Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
11/6/2019 8:51 PM
You, The Optimist -- you can't argue with my point on merits, so you desperately try and find a reason not to accept it as valid. Why? It's irrelevant because I haven't visited Athens in years? Or because I didn't know about the fraternity death at the time?
I brought up the fact that you hadn't visited Athens in a decade because I found it ironic you characterized me as someone with no current ties to the school when in reality my time as a student was over the time-frame you've been entirely absent from campus. I think if you spoke to students today, you'd find they are quite annoyed with old-timers telling them not to do things that those same people partook in when they were their age... "Do as I say, not as I do"
I think it's pathetic the administration is trying to blame current students for the environment on campus. As you've correctly stated, this has been going on for a long, long time... It took a death for anyone to do anything, and you're going to destroy organizations a lot of current students life revolves around on campus? That's absurd. Jenny Hall-Jones, Dean of Students, oversaw the death of a student. She should resign instead of blaming current students. Shameful the adults in the administration aren't taking accountable for their (lack) of actions and are rather just sending out a bunch of legal nonsense which will change nothing just to try to cover their own asses so they don't get sued. They don't actually care about students on campus at all.
That wasn't meant as a characterization of you, specifically. It was a sarcastic, over-the-top characterization of "old grads" insisting the kids making complaints about these organizations were over-sensitive "snowflakes" or whatever. I don't know when you were in Athens or what you do now. I replied to you only because you'd previously made sarcastic jokes about how triggering this had been for you personally. My point was that there's plenty of over-sensitivity to go around here. Before we knew any facts, there were people calling for the resignation of administrators, calling the state of the the University a disgrace, and insisting they'd never donate another dollar. This whole thing clearly triggered plenty of people, on all sides.
The irony, of course, is that those same people then made the basis of their anger the mere fact that they didn't know the content of the accusations. They were angry enough to know this was a disgrace, that administrators should resign, and that they'd never donate another dollar. But they didn't know any details, and that's why they were angry. And then when the details were released? A 10 page thread immediately petered out. There are all of 6 posts after the Post published the complaints. That's immediately following 8 pages of posts about how not publishing the accusations was fishy and pointed to an anti-frat conspiracy. And yet, basically no discussion of the accusations themselves. I find that telling. It's clear there's behavior in there that nobody supports.
Further, I still don't see how this destroyed any organizations. From the very beginning, I've heard people talk about how drastic this decision was. But thus far, we've seen organizations reinstated in a timely manner and haven't seen a single organization permanently banned. In the end, this seems to have been a well-publicized slap on the wrist. Right off the bat, I asked for people to explain why this was so drastic. I didn't get a ton in response. Maybe some lost deposits for homecoming formals. Ambiguity about whether upperclassman were allowed to live in frat houses. Alums at homecoming not having tailgates to go to. But that was the extent of it.
And that was my point from the beginning. You can go back into the original thread and take a look. All along, I've been making the point that this ultimately wasn't a drastic punishment at all, but rather was just a risk-arbitrage and that the University was particularly risk averse after last year's death. Where you and I disagree, is that I don't think that stance necessarily means the administration doesn't care about the students at all; I think you can care plenty and still make that decision. Why? Because it's hard for me to see a temporary suspension as the end of the world. I certainly don't see how any organizations have been destroyed. Instead, where we find ourselves is in a place where the University has been seen to be no-nonsense about hazing, can be viewed as proactive, mitigate their liability, and reinstate all of these organizations, which will go on doing what they've always done. I mean, it's given Billy an aneurysm, but it's not a coincidence what I saw in 2004 matched what's happening in 2019, and what rpbobcat saw in 1922 (I kid, I kid) matched what was mentioned in complaints this year. These are traditions that, dumb as they may be, aren't going anywhere. But every now and again, these organizations need to be reminded not to be idiots about it, because this behavior can have real consequences. As it did very recently in very tragic fashion.
It's a bummer for the folks who did nothing wrong. But it's just a bummer. It's not some grave injustice, and though Billy's been breathlessly insisting otherwise over the last few weeks, I never really saw anything here that warrants the vitriol towards the administration that we've seen. It was an unpopular decision, but a minor one in the scheme of things, and had the national media but picked this up, I suspect a whole bunch of people who are really angry about it never would've noticed.
Last Edited: 11/6/2019 8:56:05 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame