I'm honestly not at all sure what's confusing about my opinion. It's super simple and not going to be helped along by the knowledge that I graduated in '05 and studied English. Here, I'll break it down:

Nobody here knows what's contained in these accusations. They could be very bad, they could all end up being disproven. That's true regardless of where one stands here.

But somebody died last year as a direct result of fraternity hazing. And therefore, any accusations made about fraternities hazing students has to be treated with the utmost caution. And 7 of 15 frats has accusations against them. That's a lot.

Further, while I understand your concern for the 8 fraternities that weren't accused of any wrongdoing, I also don't really care. Why? Because ultimately this "drastic" step that people here have called a "disgrace" and prompted others to agree with that sentiment "+ infinity" isn't actually all that drastic at all. It's simply a question or risk assessment. The risk to the University (and the Greek community, too) is far too great should there be another serious hazing incident.

A fraternity killed somebody, man. Sorry it made somebody's homecoming experience 10% worse and all, but again, how about some perspective here about how "drastic" this step really is.

And you know how I know this step isn't too drastic? Because none of the people here -- even those who think this is a disgrace, and you, who can't even wrap your head around how anybody could disagree with you, can so much as explain as why it's drastic. All you've done is post a frowny face about alums at homecoming. As far as I can tell, the outcome of this drastic decision is that the CI was more crowded on Saturday. The horror.

Oh, and by the way, your Volunteer friend kicked off this thread by saying "throw the book at all of them and and let God sort them out." So I'm not sure he's super confused about my stance, given that his stance is more extreme than mine.

Can you explain what's so drastic about this punishment? How is this impacting the lives of fraternity members and alumni? It's really not clear to me what's so drastic about a temporary suspension, given the circumstances. So far, I know alumni at homecoming are frowny face.

What else should I be so concerned about that it should sway me over to your side from the "hazing deaths are bad, we should be careful" side of things?

It would be much worse to release unproven allegations publicly though, right? In fact, it would likely open OU up to legal liability should they ultimately not find the some or all of the accusations credible. I'm not really sure how you can dock them points for "secrecy" when they have no choice but not to release the specifics.

As for the guilt by association point, I'm sensitive to that up to a point. But as I've stated, I don't actually think the "punishment" here is much of a punishment. So if some fraternities who have done nothing wrong end up temporarily suspended unfairly, that seems a reasonable price to pay given the circumstances.

And while OU's position here is "trust us" the alternative would be for us to put our trust in the fraternities themselves. Is there any argument at all that doing so isn't a far riskier proposition?

Which, really, is a solid summary of my point here. It's simply about risk mitigation. The University taking this step rules out the worst possible outcome, which would be another serious incident during rush season. It does so in favor of ensuring what I see as the least bad of the bad options -- that some of the upstanding frats who have done nothing wrong will be swept up in all of this unfairly.

That’s what bothers me about this decision.

I’m not convinced JHJ or the administration members that made this decision are acting in the best interest of students involved in this community. It seems to me like they’re just trying to avoid civil lawsuits.

Whatever your feelings about Greek Life, there’s no debating it is a major part of the college experience for a large number of Ohio University students, past and present. There’s a larger discussion that needs to be had here rather than just “limiting risk.”

Yeah, sure. They can pay back deposits if no wrongdoing is found. Seems like a reasonable request.

But that these are the biggest concerns you can muster does also sort of underscore my point about just how severe these "drastic" punishments happen to be.

I mean, we've gone from "this is a disgrace for the University" and calling for the Administrations heads to "I sure hope the Frats get their deposits back." Contextualizes things a bit, no?

Correction: I can, and do, for the purposes of an internet message board that exists for people to share their opinions on things as they relate to Ohio University. Everybody participating in this conversation has put themselves in the position of "arbiter" of what is and isn't damaging. You have, Alan has, The Optimist has. And they have every right to do so.

I mean, how is my opinion that the 'punishment' thus far isn't particularly drastic any different than others stating the opinion that the punishment is so drastic that it's a blight on the good name of Ohio University? Both opinions position themselves as "arbiter" of what is an isn't damaging, we just disagree in our conclusion about what is/isn't damaging.

We're now over 50% of frats with hazing accusations, and counting.

https://www.athensnews.com/news/campus/ou-releases-names-...

Accusations have still not been made public, and according the article linked above, the police have reviewed the accusations and found none of them to be criminal. So far, apparently, the accused have not been privy to any of this information. They don't know what they're being accused of but they are nonetheless, suspended, and required to comply with furnishing detailed information about members and pledges.

To say this is being poorly handled is a monumental understatement.

I understand the issue of a criminal act.

The question I have is, who determines if the alleged acts on the parts of the fraternities violated the students' Code of Conduct ?

I posted earlier what my room mate went through when he pledged Beta Theta Pi.

Wonder how O.U. would handle this:

Freshman year,one kid on our dorm floor pledged the Betas winter/spring quarter.

Several others from our floor,had pledged the Betas in the fall,so they were "actives" when he pledged.

The kid was scared s _ _ _ less of getting a pimple.
I swear he owned stock in "Stridex".

Obviously everyone on our floor knew it.

So, when he pledged the Betas, every time he was in the house they made him eat chocolate.

Wonder if that's "hazing" ?

You've said this a few times. Don't you find the idea of making unproven allegations public problematic? Wouldn't it open the University up to potential liability? Feels like they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

The university is perfectly capable of providing information about the accusations, if not publicly, at least to the fraternities themselves. They can do so and still protect the identity of the accusers. There's a big gap between providing zero information, which is what they are doing, and providing categorical information.