menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: Jenny Hall Jones suspends all fraternity activity indefinitely
Page: 4 of 11
mail
person
BillyTheCat
10/8/2019 10:23 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
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.
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.
+1

These could possibly be quickly resolved if known what possible issues are.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/8/2019 10:24 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
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.
Doesn't disclosing the substance of accusations to the accused limit the University's ability to investigate? It's not clear to me why that's a good idea.

Edit: I found this with some googling. Seems like this is the policy that the frats are potentially in violation of. Should what's disclosed be more specific than simply saying they're potentially in violation of the following policy?

https://www.ohio.edu/policy/23-010
Last Edited: 10/8/2019 10:41:30 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Recovering Journalist
10/8/2019 10:52 AM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
That used to be judiciaries but not sure who does it now. That code has become unbelievably Draconian over the years. We used to put a couple pledges in a car, drive them out of town a few miles, and drop them off. Under the code today, that would be considered hazing. That's a far cry from alcohol related activities for which I have no use for. It's just plain dangerous and illegal if the pledge is under 21.
There's no such thing as "harmless" hazing. I'm sure the pledges you drove around enjoyed that ride. They were probably scared and totally unsure if they could trust you. Then you rewarded their interest in your group by intentionally getting them lost, wasting their time and forcing them to take a dangerous walk through the pitch-black wilds of Muskingum County. A zany good time for everyone involved.

The reason zero tolerance hazing policies are so important is vividly illustrated by your notion of what a harmless prank looks like.
mail
person
Robert Fox
10/8/2019 10:55 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Doesn't disclosing the substance of accusations to the accused limit the University's ability to investigate? It's not clear to me why that's a good idea. [/QUOTE]Not as I see it. If they are certain of a violation, then say so. If they need to investigate matters first, then do so before passing judgement (shutting down the fraternity).

[QUOTE=Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame] Edit: I found this with some googling. Seems like this is the policy that the frats are potentially in violation of. Should what's disclosed be more specific than simply saying they're potentially in violation of the following policy?

https://www.ohio.edu/policy/23-010
Could be that's what is being suggested. Problem is, we don't know for sure. It would be good to at least say it's a violation of this, or some other, code. But even then they would need to furnish specifics to the fraternity so that the fraternity can state its case. Instead, they'r saying you are all suspended based upon something someone said about something.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/8/2019 11:07 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Not as I see it. If they are certain of a violation, then say so. If they need to investigate matters first, then do so before passing judgement (shutting down the fraternity).

Could be that's what is being suggested. Problem is, we don't know for sure. It would be good to at least say it's a violation of this, or some other, code. But even then they would need to furnish specifics to the fraternity so that the fraternity can state its case. Instead, they'r saying you are all suspended based upon something someone said about something.
The fraternities haven't been shut down. They've been suspended because the University has determined that they can't confirm the safety of their students currently. That's in the initial letter sent to the IFC communicating this decision.

If the University has valid concerns about the safety of its students -- less than a year after the death of a student related to hazing -- I'm not sure how the logical course of action is to allow fraternities to continue operating until the investigation's been concluded. Isn't that a huge risk to take? And what's the upside, exactly?

I mean, I keep asking what's so drastic about the 'punishment' here and so far I've got "alumni experience at homecoming" and "lost deposits." If those are the worst possible outcomes of a temporary suspension, and the worst possible outcome of no suspension is another death and civil liability/the end of Greek life forever at Ohio University, it seems a very easy decision.

Even if it's not a popular one.
mail
person
Robert Fox
10/8/2019 11:14 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
And what's the upside, exactly?
Due process.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/8/2019 11:21 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
And what's the upside, exactly?
Due process.
Isn't the university following the exact judicial process laid out and agreed upon by the IFC? It's not clear to me where they've run afoul of due process. And in plenty of instances, due process leads to a temporary restriction of rights while an investigation is made.

If you were pulled over for a DUI, do you get to drive around before your court date? No. Because it puts the safety of others at risk.

The university feels there's a safety risk. I get that it's an unpopular decision, but nobody seems capable of making a super compelling argument that it isn't the right decision. They just don't like it.
Last Edited: 10/8/2019 11:25:25 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Robert Fox
10/8/2019 11:32 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
If you were pulled over for a DUI, do you get to drive around before your court date? No. Because it puts the safety of others at risk.
If you were pulled over for a DUI, you'd be formally charged with a crime and given a court date along with all information relevant to the case.

