Ohio State University suspends 37 Fraternities
 

From earlier tonight...

http://nbc4i.com/2017/11/16/ohio-sta...ion-of-hazing/

At least they didn't kick out the sororities.

Exactly my thought! Hooray for one of these universities finally making a distinction between IFC and NPC on this issue. Also, thankfully for identifying social events vs. chapter meetings, elections/officer transition etc. While some may push the envelope and call a kegger a chapter meeting, as was discussed on another thread, this approach gives chapters an opportunity to continue to function reasonably while giving the university time to establish a time out relating to inappropriate behavior. There is a distinction!

This is the most well thought out approach we have seen from the universities rolling out these recent sanctions.

11 groups were being investigated.

So that justifies the school to shut down the 26 which weren't being investigated? This is some bullshit.

So none of these sororities, either individual members or as a unit, ever consumed alcohol or drugs illegally at the fraternity houses (or anywhere for that matter) or turned a blind eye to hazing?

When a university by these sorts of actions strengthens a "bad boys/good girls" dichotomy, it just drives a larger wedge between men and women, which these days is certainly large enough.

Once again, we both agree, but the mass are the ones who suffer and here we go again!:o

Can the term "codependent enabler" be applied to an organization like a sorority?

The trouble is that per group, YMMV, which is why these bans are completely ridiculous. There are likely sororities who are more guilty of this risky behavior than some fraternities which were penalized. It's almost like the President's justification for his travel ban--we need to stop the activity so we can figure out what the problem is. We know what the problem is. We know the complexities of solving the problem. Taking a one or two month hiatus doesn't get us any closer to the answer.

Absolutely. I'll never forget a post I read here or somewhere where a sorority member said that she was so sorry the XYZ fraternity had closed because it was her place of drinking. She wasn't sorry the guys had lost their brotherhood, or that hazing or rule violations had occurred,she was just sorry she no longer had a place to drink. As long as NPC groups keep thinking that this is okay, empowering women is a pipe dream.

This makes me think a lot about the chapters of NPC sororities that speak out about their inability to host parties in their houses. I don't believe that girls are inherently more responsible or mature than boys in college, but it's difficult to narrow down the responsible parties in these situations when girls are told they can't have alcohol in their houses, can't host parties, etc. Obviously no national HQ is going to condone underage drinking, but by having realistic and equal expectations of both fraternities and sororities, perhaps we could prevent some of these situations.

Back when George, Tom and Ben were signing the Declaration of Independence, we had parties in our small, unofficial houses. We thought it would be awfully rude to just trash the guys' houses all the time without a reciprocal event or two and what's more, it was nice to know we didn't have to deal with any individuals we found problematic. Women feel that in a different way than men and I don't want to turn guys who are my friends into policemen.

I'm afraid, y'all. Really afraid. These suspensions are coming fast and furious.

Have there been any announcements from the NPC, NIC, etc.? I'm looking for some type of statement from our leadership, some move to action. We need some acknowledgment that we are here to stay and we won't turn our backs on the members we've lost and how these tragedies happened.

From a top of the org standpoint, I support the wait and see approach. First, you don't know whether some other organization will choose to make a stand here. Second, you don't really know how this will play out and perhaps it's best to learn what we can and let the chapters and national organizations have a more thoughtful approach next time. We can also work with our FSL offices and administrations to help them develop more effective approaches here.

I am sure that our leadership is communicating amongst themselves. I'm just wondering what's happening and when we'll see some type of response.

Per our chapter advisor, we are not one of the 11.

Recently did some stat-finding on the topic of deaths due to hazing (reportedly, not all are confirmed to be results of hazing).

84% of individual deaths occurred at public institutions (a vast majority are flagship or land grant institutions) from 2010-2017. (69% of students attended a public institution in 2015). 78% of hazing incidents resulting in death since 1980 occurred at those same institutions.

The rate of deaths due to hazing w/in fraternities or sororities has essentially doubled from the 20th century to the 21st Century, with 22 from 2000-2010 and 19 so far from 2010-2017 (vs. 12-13 in the 1970's, 1980's & 1990's)- but this could be due to increased reporting?

