pattern of gang raping women, it's fair to suspend activities across the system while everything is investigated.

What on earth does that have to do with the WVU incident? Did I miss something?

I think DBB is using that to illustrate the reasoning behind "punishing" all for the behaviors of a few, especially if the behaviors are indicative of a pattern.

So much this. I currently advise an active who is very strong in her role. Her predecessor was very weak in the same role. The talk right now in the chapter is that they want my current advisee to be followed by someone who will behave in the way her predecessor did. It is so easy to undo the hard work that has taken so much blood, sweat, and tears.

Sorry for the double post, but I have to agree and say that especially when said gang raping is not so secret in the Greek system. I believe that in such a case, not saying anything and not supporting the victims is just about as bad as the action taken.

No, I'm an idiot and don't know the difference between WVU and UVA.