Certainly not saying that. There should be standards and all groups, clubs, teams, etc should be held to those standards. No problem with that. My problem is in the application of these suspensions, which in nearly half the cases, is nothing more than arbitrary. Even in the cases where accusations exist, it is only fair that the accused understand the accusations and the details involved. If there is a defense, they should be allowed to mount one. The only way they can do that, is if they know what they're being accused of doing. And that goes beyond the vague nature of the JHJ letter.

Might be good to read today’s Post editorial to get student perspective

Certainly no more biased than you are

Kids these days. The second you literally haze somebody to death, they go worrying about their safe spaces. Can't even challenge anybody anymore.

Given that somebody is dead, don't you think it might be a tiny bit late in the game to try and pin this in PC culture run amok? A student dying changes the calculus for the University. There's no way around that.

You don't have to like it, but this was the plainly obvious, rational decision to make. And you know how I know that's the case? The people most opposed to the decision 4 pages ago are no longer arguing with the decision itself, but have now shifted their complaints to be about how the University handled the decision and the information released.

We've gone from "this is a disgrace" and an embarrassment to the University to "it would have been very easy to cite in general terms which of the six areas that are defined as hazing had been violated."

Feels like there are a few degrees of difference there.

As far as this board is concerned the very interesting thing here is that when the actual death occurred there was 1 post made about the death and the closing of the fraternity and only 1 response to this death, and that was by RPBobcat, simply stating that there was an article in the Post regarding the incident.

My question is where was all this anti-frat rage at when the death occurred? Where was all this concern for OHIO University students 11 months ago? I would ask the same of University leadership, however, I believe the answer to that is the fact they are probably trying to mitigate any financial exposure in a civil court by showing they are proactive.

Two things: One, your "game" doesn't prove anything. Just as the sideline argument about their being "anti-frat" bias doesn't prove anything. Two, your point above about the "university took steps to suspend all fraternities temporarily" is not accurate. OU did not suspend all fraternities, only IFC fraternities. Nor did they suspend other Greek organizations, such as sororities. RP raised this point earlier, I'm just repeating to illustrate this is a targeted group. If OU's position is this is a systemic problem, they are suggesting the problem is limited ONLY to IFC fraternities.

Maybe the "accusations" make that obvious. Again, we don't know because OU has chosen to keep the accusations unpublished. Doing so immediately calls into question intent and bias, by not only OU administration but also by the accusers themselves. Are we to believe the administration is without bias on this issue?

Whether they were forced or not is dependent upon the seriousness of the accusations. In theory, we'll know that soon enough, provided they eventually make that known. If not, we'll have to continue to "trust them."

Sorry for Thread Drift, but....

The drinking age, or perhaps better put, the age at which "kids" are legally held to certain standards and legally allowed to do certain things in America, but not others, is positively ridiculous.

But I'm not writing an opinion for the school newspaper or making the point that their opinion represents the opinion of the OU student body.

This thing has been botched from the beginning. It would have been very easy to cite in general terms which of the six areas that are defined as hazing had been violated. Not one person on here is defending hazing or insinuating that it is acceptable. When it involves drugs, alcohol or physical harm, I think we all agree that that is unacceptable and should be handled with swift but just sanctions. But in this day and age when the pendulum has swung so far left that simply challenging someone brings on calls for "safe spaces", anonymous charges of a general nature are tough to take.

[/QUOTE

As I assume you are aware editorials are just that opinions. So no use chastising the editorial staff for expressing an opinion and they are students so probably have a better chance of understanding student opinions than us old guys. How do you know it doesn’t involve drugs, alcohol or physical harm. Just because they haven’t released the information doesn’t mean it’s not there. That’s what investigations and policy reviews are for, to determine if there is a problem and if there is how will it be dealt with. Where did you get the safe spaces from. I didn’t see anything in Jenny’s letter about safe spaces. What I did see is a reasonable calling for a stand down and review your policies before continuing. 9 out of 15 fraternities are under active investigation seems like there might be a systematic problem.

Reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials.

With only slightly fewer deaths.

It's not at all surprising that the people here most upset with this decision to begin with are now growing more and more certain this is a witch hunt.

Me? I look at OCF's insistence that his frat's done nothing wrong and are baffled with a healthy dose of skepticism.

I mean, does anybody here want to start swapping fraternity hazing stories? Is there any doubt at all that we could put together a list of 30 things we know happened at OU fraternities in the past that would more than justify this decision? And now we're being asked to believe that that behavior's completely gone and the University is waging some conspiracy against Greek life?

I lived with two frat guys for two years at OU. During rush, the pledges would have to visit all of the active members houses one after another and basically anything was fair game. Even what I witnessed -- as somebody who wasn't actually in a frat -- crossed lines of safety, without question. I dated a few girls in sororities. I heard their hazing stories. Again, anybody want to argue with a straight face that this isn't happening?

I mean, look at this conversation on r/frat: https://www.reddit.com/r/Frat/comments/9g3rky/your_favori... /

Every response is a joke about how their frat doesn't haze people. That's the party line. What else would they say in this case but that they haven't done anything?

On another note:

I'm really not sure why everybody is so intent on flocking to the extremes nowadays. It's a super weird reflex. Why assume some conspiracy when there are simple, logical explanations that make so much more sense?

This one's really crazy simple. It's kind of hilarious how desperate people are to believe otherwise.

Fraternities haze pledges. Most of it's harmless, sometimes it crosses lines. When a pledge died last year, it increased scrutiny to the point that the University needed to take this 'drastic' step to ensure student health. It's a risk arbitrage. It makes perfect, reasonable sense even if it's unpopular. And over the course of the next 3 months, all frats will be re-instated, or if serious violations were found, some will be suspended permanently and the details released. The University will get to be seen as having been proactive, and nobody will ultimately have faced any sort of serious consequence.

But conspiracy's are more fun. And it lets people feel victimized and maligned, which has become America's most popular past time these days. So I get it.

"no criminal behavior" eliminates things like underage drinking,assault,etc.

So that makes me wonder, what exactly is the hazing these frats are alleged to have done ?