Thoughts:
1. Could you imagine if someone requested a suspension of public colleges/universities due to the higher risk facing students there?

2. Do universities share any burden in addressing their acceptance standards? (after all, they admit the students who commit these acts)

3. Given the increases in alcohol-free policies among fraternities since 2000, the increase in spending on anti-hazing/substance abuse education recently (millions of dollars per year), etc. Isn't it strange that the number of dangerous hazing incidents has increased rather than decreased, and does that mean that these approaches (hazing laws, fraternity banning of substances & education) are ineffective?

4. If that (#3) is true, why are those still our only solutions to this issue?

Just questions to ponder. I obviously don't think public schools would (or should) be banned. I'm definitely in favor of #2.

As for #3 & #4, I think fraternities need to rethink how they insure chapters in bulk & the effect that has on students taking policies created to keep insurance costs down seriously. (vs. if the students/alumni boards had to negotiate those policies themselves)

A university is responsible. Capable university presidents feel responsible for everything that happens on or off campus if it involves a university organization, regardless of whether or not the university can be held legally culpable.

Targeting the causes of hazing is difficult - though I suspect 99 percent has something to do with "tradition" and the deaths attributable to hazing seem to be mostly as the result of binge drinking. But from the perspective of a hypothetical university president faced with the problems that have resulted in the issuance of a blanket suspension,he/she is not going to spend a lot of time studying the issue. They have to act pretty fast.

Though I do not necessarily advocate for this approach, I'll throw the following out there for people to comment on. At many universities, there is a noticeable difference between fraternity average GPAs and sorority average GPAs. Though this would not be a popular move, a quick fix would be to raise the GPA requirement to join a fraternity.

This would eliminate the problem or (more politely) the struggling students from the mix. The bad student/fraternity bias is likely prevalent at universities where, for example, the average GPA for sororities may be a 3.2 and for fraternities a 2.3. At these schools, fraternities have an image problem. The faculty sees them as a collection of the school's worst students who contribute very little and place the university's reputation at risk every time they throw a party.

To be effective, there would have to be more of a serious corrective sanction for failing to meet minimum GPA requirements other than just a reduction of certain social activities. For example, there could be (on an individual basis) a minimum GPA to join and a minimum GPA to remain active.

This type of change could be done quickly and easily. It would also likely be popular with the faculty. (Though business people at the national fraternities may not like raising GPA requirements if it reduces overall membership numbers, they should anticipate that this may be the type of simple, sweeping change being looked at on some campuses.) If I were them, I would hope that it stops there.

Here are some other simple, sweeping changes:

Ban all activities involving alcohol where underage students are present.

Require faculty adviser to be present at and report on all social events.

Require mandatory reporting by all students of any activity that can be possibly be considered hazing.

Ban fraternities and sororities from campus.

This is a problem which cannot be regulated out of existence. If I had to put my finger on what the issue here is, I'd say the TFM culture is to blame here. There are various influences online and in the media at large which influence our members as to what the "frat" lifestyle is usually far before they rush. When I was an active 15ish years ago, the main media influence on our members as to what the frat lifestyle was was a then 20-30 year old movie, Animal House which was clearly satirical.

This is the kind of thing we're dealing with now.

https://totalfratmove.com/the-frat-r...lcome-in-heat/

So we've moved from that satirical portrayal of the fun loving guys next door who binge drink and prank the administration to having these portrayals of these alpha male/aggro/blind drunk/hyper sexualized characters that every 19-20 year old kid wants to be exactly like.

And it's great because if your fraternity portrays itself as sufficiently fratty, you're going to sign these kids in droves and then figure out a way to manage their expectations after the fact. These kids want to be hazed, they want to binge drink and they expect to have those opportunities. The chapters which manage those expectations in a safe way are going to be fine, but those which glorify this sort of behavior are going to have problems.

Eliminating students from fraternities or fraternities from campus is only going to redirect this behavior to less regulated venues, so that's not a good answer. Schools might want to try to do a better job selecting which nationals they want on campus as some provide better resources and oversight than others.

