Gay Emory Student Dragged From Frat Party
 

So much to say...so much to say.

While an off campus fraternity party is not "come one, come all," what they did to this student was discriminatory and inappropriate.

I'll save my rants about homophobes for another time. It does remind me of the episode of Queer as Folks when we were finally told why that student athlete was picking on Justin. It turns out Justin had given that athlete oral sex one day. The only way that athlete could explain away his good feelings was to gay bash and bully Justin.

What Dr. Phil said.

I don't think the kid was kicked out of the party based on his sexual orientation. The kid was acting obnoxious (he says people were "appreciating" his costume) and was not invited to the party. The escalation was completely uncalled for, but I would be very hesitant to say the kid was solely singled out and removed based on his sexual orientation.

The situation obviously had no need to get physical, and the guy is a douche for doing so. Homophobe? I'm not so sure.

Right now it's a he said, he said issue (with a comment from the kid's friend, hardly an unbiased witness). It just sounds like an issue of people being stupid and drunk at a party.

This was a private party at a private residence - they can throw out who they want.

They way the fraternity did it, and presumably why they did it is an issue that does need to be addressed.

But, at the end of they day I think the young gay man made a bad decision to do what he did. He called attention to himself in an environment that did not call for his outfit.

And, I really hate to stereotype here, but really, the gay guy should have used common sense. Southern White, male fraternities have a history of not openly accepting gays. What did the gay student expect? To be welcomed to the party with open arms???

I'm the first person to forget my manners and preach to homophobes, but I have to agree with you here. Of course, if it was solely a gay bashing, that's a different matter, but I'm doubting it was.

They called him a faggot after asking his orientation. That pretty much says all it needs to about their opinions on gay people.

Was he being a douche? Maybe.
Does being a douche deserve getting assaulted? No.
Should he have been kicked out? Quite probably. It's a private party.
Threatened, called a faggot for wearing a 'gay-ass hat', and then assaulted to a supposedly cheering crowd? No.

So, in short. What DrPhil said.

That's the only issue to address as far as I'm concerned. They can kick out whomever they choose but screaming homophobia makes it about more than picky fraternity men.

While this is an example of "victim" precipitation, this man's stupidity does not override the actions of the fraternity men.

And I hate it when people do this but I have to say that "common sense" is why some Black people used to not, and many still don't, attend some Southern white fraternity parties; and why some women don't go to collegiate fraternity parties at all. That was one of the big tips I was taught as a high school senior and college first year. Perceptions of common sense aside, let us not forget that these are college educated people we're talking about (some of whom are considered the upper echelon of some campuses and society once they graduate). No matter how ignorant GLOers sometimes behave, these are not thugs in an episode of Gang Wars.

DrPhil... sometimes I'm afraid you're my dad who got a GC account and I never knew about it :p

LOL. There is so much wrong with that. :p

The gay guy crashed a private party looking obnoxious, which irritated the fraternity members. The fact that he is gay just added fuel to an already lit fire.

I think the gay guy showed up to make a spectacle of himself. He just got his behind beat for doing it.

Hind sight is 20/20 but the best thing the fraternity could have done is to hire private security and let the private security escort him out.

I didn't mean to imply it's ok to kick someone's ass just because they're being annoying, but I was just saying it seems premature to assume it was a hate crime, when it seems to really be a bunch of guys getting offended and crossing the line from assholery into criminal behavior. Should they be punished? Of course, and they should be regardless of who the victim is as there was no reason to assault him.

It would be nice if they'd get over themselves and let go of obvious prejudices, but I doubt they will.

I don't believe anyone used the words "hate crime" here. You seemed to be excusing it on the grounds that it was not 'solely" a gay bashing. And blaming the victim, which is, you know, shitty.

Nope. I haven't even come close to implying that what they did was ok and have in very clear black and white said it wasn't. Nor have I blamed the victim for a thing. As I said in the post you quoted.

No, you said you didn't mean to. But what you previously said was: Where you, and sigmadiva, bordered on, if not actually crossed into blaming the victim.

Intent isn't magic, you still did it even if it was an accident.

So...again, I haven't blamed the victim, nor have I ever said it was ok. Glad we're on the same page.