That didn't happen here. It's the equivalent of being called by police this afternoon and losing your driver's license based upon "an accusation" that the police have received. They can't tell you anything about that accusation, but they are suspending your license until they can investigate. If, in the future, you are found to be innocent of the charges, you can re-apply for your driver's license.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/8/2019 11:38 AM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
If you were pulled over for a DUI, do you get to drive around before your court date? No. Because it puts the safety of others at risk.
If you were pulled over for a DUI, you'd be formally charged with a crime and given a court date along with all information relevant to the case.

That didn't happen here. It's the equivalent of being called by police this afternoon and losing your driver's license based upon "an accusation" that the police have received. They can't tell you anything about that accusation, but they are suspending your license until they can investigate. If, in the future, you are found to be innocent of the charges, you can re-apply for your driver's license.
The University informed the fraternities of the nature of the accusations and made it clear that their actions put the safety of students at risk. That is the equivalent in this case of setting a court date, dude. The University is literally telling the fraternities that a judicial process is now under way, and they'll be given a trial. The formal charge is that the Fraternities have put the safety of students at risk and violated the hazing policy. This was on CBS news last night. If the Fraternities aren't aware, they're not paying attention.

The University feels student safety is at risk. Is your stance that there should be no steps they can take to mitigate that?
Last Edited: 10/8/2019 11:39:22 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Alan Swank
10/8/2019 11:40 AM
Recovering Journalist wrote:expand_more
That used to be judiciaries but not sure who does it now. That code has become unbelievably Draconian over the years. We used to put a couple pledges in a car, drive them out of town a few miles, and drop them off. Under the code today, that would be considered hazing. That's a far cry from alcohol related activities for which I have no use for. It's just plain dangerous and illegal if the pledge is under 21.
There's no such thing as "harmless" hazing. I'm sure the pledges you drove around enjoyed that ride. They were probably scared and totally unsure if they could trust you. Then you rewarded their interest in your group by intentionally getting them lost, wasting their time and forcing them to take a dangerous walk through the pitch-black wilds of Muskingum County. A zany good time for everyone involved.

The reason zero tolerance hazing policies are so important is vividly illustrated by your notion of what a harmless prank looks like.
So who's next? The band, a sports team, or ROTC? According to this from the policy, I've seen what some could interpret as a violation of the policy from all three groups in my forty years in Athens.

"Any action or situation which recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental, emotional, or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation or admission into, or affiliation with, any student organization or group regardless of the person's consent to participate."


And by the way harmless is your term, not mine.
Last Edited: 10/8/2019 11:46:06 AM by Alan Swank
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/8/2019 11:45 AM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
That used to be judiciaries but not sure who does it now. That code has become unbelievably Draconian over the years. We used to put a couple pledges in a car, drive them out of town a few miles, and drop them off. Under the code today, that would be considered hazing. That's a far cry from alcohol related activities for which I have no use for. It's just plain dangerous and illegal if the pledge is under 21.
There's no such thing as "harmless" hazing. I'm sure the pledges you drove around enjoyed that ride. They were probably scared and totally unsure if they could trust you. Then you rewarded their interest in your group by intentionally getting them lost, wasting their time and forcing them to take a dangerous walk through the pitch-black wilds of Muskingum County. A zany good time for everyone involved.

The reason zero tolerance hazing policies are so important is vividly illustrated by your notion of what a harmless prank looks like.
So who's next? The band, the football team? And by the way harmless is your term, not mine.
If the band and football team are hazing people, yeah. And the military has very strict policies around hazing and have regulated this at every level, from boot camp to West Point to officer interaction. So if ROTC is in violation of military policy, they'll know it soon enough.
Last Edited: 10/8/2019 11:48:47 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Robert Fox
10/8/2019 11:55 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
The University informed the fraternities of the nature of the accusations...
Could you share that please? I have not seen it.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/8/2019 12:02 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
The University informed the fraternities of the nature of the accusations...
Could you share that please? I have not seen it.
Sure. Here's the letter sent to all Fraternity presidents that kicked off this whole thing:

https://www.ohio.edu/sites/ohio.edu.news/files/sites/OHIO...

It includes an explanation of what led to the decision, explanation of next steps, and provides insight into how fraternities can gain more information from the University.
mail
person
Robert Fox
10/8/2019 12:42 PM
Thanks, but that doesn't really explain the accusations, only that they are "reports of hazing." Details of those reports are not included. The other fraternities that did not receive "reports of hazing" are nonetheless caught up in this suspension.

So to go back to the DUI analogy, that's like the police hearing that you may have driven while intoxicated. They proceeded to suspend your license and went ahead and suspended the licenses of your closest friends.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/8/2019 12:56 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Thanks, but that doesn't really explain the accusations, only that they are "reports of hazing." Details of those reports are not included. The other fraternities that did not receive "reports of hazing" are nonetheless caught up in this suspension.