Agree generally. And TFM does present a very unrealistic picture of fraternities.

Other than eliminate fraternities entirely, another approach that an administration may take is to start over. Kick out all the old fraternities with hazing traditions and bring in new ones that have never been on campus. I recently looked at the Greek life website of my undergraduate university. There are only two fraternities left from when I attended. Most have been there less than a decade and the university still has serious trouble with most of them as well.

I agree with that and have on many occasions offered that bit of advice to anyone who would listen. The chapters which are continually being shuttered and reopened are old chapters. The reason they can't stay open is because alumni can be a negative influence. I have some perspective here because I am a founding member of my chapter which was not a recolonization. In hindsight, we founders put some pretty serious structural impediments in to prevent hazing and it has worked. We also have lots of local alumni including myself who make their presence known.

I dunno. I think when left to their own devices, any group of people in that age group is gonna become Lord of the Flies. And I think those who will not are rare. How do you get those who won't haze all into the same organization, and make them strong enough to transcend campus culture?

YESSSS!!!!

This is EXACTLY what my son's freshman dorm roommate said last year. The fraternity he pledged lost their charter before he was even initiated. He got what he signed up for, but it didn't last long, of course.

Organizational culture can always transcend campus culture if the leadership and the advisory team focus on it. Especially, with this generation, they need to know the "why" behind policies. We can probably meet with our active body and determine that if these guys supervised traditional pledging, they'd be fine. There would be absolutely no deaths.

But can we say that for every group of actives your organization will have for the next 20 years? I doubt anyone is taking that bet.

One of the greatest things about working with undergraduate groups is that if you can get them to buy in to an idea for one year and continue buying in for three more, you have reset the culture. You just have to be on guard for outside influences like TFM.

I hear you.

I think this has a huge impact on certain chapters (of both fraternities and sororities). I've seen it first-hand. Even if chapters have turned over and want to change for the better, there are enough alumni around who want to ensure things remain the same. And this doesn't only apply to hazing (see: 2013 University of Alabama sorority recruitment).

We're organizations built on ritual and tradition, but there are some alumni that convince collegiates that the binge drinking and hazing practices of the last couple decades are the traditions that shouldn't die.

And if collegiates are convinced that ending these practices will suddenly make them "uncool" or change their social status on campus, there are so many more chances nowadays for that to happen and for word to rapidly spread across campus. Social media and sites like Greekrank propel these chapters into the spotlight and can quickly alter their ranking in their campus social hierarchy.

Sadly, these rankings are generally determined by other collegiate Greek members who sometimes (frequently?) encourage poor behavior.

I saw this when I was involved in a hearing to suspend a chapter at my undergraduate campus. The campus had adopted FIPG best practices as policy, which included stuff like no hard liquor or communal alcohol sources, wristbands for attendees over 21, strict adherence to a guest list, etc. But there was no incentive for fraternities to follow these requirements, because they weren't enforced until something happened and the fraternity went through campus conduct proceedings. As long as all the other chapters were collectively violating policies in the name of "being cool" and providing alcohol to underage students, no individual chapter felt like they could make the change without being completely ostracized.

Same thing for hazing-as long as the "cool" chapters were doing it, chapters that changed their practices risked being judged "uncool".

Part of the reason I struggle with Greek Life as a profession is the turning of a blind eye to dangerous chapter practices in the name of safeguarding one's liability. We can't go to houses and bust the door down to catch alcohol violations we presume are likely happening, but that means the only policy enforcement is reactive to negative events. And I wouldn't want the liability of being the party police, but I don't see another way to get undergrads to follow policies that restrict their parties besides holding them accountable to policy before a tragedy happens.

I've even had to deal with those alums who are members of other chapters. I tell my actives that there are these alumni who will reach out to you on occasion, but they are members of xyz chapter and their values are different from ours.

