[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

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.

Schools and national headquarters are fully capable of investigating more than one charge and holding chapters and individuals accountable for all of it.

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.

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'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?

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.

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.