Assuming this was truly a parent who's child felt uncomfortable around alcohol...(and to clarify, there was no forced drinking in the accusation, just feelings), is it really reasonable to cease and desist organizations for two plus months and violate students' rights over feelings? [/QUOTE]There was forced drinking in the allegation. Filed October 9th:
"The student reported they had gotten word by an anonymous source that the Marching 110 forced freshmen and new members to drink alcohol or “they would be shunned.”
The word forced is right in there. I'm sure that's what caught the University's attention in that particular report and not "feelings."
It's a big organization, I'm sure when you take 250 people in any organization, someone's feelings get hurt at times.
And in big organizations, people have vastly different experiences. What your daughters experience or perceive may differ from what another member experiences and perceives. The University has to keep all 250 safe. You're in a position to value your daughters' word as accurate; the University isn't. While you are certain these are untrue allegations and unfair, the University can't be without an investigation.
Why not start with inviting the director and parent into a meeting? Why would a parent fire off a letter to the Dean instead of talking to the Director in the first place?
I have no idea what that parent did or didn't do, nor do you. Maybe they explored other channels? Maybe their son/daughter begged them not to? I don't know. It's not really relevant any more though, because it's not what they did.
and what a coincidence it was one week after the fraternities were suspended and at the exact same time proven false accusations against sororities were being submitted?
Not a coincidence at all, actually. When issues receive publicity, people who feel victimized often times realize for the first time there's a way to report that. And they do.
Also, the accusations against the sororities weren't "proven false" -- they were dismissed due to a lack of evidence. Which is exactly what will happen with the vast majority of these accusations. That doesn't mean they didn't happen; it just means they're really hard to prove. There's a difference.
someone was digging for rumors to try and pull the band and Sororities into the hazing suspensions.
Why? There are an awful lot of people here completely convinced of this conspiracy. Why? How does this benefit the University in any way?
All three band allegations were submitted over 2 days the week after the fraternity fallout. "I read an anonymous report from 2017 that this happened...." and "I heard from a girl who's boyfriend in 2014, I don't remember his name...."
I'm not sure what when the allegations were made has to do with anything. How does it prove conspiracy that a widely publicized 'hazing hotline' received more reports after wide publicity? What else would happen?
Sororities had attorneys to dig them out of their false allegations within a couple of weeks...hell, the DZs had a reported overdose at their house on Halloween weekend and they're in the clear....there's no such advocate for the 110...they have to sit and take it for fear of heavy handed backlash against their director and staff.
Again, not false allegations. Just allegations that couldn't be proven. There's a difference.
And yeah, it's a bummer that the suspension's been longer for the 110. Not sure it rises to the level of civil rights infingement though.
I'm not sure why you're acting surprised that people are angry with the unreasonable actions of the university.
I don't think the actions were so unreasonable. And I've been very clear as to why.
Why is taking two months and counting without them being provided a course of action to clear the band from suspension? How reasonable is the university for suspending indefinitely until the Dean feels like getting around to doing the investigating?
I am not in a place to speculate about the University's investigation timeline. No idea how/why, but I suspect it's not just about "when the Dean feels like getting around to it."
One fraternity had allegations of keeping pledges in damp basements during hell week, they've already been cleared and chapter activities restored.
Yeah, I dunno about the timeline.
[QUOTE=Bobcat110]
Eighty percent of the band members aren't music majors, they're some amazing OU students with many in demanding majors like Chemistry, Engineering, Astro Physics, and Pre-Med. They get no scholarship money, yet put in hours upon hours in memorizing music, marching & dances. My daughters have spent Saturday nights until 4am in the Band Building practicing their music because the Monday after a home game they had to re-audition for their spots. Every Thursday night before a home game 2+ hours of practice, regular practices 5-7pm every day, sectional practices, dance practices, 8am practice on game days when most college students are still in bed. So...yes, I don't understand how a parent can truly say they'd be OK with someone stealing a semester from their kids who put that kind of heart into something because some person who has never put an ounce of effort into the band typed an allegation to the Dean. Allegations of hurt feelings and five year-old hearsay of hearsay isn't enough.