I'm honestly very proud of the way our chapter and our alumni have handled negative outside influences. If something negative is happening, alumni communicate quickly and it's handled. We are all very anti-hazing, so we have never had the slightest problem. This is because we are a brand spanking new, less than 20 year old chapter which had the fortune of founders who bought into the no-hazing paradigm. Good luck to those chapters which have been hazing for 100+ years. I don't see that changing overnight.

Or perhaps it will? Ok, maybe not overnight, but these campus-wide suspensions are picking up. Perhaps these schools saying "enough is enough" will force organizations to take a long, hard look at how certain chapters are operating.

I'm not saying I completely agree with the way all of these suspensions are being handled (e.g. policies enforcing the restriction of chapter meetings), but people need to be held accountable. And as others have stated, the "innocent" chapters/members (of both fraternities and sororities) may not actually be so innocent.

I cannot tell you how many times the chapter I used to advise would say, "Oh, I wish I had been hazed!"

IMHO, when we lumped having to have pledge books signed and maybe a scavenger hunt into the same category as being forced into alcohol abuse and pledge line ups, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. I think that blurring that line has done much more harm than good.

So much this. Initiation shouldn't be a participation trophy. Nor should it require degradation, illegal activities and humiliation. I don't think the space between those two ideas is a small space.

AMEN!!

Every single activity in the pledge program I completed had a reason behind it, whether it was getting to know the sisters, learning to work as a team, or familiarizing ourselves with the Greek community. And we had a blast doing it! For many chapters, when the activities you so joyfully engaged in are labeled as "hazing" and you on the same level as groups who cause their pledges real physical and mental harm, it's in for a buck, in for a quarter.

It becomes a small space when people turn something that's seemingly innocent into something illegal.

I participated in a scavenger hunt when I was pledging. We simply had to follow clues and find sisters around campus to answer questions about our sorority's history. It was fun. Then there was another chapter who packed way too many people into a car and drove around town stealing street signs and lawn ornaments.

Unfortunately, sometimes when you give someone an inch they take a mile. However, I do believe there could have been less drastic measures taken to ensure that illegal actions be avoided. A more gradual approach may have landed us on a happy medium.

The rationale of "we need to get rid of x everywhere because one chapter used it to haze" is the same aas the media who say that because a fraction of chapters have hazed, the Greek system needs to be scuttled entirely. Our national HQs have a fit about that, but they're doing the same thing.

Getting kinda nostalgic here, but thinking back, there was not one thing I recall doing as a pledge that was NOT hazing. Even memorization of the creed, the founders names and the Greek alphabet were in some way turned into hazing activity. And pledge books? Don't get me started on what we did to them - hint, at the end of pledging all books were gathered up by the pledge trainer and burned. Our (and I would guess most fraternity) scavenger hunts were far from innocent affairs.

Certainly agree that there is a blurred line between innocent fun and people dying, but I would never trust a 20 year-old's judgment on this.

Edit: What I mean is I would not trust a 20 year-old's judgment to decide on what is innocent fun and what is hazing.

A good arbiter is "would you do this in front of your grandma? If not, it's hazing."

This however goes into Guys and Girls Are Different and I'd never presume to tell males of any age how to run their organizations.

I like this comment and, under ideal conditions, it would be a pretty good standard for mature students to follow. But in my experience, 90 percent of the type of pledge hazing I mention in my prior post occurred out in the open. We hazed (and were hazed) everywhere -- on campus, in restaurants, on the streets and highways, in the dorms, in meal halls, and in front of professors -- we were never shy about it, rarely discrete and, except during scavenger hunt, were not concerned about any potential sanction from the state university I attended, which was a long time ago. (We did have explicit, detailed and strict chapter rules about when someone could be hazed and when they were off limits.) I would dare say that, at that time, we would not have been shy about a lot of the hazing even in front of grandma either - but the raunchier aspects of it would have been toned down a bit. We were careless because, at that time, no one at the university seemed to care about hazing - though it was likely still illegal. Times have certainly changed.

Edited To add: I believe that this type of experience is why many fraternity alumni have difficulty separating hazing from the modern pledging (or new member) concepts. They cannot conceptualize their fraternity (and fraternity experience) without the rites of passage (hazing) they experienced.