Several thoughts:

(1) I disagree with the idea that whatever the AOIIs did must be awful, since they got 2 years of probation. Keep in mind that they will still be participating in recruitment & having social activities, so "2 year probation" sounds to me kind of like "slap on the wrist."

(2) My money is going towards the scenario where some wayward AOII did something of her own accord. Why else would AOII bring it to everyone else's attention? The sister may not have even realized what she was doing was considered hazing.

(3) Why is the statement "a traditionally white sorority" in this article?

Wow. I finally read all the comments.

I also wondered why the CW mentioned it was a "traditionally white sorority". To me, that has nothing to do with the rest of the content in the article... then again I don't know anything about that area and if that is how they refer to their GLOs.

True. I guess it's possible they (a) have a large contingent of traditionally NON-white GLOs on campus and (b) enough students not affiliated with GLOs so the distinction would be necessary.

Still, you'd think it'd read, "On a campus with 13 GLOs, AOII is one of 2 traditionally white sororities...." or "AOII is one of 20 traditionally white sororities on campus." There weren't any qualifiers, which is what makes it, well, bad journalism.

I think it's related to two things

(1) partially a regional thing

(2) partially the anti-Greek CW staff trying to highlight the issue of race in the Greek community (which of course should be addressed, but has, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with this particular issue).

If you read the comments below you'll see some of them asking the same question.

I have no problem with AOPi being termed "traditionally white" IF Kappa Alpha Psi had been termed "traditionally black". The distinction was obvious. I went to Bama and the CW is anti-Greek and loves to stir up racial issues.

I just wanted to say that I support my AOII sisters at Alpha Delta Chapter in coming forward with this event. I hope they can help to educate their chapter and the Greek Community there about hazing to prevent further incidents to occur.

I, too, think it took a lot for the AOII's to stand up and say "Hey, we did this, it was wrong, and we want to acknowledge and fix it." Kudos to them.

That is perhaps one of the worst-written college news stories I've ever read. My Journalism 201 (intro to Journalistic writing) Prof would have ripped it to shreds! And I thought our student newspaper had an anti-Greek stance...

I would like to look for the best in this situation, but IMO there was probably an ulterior motive for confessing. Fortunately sorority hazing is not a big problem at my campus, but for the one or two organizations that do, the ONLY reasons they would confess would be to avoid a harsher punishment. My guess is that in this case either

(1) they knew someone witnessed the hazing and figured they were going to get turned in anyway, so they hoped that by confessing before they could get turned in, the sentence would be lightened . . . or

(2) they knew that if they confessed to what had happened straight away, they would be spared a more in-depth investigation by either the school or their HQ, which would probably unearth more hazing.

I hope that neither of these is the case at Bama and that the AOPis truly did it because they felt it was the right thing to do. But I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't the case. And Bama's reputation as a campus where sorority hazing is an issue doesn't help them much here either . . .

I could see a chapter confessing to something if it was an incident that was not condoned by the exec board or chapter that a few members took on and did completely on their own and then the chapter didn't know how to deal with those few members or the incident.

Dee

That's what I"m thinking actually happened.