1. "True stories" and examples clearly aren't your strengths.

2. I don't think you even know what your point is anymore.

Shh, it's going over your head. She knows what it's like better than we do.

^^^ :(

This chapter should be shut down for hazing. That's an easy one. They forced their pledges to do things, which in Ruiz' case, profoundly affected his health and could have even resulted in pneumonia or death. Funny how folks want to fixate on the discrimination thing when there were apparently a group of pledges who were subjected to some pretty bad physical hazing, which is not only probably against the student code of conduct, but also probably criminal.

The discrimination? Reading the article, sure, he had to check a box, and he lied. That does go to character, and would be grounds in my mind for termination, but that's not apparently what happened. Ruiz dropped voluntarily because he was being hazed, and by his own admission, not because he was bisexual and being discriminated against.

As far as the actual incident, it's not even clear from the article that members of the fraternity were the ones harassing him. He was apparently on stage and was harassed by members of the audience. I don't really see how it goes to the fraternity, except that it's obvious that the student body had a general awareness that this kid was bisexual and some chose to express that awareness in a generally immature manner. The article does a terrible job describing who was in the audience. The culpability of the organization turns on that. And frankly, if that was the extent of this so-called bullying, this seems to be much ado about nothing, and a huge overreaction, most likely precipitated by recent events and increased public awareness about bullying of LGBT folks.

And if these weren't members of the fraternity who did this, I can see in a roundabout way how someone, especially a not-very-bright kid, might rationalize that the fraternity was being punished because of Ruiz' sexual orientation.

At any rate, the hazing charges here are MUCH more serious than the discrimination allegations. The fraternity is obviously culpable, and obviously should be closed. The article is unclear as to the fraternity's involvement in this discrimination, so condemning them seems a tad premature.

True story #1 was not directed at you. ;)

I do. I can keep up. I don't have to address every issue though.

Dang you for locking your PMs. :D

I'm just waiting for ShawnMack to start sending out creepy, "Imma lock you in my basement"-type PMs before he gets banned. Perhaps I'll turn them on again after that. Batten down the hatches, and that. That is not to say that those who do not turn off their PMs deserve the creepy, "Imma lock you in my basement"-type PMs.

Also, Kevin, you are not following the script.

You'd think the gay slurs would be enough.

Come on now, you know better than that.

No I don't, I'm the rebel without a cause who doesn't care about anyone but myself.

/and a person I haven't spoken to since 2007

Are you looking for a congratulations or something?

Just as my comment about majority sympathy went over your head and you thought you were going to school me on the Civil Rights Movement?

What is also going over your head is that this young did come forward in an attempt to impact some change. That's why we're reading that article and typing in this thread. DUHHHH.

Yeah attending is common even if the droppee left on horrible terms. But to be on stage is different than just attending. That's where the article gets a bit confusing.

We read about the hazing. I don't consider discrimination claims to be less important than hazing allegations. This article and this thread were simply presented as being more about more than "another hazing incident." Dropping because of hazing and then discussing the homophobia doesn't mean that the homophobia is the lesser of the two evils. Schools and national headquarters are fully capable of investigating more than one charge and holding chapters and individuals accountable for all of it.

We also stated that it isn't clear exactly what went on at the probate show and who was making the comments. However, the comments were made within the context of the fraternity so it isn't far fetched that it goes back to the fraternity. I've been to tons of coming out shows and the audience pretty much does what they consider to be appropriate for them to do. In the instances where audiences have done something that the fraternity or sorority would deem inappropriate, it was the task of the fraternity or sorority to restore respect and keep the peace if at all possible (which sometimes results in a fight).

I figure the fraternity in this instance provided the setting for him to be harassed for his sexual orientation and intentionally let it go from there. We shall see if that is the case.

I prefer to react to conduct rather than speech. It's more telling about motive/intent/etc. By his conduct, we know that he stuck with the organization despite being hazed. We can at least infer by the audience's conduct that he wasn't booted from the organization because of his orientation, nor by his own words is that why he left. The only actual discriminatory incident which took place with regard to the fraternity was a member--presumably not even an officer, maybe even a pledge, who said something stupid, but that is an individual saying something stupid, not the organization taking a discriminatory stance.

Sure they are. But on the facts we have, some of the conclusions being made here, as I've said are a tad premature. They're dead because of hazing. Ain't no question. I wouldn't be upset if someone filed criminal charges and made an example out of them.

I'm sure you've been to more probate shows than I have. Since you say you've been to at least one, then you have. "It isn't far fetched" though, still amounts to an assumption. Isn't it better though, to know all of the facts before we start accusing entire fraternities of being homophobic?

Don't several organizations attend probate shows? It seems like the reason he was up in front of everyone was because of his status with his organization, not because he was bisexual. Do the initiates remain in the audience during a probate show? If the people making those gestures were members of the organization, isn't it a fairly safe assumption that the paper would have included that very important detail?

Either it didn't happen the way folks are assuming here or the paper is just godawful bad at recounting events.

Conduct is also what the rest of us are reacting to. You simply have a different interpretation of the conduct than we do.

They are also dead because of a sexual orientation question on their "application." There's nothing premature about conclusions based on that.

And why is it okay to presume that they are dead on hazing allegations that are still allegations but it is premature to make statements regarding anything else?

No and this is not about "entire fraternities."

This is also not a courtroom.

His status was that of droppee. We already stated that we do not know why he was up there. He doesn't have to be up there because of his sexual orientation for his mistreatment to be because of his sexual orientation.

No.

Or I see the bad moon rising. That much really doesn't matter. We do know the hazing allegations and the claim that there is a sexual orientation question on the "application." He could've been greeted with a badge of honor at the probate show and the rest of the allegations wouldn't go away.