Or the cheerleaders being forced to do push-ups at scores. Or ROTC when they blast the canon and cause someone PTS. Or the football team with those pesky jumping jacks. Or Bobcat Attack for one of us causing emotional distress to a player or coach for blowing a goal line call or player jumping offside causing a first down.

It would only apply if the BA poster was a student. ;-)

I think the University certainly has the latitude to choose not to issue a cease and desist. But as I've been saying, in the wake of last year's death it seems like they've made the decision to not take on the risk and to move to temporary suspension of activities when any hazing is reported.

I mean, the initial letter sent explains to frats how to reach out to receive more information. Do you know of any Fraternities that did so? Do you know the outcome of that?

As for OCF's post, I dunno what to make of that. How much stock should we put in the fact that frats are claiming they've done nothing wrong? To be very clear, OCFs post doesn't say the University didn't tell them what provisions of the Student Code of Conduct that they were in violation of; it just states that they don't know how their behavior led to this, or what the specific charge may be.

Again, that brings us back a few pages. If the University made them aware of the specific charge, wouldn't that make a real investigation that much harder? Wouldn't it just provide them with everything they need to know to corraborate stories and deny up and down? I'm not really understanding how or why it makes sense to share the specifics of the accusations until it can be investigated. Do detectives update suspects in real time about every lead they get in the course of an investigation?

It seems an odd standard to expect here.

Yeah, everybody here seems to want specifics. I'm pretty confused as to why. Especially when somebody who wanted said specifics provided an example of how false allegations ruined a Yale student's life.

The University stated that they felt these hazing complaints put the safety of students in jeopardy. I don't personally think they have any obligation to provide specifics beyond that, and think that doing so has a lot more downside than it has upside.

I mean, let's use a hypothetical here. As I mentioned up thread, one fraternity at OU while I was there had hazing rituals of a sexual nature. Pledges had to 'stimulate themselves' as a group, and ingest the semen afterwards. If there are accusations of that nature, that are currently unproven, is it fair to the members of the fraternity to publicly release that? What is the upside of doing so? Who, exactly, does that serve?

Now take the accusation above and substitute hazing that involves physical harm or psychological harm or forced intoxication. What's the upside there?

Right now, it feels like the benefit of providing specifics of the accusations is that it would appease ornery alumni. Where as the potential downside is creating real and ongoing harm to the reputation of students who may well be innocent. Feels like a simple enough decision to me.

Frankly, I think a lot of people here are conflating their desire to understand what's going on with a right to understand what's going on. There's a difference there. I can totally relate to the idea that the ambiguous nature of all of this raises a lot of questions; but questions are, after all, just questions. And it seems like a whole lot of people are assuming answers based on the mere existence of questions.

It doesn't seem super useful for anybody.

You say this, but it's not that odd in light of a death 11 months ago.

Is it so odd to adopt a zero tolerance policy when somebody died from hazing less than a year ago?

We're rehashing the same points, yes. But that's a pretty big point that I think folks are glossing over. It changes the calculus and I'd expect even those who disagree with the decision to begrudgingly accept that it was necessary. Often times 'heavy-handed' decisions are necessary after incredibly irresponsible behavior. The University gave the fraternities a rush season post death; 9 of 15 of them have accusations against them now.

I think conversations about the extent to which accusations have been made public and speculation about what the accused know and don't know misses the forrest for the trees, and the fact that folks on side of things have started spouting conspiracy theories just pulls this conversation further and further from anything reasonable.

And it's literally only conjecture that's led so many here to reach the conclusion that the fraternities a) haven't been notified or b) won't be notified in due time.

It's not at all clear to me why people feel it's so necessary and appropriate to provide specifics of the allegations prior to an investigation.

As I said to Robert:

If the University made them aware of the specific charge, wouldn't that make a real investigation that much harder? Wouldn't it just provide them with everything they need to know to corroborate stories and deny up and down? I'm not really understanding how or why it makes sense to share the specifics of the accusations until it can be investigated. Do detectives update suspects in real time about every lead they get in the course of an investigation?

Is it possible that the regret not shutting down last year after a death and this year, when possibly some of the same behaviors are present, they decided to act decisively rather than reactively? Maybe they are trying to learn the lessons of their (the University's) mistakes from last year?