LOL. Lime green jacket, red pants, and wizard hat is "obnoxious?" People have thin skin.

The account given in the article states that it was a recent alum who led the anti-gay expedition. Prior to the recent alum's heteromasculinity, people were simply being amused by the guy's outfit.

Private security or not, asking a person to leave does not have to include questions of sexual orientation and anti-gay comments. That's all.

You're such a moron.

Well, victim precipitation can border on victim blame depending on the crime and the actions of the victim.

Ranting about "common sense" and an annoying gay dude is along the lines of saying that he essentially waved his ass in the air for it to get kicked.

That isn't to say that he couldn't have been smarter to prevent dumbass fraternity men from doing dumbass stuff. But how unsmart he was is up for debate. Moreover, I don't care how dumb someone is, when you use homophobic slurs you are making it about your opinion of homosexuals rather than how annoying that particular person is.

Personally I haven't said anything about common sense, and I've stated explicitly it isn't his fault, and assaulting someone is wrong, no matter who the victim is. They had every right to kick him out, but no right to cause physical harm. Basically, I think the homophobia is a whole separate matter. Which is, unfortunately, much harder to deal with. The fact that they felt comfortable saying these things in a public setting makes me doubt that they'll see the error of their ways. :(

Drole and DrPhil are right - I am blaming the victim, because in my opinion he did not use very good judgment. It still does not excuse what the fraternity men did, though.

If this gay guy was just walking down the street and out of the blue these fraternity guys attacked him, for the same reason, then yes, the fraternity men are at fault.


BUT!!! This gay guy walked into a private party in a private residence, looking out of place, and it started some trouble. I'm sure this gay guy knows the fraternity culture on this campus, so I don't think he so innocent as some of you are trying to make him out to be.

Oh yeah you just agreed with what sigmadiva said about common sense.

So, the fraternity men were wrong in gay bashing and assaulting him. Exactly. That other stuff is blurring the issue.

Oh wow.

I suppose I should have been more direct when agreeing. Again, I do not think it was his fault he was assaulted because it is not ok to assault someone. I obviously do not support anyone gay bashing.

Yes! Given the circumstance of this situation, this gay guy will need to accept his part of the blame.

He put himself in a situation that was potentially volatile, and it was. He walked into that party, no one forced him in there. It still does not excuse what they fraternity men did.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but I do want to point out that Emory is very different from other schools in the south. The fraternities are also nothing like what people think of when they think of "southern, white fraternities." I don't want to put down the SEC (I know that Emory isn't in the SEC, but it's an example of the southern white fraternity stereotype), but imagine a school like Alabama or Ole Miss with a chapter president sharing the same name as chapter president named in the article? Emory is a really cool place in the way it's like a little oasis in the south.

I went to a party at this very house at Emory. They don't necessarily have open parties, but they also don't usually have invite lists. We walked right in--but I suppose it was a big group of sorority girls. What kind of fraternity would turn them away? Haha

This whole story seems complicated and obviously some of the people involved acted extremely inappropriately. I feel bad for the kid involved, but I do wonder what he expected. Especially when he didn't know anybody there!

That's the thing though. He should've had an expectation he might be asked to leave. He shouldn't have had an expectation that he'd get his ass kicked. If they just said "Leave" and no more it wouldn't have been an issue. No one forced them to do/say what they did, either.

This gay guy.
This gay guy.
This gay guy.

How do you know that he knew that he was putting himself in a potentially volatile situation. That is presumptuous and superdramatic. He chose to go to a party at an off-campus fraternity house with some friends. Nothing ground breaking and wooptydoo there.

I don't believe that you really think it doesn't excuse what the fraternity men did because you are overstating what "this gay guy" did. That makes me think you are partially excusing what the fraternity men did. That may not be your intention but that is the outcome. Afterall, "this gay guy" knew better.

He knew his friends who were at the party. The article didn't paint him as some stray who wandered off the street.

Was this some kind of early Halloween/theme party?

An alleged reply from the individual who threw the "Wizard" out.

