He's bad at spelling. And I wonder how much he actually donated to begin with. Most of us don't give much - if anything.

Speak for yourself. Many alums do make significant financial contributions!

Talk about classic stereotyping something you know nothing about. Most people tend to associate with others just like them whether they are in a fraternity or not. I was in one at Muskingum and we were far from clones of one another. We athletes, pot heads, student government leaders, gay men, scholars, guys who barely got by, and rednecks too.

Not only financial contributions but also volunteer curricular contributions.

What'd Haag have to say when a fraternity member died last year?

Again, somebody died, and 7 of 15 Fraternities received formal complaints. It simply isn't that drastic to temporarily suspended then while an investigation is performed.

I'm honestly not even sure what I'm supposed to respond to. You want me, what, to feel bad for some class of 94 alum because he's not coming to homecoming? That truthfully just sort of reads as sad to me. That's a whole lot of anger for somebody with no firsthand knowledge of the most recent accusations.

The death changed the stakes. It's perfectly reasonable to temporarily suspend activity during the investigation; that's what happens when somebody died. You lose the benefit of the doubt. The university simply can't risk a second incident, and the accusations indicate that the Frats may not be capable of governing themselves.

Nobody knows specifics, just that 7 Fraternities have been accused of hazing.

If I was speaking for myself, I'd have said that I donate plenty. I was making an empirical observation. The Alumni Association says there are about 200,000 living alumni and they get donations from "more than 17,000 alumni, students, parents, friends, and organizations." Even if you say all 17,000 donors are alumni, that's well under 9% of them giving a dime.

How about learning the difference between trading opinions on a message board and reporting?

If this is primarily a response to the student's death, I would have expected this one year ago. Why would they have waited?

RJ made it clear, but this isn't a direct response to the death. It's a direct result of increased scrutiny in the wake of the death.

A fraternity member died and that fraternity was expelled. Of the remaining 15 fraternities, 7 have had complaints against them since. Including Sig Ep, that means that exactly half of Ohio University fraternities have had hazing complaints -- seven of them since the death of the student. There's been one rush season since. That means half of fraternities over the last year and change have had complaints about hazing, and one of them killed somebody.

That strongly suggests a systemic issue, and it's simply too risky for the University to approach this in any other manner.

Once again, somebody died. And the University has decided that behavior didn't sufficiently change. This is a super easy decision and fully justifiable. Sorry it made you sad about old alums at homecoming, but old alums at homecoming aren't even a remote consideration here.

Does it suck if those other fraternities are perfectly innocent? Sure. In the scheme of things does it matter even a little bit? No. This "punishment" that's so "drastic" basically boils down to unofficial parties instead of official ones. It means parties at off-campus houses and more time at the bars. If those 8 fraternities are found to have done nothing wrong they'll be re-instated and in the end those students' lives will not have been impacted in any significant way.

Of course she is. Old grads give feedback on literally everything. Doesn't make them right.

Yep, reasonable people can disagree. But I do think they're wrong in this case. For the reasons I stated.