So to go back to the DUI analogy, that's like the police hearing that you may have driven while intoxicated. They proceeded to suspend your license and went ahead and suspended the licenses of your closest friends.
What do you expect that letter to contain, exactly? Specific examples of every complaint about every fraternity mentioned? Why? As I mentioned before, what purpose does that serve? I mean, not to get too graphic, but a buddy of mine who rushed one of the frats at OU quit when his rush class was told they had to all "stimulate themselves" onto a loaf of bread and then eat it. Should that be in the public press release? What level of detail are you expecting beyond a clear indication as to what the University found them in violation of?

Student safety is at risk. Somebody died. I guess you think that despite that, frats have the right to continue operations regardless of accusations until those accusations are proven. That seems unnecessarily risky to me, especially given that nobody can explain to me what's so drastic about this temporary suspension outside of it being unfair to a subset of those suspended.

I get that. Some innocent people will have a worse homecoming. Sucks. But much better than potential alternatives, and unfortunately, the fraternities lost the benefit of the doubt on this one when somebody died last year.
mail
person
Recovering Journalist
10/8/2019 1:08 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
So who's next? The band, a sports team, or ROTC? According to this from the policy, I've seen what some could interpret as a violation of the policy from all three groups in my forty years in Athens.

"Any action or situation which recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental, emotional, or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation or admission into, or affiliation with, any student organization or group regardless of the person's consent to participate."


And by the way harmless is your term, not mine.
I hope the university cracks down on any person or groups guilty of that, yes.

And the "harmless" comment was based on you lamenting that what you did in the good old days would be a violation in today's "draconian" climate. I acknowledge it's far less dangerous than forced drinking, but I still call that progress.
mail
person
Robert Fox
10/8/2019 1:11 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
What level of detail are you expecting beyond a clear indication as to what the University found them in violation of?
Clearly this is where we disagree. The university found them in violation? That's not what the letter says. It says they received "reports of hazing." That sounds strangely flimsy. And there's no need for it. If the university has compelling evidence, come out with it. If it's sensitive in nature, use stronger language to describe it while protecting the victims. Not hard to do.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/8/2019 1:19 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
What level of detail are you expecting beyond a clear indication as to what the University found them in violation of?
Clearly this is where we disagree. The university found them in violation? That's not what the letter says. It says they received "reports of hazing." That sounds strangely flimsy. And there's no need for it. If the university has compelling evidence, come out with it. If it's sensitive in nature, use stronger language to describe it while protecting the victims. Not hard to do.
Oh, sorry -- you're right. Didn't mean to imply they'd determined guilt. Sloppy word usage.

But yes, this is where we disagree. I don't think it makes any logical sense to share the specifics of accusations before an investigation. It opens the university up to liability, could have the impact of harming the reputation of students, and would make the investigation itself more difficult.

I still think this is a simple decision. Somebody died and the University felt student safety is at risk. Their hands were tied and they basically had to make a very unpopular decision. I'm sure they're not pumped that alums here think this is a disgrace.

But I think it's basically the only possible path, given the options.
Last Edited: 10/8/2019 1:23:23 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Alan Swank
10/8/2019 1:28 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
What level of detail are you expecting beyond a clear indication as to what the University found them in violation of?
Clearly this is where we disagree. The university found them in violation? That's not what the letter says. It says they received "reports of hazing." That sounds strangely flimsy. And there's no need for it. If the university has compelling evidence, come out with it. If it's sensitive in nature, use stronger language to describe it while protecting the victims. Not hard to do.
Oh, sorry -- you're right. Didn't mean to imply they'd determined guilt. Sloppy word usage.

But yes, this is where we disagree. I don't think it makes any logical sense to share the specifics of accusations before an investigation. It opens the university up to liability, could have the impact of harming the reputation of students, and would make the investigation itself more difficult.

I still think this is a simple decision. Somebody died and the University felt student safety is at risk. Their hands were tied and they basically had to make a very unpopular decision. I'm sure they're not pumped that alums here think this is a disgrace.

But I think it's basically the only possible path, given the options.
Similar situation of accusations but no criminal case and what it did to a young man's reputation.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-yale-mon...
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/8/2019 1:31 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
What level of detail are you expecting beyond a clear indication as to what the University found them in violation of?
Clearly this is where we disagree. The university found them in violation? That's not what the letter says. It says they received "reports of hazing." That sounds strangely flimsy. And there's no need for it. If the university has compelling evidence, come out with it. If it's sensitive in nature, use stronger language to describe it while protecting the victims. Not hard to do.
Oh, sorry -- you're right. Didn't mean to imply they'd determined guilt. Sloppy word usage.