This is a really good example as to why guest lists are a good idea. Because they had an open party and no guest list, this organization is now facing some pretty serious allegations regarding a now admitted "drunk asshole" picking some kid to toss out of a party. And naturally, there are two sets of facts, both from people who would clearly have strong motivation to lie.

Another lesson here is crisis communication. This chapter obviously doesn't have or know their crisis communication plan. In a case like this, the chapter president, or maybe even the chapter's legal counsel needs to be the sole point of contact for the media. The member in question definitely doesn't need to be posting his recollection of the events in the comments section of the newspaper's website. Mr. Smith and Sigma Nu are now married to the admission that Smith was a "drunk asshole" who was looking to pick someone different looking out of the crowd and toss him out just for the hell of it.

I doubt anyone is getting sued or going to jail, but Smith's brothers probably aren't going to be very happy with them since they're probably going to have to spend several hours in some sort of ridiculous diversity workshop to pay for their brother's drunken assholery which took probably all of 30 seconds to complete.

The chapter did have security at the party. That's a nice letter that Smith wrote.

There are some things about the tone of his article. I did chuckle at "I'm a nice guy" as though that prevents being a homophobe. Also, saying things because you're angry and/or drunk doesn't make someone not a potential homophobe.

I'm also amused by the "drunk frat guy with too much testosterone." Oh how heteromasculinity amuses me.

He shouldn't have written the letter. As Kevin said, dealing with the media is better left to someone other than the person involved, and probably to an actual adult. There's even more "he said/he said" now, and as Kevin pointed out, both parties have a motivation to lie/embellish/omit.

Were there some homophobic slurs used? I believe it. Was it as dramatic as Wizard-kid described? I doubt it. I'm glad that Smith did acknowledge the stupidity of the incident, but he loses points for IMO leaving a few details out. Which is why it shouldn't be him addressing the media.

That's exactly what this is. He said/he said. We, who were not there, have no way of knowing the truth of what happened. This whole thing could have been blown out of proportion.
Gay kid gets thrown out of a party he wasn't invited to? Great way to get attention is to say it was because he was gay.
Fraternity boy actually does make gay-hate remarks? Cover it up by lying.

We have no way of knowing what actually happened. Either story could be plausible.

My thought is, if you don't want someone in your party, don't let them in the door in the first place.

Coming from a media background, I think it was very bad form, bordering unethical, to publish his name without knowing the other side of the story. There were no charges filed, no police called and no arrests made.

The name of the accuser should have been published. If you're not going to pursue criminal charges, it's not fair to hide behind a veil of anonymity and hurl accusations out.

Like I've said before, both parties are in the wrong, the fraternity alum more so for turning the altercation physical. But from the information that has been revealed, it seems like it was just a case of drunk kids being drunk.

These aren't actual adults? The '10 alum in question is probably 21 or older.

In reading the article, it looks like there's a consensus about the assault and slurs that were used. The disagreement is over why it happened and whether it was somewhat justified.

I chuckled at the fact that his name is Adam Smith.

Guest lists help, but not always. If this had been a guest list party, and the wizard kid would have crashed it and they threw him out, most likely the results would have been the same. Outsiders (including the police) don't care and don't understand that guest lists are a RM precaution. They see it as another example of Greek snobbery/elitism.

That is how he is referred to in the article. If they had given his actual name, then I would have used his name. I think that by stating his sexual orientation (which is his business, btw), it just made the whole story more sensational, like others have said.

How do we know the opposite is not true too? I really doubt this young gay man just innocently walked into the party without knowing the 'vibe' of the fraternity, or the fraternity culture on that campus in general. Like I said, I don't think he is as innocent as you are trying to make him to be.

No, it does not excuse what the fraternity men did. They were wrong for escalating the incident. But, I also think given the nature of how the situation occurred, they gay guy has to shoulder some of the blame too. If not legally, then at least morally.

Innocent of what? Innocent for what?

The way I've read your posts, it seems to me as if you are trying to say this gay guy unknowingly walked in on this off campus fraternity party without knowing the hosts, the attire, who else might be there, the reason for the party.

I mean come on. Before anyone of sound mind is going to go to a party, they are going to 'check it out first' to see if it worth going.

So, I am trying to say is that he is not innocent of not knowing.