Bill proposes online database of fraternity/sorority infractions

[OPhiAGinger]

Back in the stone age when I went to college (read: the last millennium) there were only a few fraternities that were often in trouble with the law for one reason or another. And *none* of the sororities were ever in legal trouble. (Your campus and your mileage may vary.) Based on that very limited data sample, this seems like it would cast a positive light on all of the GLOs who are acting responsibly rather than paint them all with the same brush. To be clear, they need to be much crisper on what is included in the database. It needs to be actual sanctions rather than just investigations, imho.

The closer I get to sending my first-born off to college, the more I like proposals like this.

[Griffins&Quills]

Aren't there bigger problems we could be spending our energy and resources solving?

[33girl]

If you'll read that bill, it says it can include anyone "formally associated" with a GLO. In other words, it could include the chapter alumna who graduated 10 years ago and hasn't had any contact with the chapter since...when she gets busted for posession.

OPhiAGinger, I seriously hope you're kidding when you say you think any part of this is a good idea.

[Sciencewoman]

I'm particularly troubled by the "third violation" penalty if the institution violates the policy/doesn't report/doesn't update -- fraternities and sororities lose recognition from the institution. How is that punishing the institution for their noncompliance? Basically, if an institution doesn't want GLOs, they just have to noncomply with the law, and the GLOs will be gone. Or the "watchdogs" will "catch" the institution "noncomplying" three times, and the GLOs will be gone.