Also, this is just a personal question as I'm not sure where to fall on this issue. What is a fraternity's direct connection with the university? What activities are university-affiliated and what activities are not?

My guess? After the death, the University tried their damndest to figure out if the death was an isolated incident or indicative of a larger cultural issue. They gave the fraternities the benefit of the doubt and tried to hold Sig Ep up as an example.

Colin Wiant died in November. The investigation into his death and the role Sig Ep played didn't wrap up and reach a conclusion until April. As a result, this is the first rush season since.

I would be absolutely shocked if, in the wake of that, the University didn't make it very clear the Greek community as a whole that adhering to certain standards was an expectation, and that they'd be under the microscope.

And now, half way through the first rush since, 9 Frats, 3 Sororities, the 110, and a Business Fraternity have new allegations against them. And as a result, the University had no choice but to conclude this is a systemic issue and shut things down.

I guess what I don't get is why so many people feel like there's some clear statute of limitations here. Like somehow the investigation into a death being over for a whole 5 months now means it's old news and the University can't take action.

I'm saying the same things over and over, but there was increased scrutiny as a direct result of somebody being literally hazed to death. That increased scrutiny led to "complaints falling out of trees like leaves on college green in the fall."

Your stance is, I guess, that the administration should ignore all of those complaints because dude died 11 months ago and everybody should have turned the page? Or that it's all a grand conspiracy against the fraternities? Or that the allegations aren't true?

And my point is just that it doesn't matter at all what the allegations are or if they turn out to be true. A death warrants drastic measures, and the risk calculus here is very easy. Let's say a student died in a hazing incident two weeks ago. And it comes out after the fact that the University had received complaints about 9 different Fraternities. What then? Two deaths in a year would be disastrous for the University, they'd be open to civil liability, and Greek like would end forever in Athens.

This path is the prudent one for literally everybody involved, people here are just so intent on vainly hugging their own victimhood that they can't see it.

A detective says "there's been a murder and we're investigating." But they're under no obligation to call and go "hey, we're gonna go dig around for the murder weapon in the woods behind the park Tuesday because your wife told us she saw you burying something there covered in blood. Just a heads up."

The fraternities know what warranted the cease and desist. They're being accused of behavior that puts the safety of their members at risk and violates the Student Code of Conduct. If they don't know specific details yet, they'll find them out as the investigation proceeds. In the meantime, they've been informed exactly who to contact for more information.

I'm still very confused as to why people here think it's a reasonable standard that the University should have to share the exact contents of the complaint to take these steps. It makes very little sense to me.

The question seems to be exactly what the fraternities in question have been told.

There have been a few posts from people involved in some way or another with some of the accused frats that said they really haven't been told much of anything.

Unless I missed them,I haven't seen anything from someone(s) involved with a frat that said anything different.

I'm not saying that O.U. should share the contents of the complaint(s) with the public.

But O.U. has already imposed a penalty,absent an investigation,in some cases absent even an accusation.
For those fraternities not alleged to have done anything,it sure sounds like O.U's actions meet the definition of "arbitrary and capricious".

I just think that those affected parties are entitled to some specifics of why.
Other then just a general "you are accused of violating the code of conduct".

I think where we disagree is just about timeline. I don't see how it makes any logical sense to share specific details prior to the investigation. It would risk making the investigation itself impossible to conduct.

On the other hand, if all you're suggesting is that the frats be told they violated point C in the Student Code of Conduct as opposed to the more broad accusation of simply violating the Student Code of Conduct, I think that's fine. But I also suspect it wouldn't do much to appease the folks here who are convinced this is a conspiracy against fraternities.

Ultimately, nobody knows anything and likely won't for quite a while. My stance is just that the 'zero tolerance' approach makes sense to me, given the death and potential risks to the University and its students, and that the "punishment" to date is super minor. After all, when pressed, nobody could really explain what impact this would have on frat members beyond some potential lost deposits for Homecoming, and alums coming back this weekend.

It just feels like the rational option to me, even if it is unpopular.

I did answer this by pointing out that any fraternity member living in a fraternity house who is a junior or senior, will need to find new housing. As I'm sure you know, that's not an easy thing to do in Athens. And it's certainly more disruptive than "lost deposits for Homecoming," which I know you enjoy dismissing.