CSUN bans all fraternity/sorority recruitment activities

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sugar and spice

It's not really the lawsuits in and of themselves that are the problem. It's the fact that even just getting sued--not being found guilty--will raise their insurance rates drastically.

Not all insurance is created equal. I doubt very much that what you said is the case with FIPG insured chapters and organizations. I would expect rates to be more dependent upon the degree of HQ oversight that is exercised and the individual chapters' requirements for compliance, e.g., risk management workshops, annual reporting on risk situations, etc. Remember that most of us are insured through a cooperative not-for-profit company.

We're already at the point where some of the major groups have insurance costs that are prohibitively high for smaller chapters. (I can't remember what organization it is, but there's at least one NIC fraternity where insurance costs alone are $300+/per year per member, mostly due to the number of lawsuits they're on the receiving end of.

I doubt "due to the number of lawsuits" tells an accurate story.

Those costs are quickly rising--and with the recent refocus on sexual assault on campus and subsequent rise in women actually filing charges and those charges being treated seriously, fraternities will likely be facing an uptick in sexual assault-related lawsuits as well.

There is only one against an actual chapter that I've heard of. It is very difficult to hold an organization liable for the intentional torts of its members. I think in the incident I've heard of, the plaintiff is trying to use some offensive email to demonstrate that the group had a policy of rape and that was a group concern, but it's going to be hard to sell that. The email is clearly some idiot's idea of something funny rather than an official bro's guide to rape.

Fraternities need to reverse that trend to remain viable.

I question the existence of a "trend." The new Title IX investigations and prosecutions have yet to work their way through the courts and I can't see a system which can impose severe, life changing penalties upon someone who was found by some questionably trained faculty member, by a preponderance of the evidence to have perpetrated a crime which they very well may not be charged with criminally and very well may have not been able to participate much in their defense because they were advised of their 5th Amendment right to say nothing (which counts as an admission of guilt in a Title IX investigation). Somehow, I don't see the status quo as much of an answer to this "trend."

Being in cooperation with the local university admin and the Greek life office is a necessary part of that for almost every group. The only ones who will be exempt are the ones who already have a long history of being able to handle themselves without it.

In these times when universities are imposing system wide sanctions when they don't have evidence that there's any system-wide problem is a huge problem. If it continues, you may very well see many of us opting out of the system and out of university oversight.