Kevin, the problem with that logic is (the sharing of differing opinions aside) it is easy for you as a white man to say that a chapter being racially derogatory is worth no more than an apology and racial sensitivity training.

"Hazing" doesn't always harm people in terms of safety and jeopardizing lives. Sometimes "hazing" only hurts feelings. Sometimes "hazing" only offends. Sometimes "hazing" does neither but the "powers that be" decide that the behavior is inappropriate despite the people undergoing the "hazing" being perfectly fine or even excited about what they are experiencing.

So, if schools and GLOs can punish chapters for "hazing" regardless of the full context, schools and GLOs should also be able to punish chapters for being racially derogatory (even if every member of that racial and ethnic group is not offended).

What the punishment should be will vary but apology and racial sensitivity training may not suffice. I refuse to believe college students with any half of a brain are unaware that a Taco Tuesday that includes stereotypical language and attire would be a good idea. White privilege and overall stupidity can be blinding but it is up to them to get their heads out of their asses. As we have seen with racially themed parties over the past 5 years, harsh penalties are required to buffer the over-and-over-again stupidity. Many of these people will still be bigoted idiots at the end of the day but some punishments have to be about retribution and not rehabilitation.

I'm glad you differentiate between the hazing where people are physically harmed and hazing where the only harm is mental. Both can be unlawful in many states. I can tell you that in at least my state, I think we have a decent statute:

https://studentconduct.okstate.edu/hazing

It doe specify mental health, but I have only heard of very harsh physical abuse ever being prosecuted. Hazing is already a crime, let the criminal justice system work it out. As for just being offensive, the criminal justice system can't always work it out because we have a First Amendment right to be offensive and insensitive.

I grew up a white kid with two professional parents in an affluent suburb attending mostly private school. I will not have you lecture me about how oblivious people with a privileged background can be to things you label as common sense. :D

You talk about "harsh penalties," but harsh penalties for crimes which only result in someone being offended should not exist. You cannot use harsh penalties to stamp out a culture of racial obliviousness.

Education is what is needed, not retribution.

You missed the point. If "hazing" can include "hurt feelings" or "you enjoyed this experience but it is still technically 'hazing'" then it isn't a huge leap for chapters to be punished for demographic insensitivity.

You come from a particular type of environment therefore you know that diversity training and racial sensitivity training mean nothing. If these white people cared enough they would educate themselves.

What is the goal of punishment? Deterrance?

Well it's worked nicely so far, right?

No, the goal of punishment has transitioned to retribution. Most research on crime and overall human behavior has found a weak or statistically insignificant deterrent effect of punishment. The average person doesn't believe she/he will get caught therefore the quickness or harshness of the punishment means little to nothing.

Just like many hazing punishments have transitioned to being more about retribution than about deterrence. Many schools and GLOs across councils and conferences have learned that the punishments often teach chapters how to better hide the behavior rather than abstain from the behavior altogether. Even putting people's names and chapter's names on websites has not stopped many people and chapters from engaging in the behavior.

Attempting to use the threat of punishment or actual punishment to deter white people from hosting these parties is as silly and pointless as diversity/racial sensitivity training.

Surely a lawyer knows that punishment can have purposes other than deterrence. In this case, it's important to signal to people of color that they are valued on the campus and that the institution will stand up for them against acts of racial aggression.

In this case, I think the retribution is doing the educating. This chapter and everyone who has heard about their situation just learned that this type of event is a bad idea for reasons X, Y, and Z. Whether they will use that knowledge going forward is anybody's guess.

Wearing sombreros without the intent to offend is "racial aggression"? That sure is a moving target. I'd call blowing up churches and burning crosses and lynching racial aggression. Having a Taco Tuesday and donning a sombrero and maybe a fake mustache? I'd say not so much.

The government (public universities) shouldn't be in the business of restricting expression to protect anyone's feelings. If this group nationally wants to police itself or offended groups want to make it known during recruitment time that here's a group which does these offensive things, fine. Getting the government involved, even if that's just the Greek Life Adviser or Dean of Students is absurd.

These ladies are facing pretty extreme possibly fatal sanctions for what can only be described as offending a racial minority. I'd almost label what is happening here as PC terrorism.

If this was a private university? Fine.
If the school newspaper wants to run an editorial condemning the group? Fine.
If the ADPI HQ wants to shut down or sanction the chapter? Fine.
If the Dean of Students is going to use the college's resources and authority to penalize the offensive conduct? No.

The ACLU lays it out better than I ever could.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus

^^^ That logic is why we can look forward to racially themed parties sponsored by GLO chapters. Halloween is an especially fun time.

But don't mind me. I'm just a PC Terrorist who believes in some form of sanction for "nothing more than" offending a minority group.

Actually, I think it's worked extremely well. How common was this type of party in the 80s? In the 60s? How much does it happen now? It hasn't been eradicated, but there's probably been a 95% drop -- maybe even 99%*. So it seems to me that campaigns and rules barring ethnic themes/costumes do work.

*And there were far worse party themes back in the day. One of the SEC NPC chapters posted a retro picture from the 50s or early 60s of a rush party, and you could just barely see the sign welcoming freshmen to the "XYZ Plantation."

I don't remember parties like this in the 80s.* Not saying they didn't happen, and maybe it was lack of social media where every little aspect of life is publicized around the globe, but in my experience at least these types of parties weren't really that common back then. We were too busy having toga parties and the like.


* Not including "life on the plantation" parties. Those I definitely remember.

In America, you aren't entitled to see someone punished because they offend you. If so, the Westboro Baptist folks would be in prison.

Kappa Alpha Order did (maybe still does) the Old South formals where folks dress in antebellum garb. They flew (and maybe still fly) the Confederate flag, etc.

You are leaping.

In that case, schools and GLOs need to revise quite a few of their policies and procedures. They violate our Riiiiiiiiiiiiights.

Nobody is punishing individual members; they are punishing the group.