But yes, this is where we disagree. I don't think it makes any logical sense to share the specifics of accusations before an investigation. It opens the university up to liability, could have the impact of harming the reputation of students, and would make the investigation itself more difficult.

I still think this is a simple decision. Somebody died and the University felt student safety is at risk. Their hands were tied and they basically had to make a very unpopular decision. I'm sure they're not pumped that alums here think this is a disgrace.

But I think it's basically the only possible path, given the options.
Similar situation of accusations but no criminal case and what it did to a young man's reputation.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-yale-mon...
Yeah, exactly. Releasing the accusations at any level of detail would be a huge mistake.

Look at the national attention this story has gotten. Now imagine the media had salacious details to latch onto about the hazing incidents themselves. That the details have been kept in-house is better for the University and 1000 times better for the students involved.
mail
person
rpbobcat
10/8/2019 1:47 PM
As I've posted,O.U. was well within its rights to suspend all fraternities in the IFC,including the fraternities with no allegations of hazing.

As I've also posted,I feel the suspension should not have applied to those fraternities who wren't accused of "hazing".

Having read Ms. Jones' October 3,2019 letter,I'm left to wonder why,given her comments,weren't all fraternities and sororities suspended ?

That would seem to be the appropriate way to address potential concerns with hazing in the whole Greek culture.
Last Edited: 10/8/2019 1:55:19 PM by rpbobcat
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/8/2019 1:54 PM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
As I've posted,O.U. was well within its rights to suspend all fraternities in the IFC,including the fraternities with no allegations of hazing.

As I've also posted,I feel the suspension should not have applied to those fraternities who wren't accused of "hazing".

Having read Ms. Jones' October 3,2019 letter,I'm left to wonder why,given her comments,weren't all fraternities and sororities suspended ?

That would seem to be the appropriate way to address her potential concerns with s the whole Greek culture.
Would it change your opinion at all if you found out the University is proceeding by first working with unaccused fraternities to ensure they're eligible for reinstatement to expedite that process? Or if they were allowing for exceptions for those fraternities and Homecoming activities?
mail
person
rpbobcat
10/8/2019 1:55 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
As I've posted,O.U. was well within its rights to suspend all fraternities in the IFC,including the fraternities with no allegations of hazing.

As I've also posted,I feel the suspension should not have applied to those fraternities who wren't accused of "hazing".

Having read Ms. Jones' October 3,2019 letter,I'm left to wonder why,given her comments,weren't all fraternities and sororities suspended ?

That would seem to be the appropriate way to address her potential concerns with s the whole Greek culture.
Would it change your opinion at all if you found out the University is proceeding by first working with unaccused fraternities to ensure they're eligible for reinstatement to expedite that process? Or if they were allowing for exceptions for those fraternities and Homecoming activities?
My opinion is that,based on the comments in Ms. Jones' letter,if she was that concerned about violations of the Students' "Code of Conduct",she should have imposed the suspensions equally,to all Greek organizations.

Then she could use the same approach she using now,for any Greek organization that wasn't accused of "hazing" including the exceptions you mention.
Last Edited: 10/8/2019 2:05:25 PM by rpbobcat
mail
person
Robert Fox
10/8/2019 2:06 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Yeah, exactly. Releasing the accusations at any level of detail would be a huge mistake.

Look at the national attention this story has gotten. Now imagine the media had salacious details to latch onto about the hazing incidents themselves. That the details have been kept in-house is better for the University and 1000 times better for the students involved.
I have a different interpretation of Alan's post. He's saying the danger is in making allegations that don't rise to the level of a criminal proceeding. That is exactly what OU has chosen to do.

I could be wrong. Alan will say for sure.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
10/8/2019 2:11 PM
Robert Fox wrote:expand_more
Yeah, exactly. Releasing the accusations at any level of detail would be a huge mistake.

Look at the national attention this story has gotten. Now imagine the media had salacious details to latch onto about the hazing incidents themselves. That the details have been kept in-house is better for the University and 1000 times better for the students involved.
I have a different interpretation of Alan's post. He's saying the danger is in making allegations that don't rise to the level of a criminal proceeding. That is exactly what OU has chosen to do.

I could be wrong. Alan will say for sure.
Yeah, I know. I was just pointing out how that's a perfect example of one of the points I'm making, too.

But it raises another interesting question. Are you saying that fraternities should be allowed to do anything that isn't considered criminal?
Showing Messages: 76 - 100 of 265
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)