This is the least surprising news I've heard in a while.

I lived with a Rugby player off campus for two years and the Rugby team held a few dozen parties at my house. They haze. There's a ton of booze involved and a very odd amount of nudity.

Surely you understand why the University can't be seen to be sanctioning this behavior, right? And how the calculus changes when that behavior's part of an official University organization?

I mean, of course you do.

But here are some additional details.

A freshman on the team was made to get completely naked and run several laps around the house. This was a house on North Congress, one house up from the corner of North Congress and state. It was a weekend night, and the streets were super crowded, as always. He was made to do so in front of a hundred some odd people. He literally begged not to have to do it; his discomfort was apparent enough that everybody there was uncomfortable. Myself and two of my housemates tried to intervene, even told our Rugby team roommate that we wouldn't let them host parties anymore. Several girls at the party spoke up, said it was stupid, said the team shouldn't make him do it. A couple of dudes on the team held him down, another pulled off his pants. They were laughing, some people were cheering. He was not. He ran the laps and when he got back, they'd hidden his clothes. One of my roommates loaned him sweatpants and a t shirt. We spoke to him upstairs and he was on the verge of tears, literally visibly shaking.

I went downstairs and one of the girls there was basically yelling at one of the dudes who had played a central role in all of this. His response was basically that everybody had to do it at some point.

I saw variations of that easily 5 times; all that was different that time was that the kid tried to resist.

I did step in and try to stop this. As noted in my telling of the story.

But to answer your question more directly, no I did not do enough. It was shitty of them, and I did actually feel bad about it for a long time afterwards. And I never went to the Rugby parties again and was, frankly, embarrassed that they took place at my house. I was embarrassed by the fact that people I knew might associate that with me. Should I have reported it? I don't know. That's a very tough choice to make, honestly. Would you have? Your implication is clearly that because I didn't take greater steps, this must not have been so bad. I don't think it's that simple.

If you want to make this a referendum on my behavior, you're welcome to. But feels an awful lot like an attempt to distract from the fact that you can't really defend the Rugby team's behavior.

Way to address the moral implications head on. That's some A+ sidestepping.

I provided a real example of behavior by one of the suspended organizations that I witnessed that was problematic. I thought maybe it might provide some additional context as to the sort of behavior these complaints could entail.

And your response was basically to try and insist the behavior must not have been so bad because I didn't report it and obviously sidestep the actual point being made.

Sound argument you're making.

It was either 04 or 05.

Yeah, man. That's not at all what I said. Again, very solid ground you find yourself standing on.

I provided a real example of the sort of thing this might entail based on something I witnessed. If you want to decide that's completely irrelevant because it was a long time ago, that's totally fine.

But to be very clear, there's one of us who has made up their mind about the severity of these allegations. I'm just saying that any allegations at all, after the death last year, tie the University's hands and pointing out the sort of allegations -- based on things I actually know -- that you might want to be aware of before you reach word 3000 of minimizing all of this.

Your entire point here rests on the idea that nobody knows the specifics of allegations. That's true. You should ask yourself how you got from there to "anti frat conspiracy" so quickly.

Doesn't the above describe your behavior in these threads perfectly? You've accused the administration of a conspiracy to get rid of all fraternities on campus despite the fact that you literally know nothing about any of the accusations of hazing the administration received. You know literally nothing. It is, in fact, your biggest complaint. And yet, here you are, certain this is unfair, angry, and casting accusations you have literally no evidence of.

Sort of sounds like, I dunno, a mob?

And when I step in to go "hey man, I witnessed some shit once involving the Rugby team that was pretty shitty" you were having so much fun with your pitchfork and the righteous indignation that accompanies it that you literally refused to have a human reaction to it. You bent over backwards to justify it to yourself, eventually settling on "well, you didn't report it, so it must have been fine." You've grabbed your pitchfork. You don't know what the administration's guilty of yet, but you're gonna figure it out.

Way to sidestep the direct questions I've asked you over and over again. You must have all sorts of faith in the validity of your stance here, the way you're avoiding having to support it over and over again.

I guess it's way easier to just misrepresent what I'm saying and argue against that, instead.

Also, way to tell the exact same joke twice in two different threads. If there's one thing they tell you about comedy, it's to try the same joke a bunch. Nailed it.

Eh, nevermind man. You're not following along at all. You're dug in, for whatever reason.

I'm saying I saw hazing on the Rugby team. I'm not saying it's relevant to what's happening now necessarily, just that based on what I witnessed I'm not surprised.

You, on the other hand, flailed around to try and find an angle to respond to what I said that would ensure you don't have to change your stance in any way. Like I said, you're dug in.

You know how else you could've responded? By saying "oh, yeah, that's shitty. If the University finds evidence of similar behavior, I can understand the need for a temporary suspension. We'll see what they find." Instead, you tried really hard to justify the Rugby team's behavior and when that didn't take, you decided it was irrelevant because of how long ago it was. That's how the respond to an example of what this could be. Does that seem an intellectually honest response?

Also, What you've failed to grasp here is that my stance doesn't need the hazing allegations to be proven true or severe. My stance is just that any reports of hazing, after a death, warrants these temporary suspensions and is the risk-averse choice. I'm not pretending to know the contents of the accusations. I'm simply stating that people running large organizations have to sometimes make unpopular decisions in the face of potential risks to the organization.

You, on the other hand, obviously feel the need to assume the accusations are minor and insignificant and are part of an anti-frat overreach. You've made joke after joke about the over-sensitivity of young people, and posited a grand conspiracy against the Frats.

The difference between our opinions is that mine's based on what we know. Yours is conjecture based almost exclusively on the mere fact that you don't know things.

Feel free to quote anywhere I said that I want to ban, punish, behead or "death" these organizations.

In fact, I started by asking for somebody to explain to me the ramifications of a temporary ban to better understand why people felt it was such a drastic punishment. Nobody provided anything compelling.

And as such, I still think it's rational and prudent for the University to temporarily suspend these organizations.

My stance is perfectly logical. Yours would be to, were you not also coupling it with joke after joke about the potential victims here and unfounded conspiracy theories.

Okie dokie. I think we've both proven our points. And given that you're no longer able to provide evidence for your accusations, we've reached a natural end point.

Yeah, you're right. That was an emotional response. My points still stand though.