I personally believe one of the fraternities had a few members who were responsible for the allegations against the sororities, band, professional fraternities and rugby team. They were pissed at the administration and then pulled out decades old rumors and hearsay. The only 110 allegation that might have had some traction would be the parent who said their kid felt pressure to go to band parties (again. Feelings aren’t suspension worthy). The rest of the 110 allegations were flat out fabricated. As mentioned previously, a sorority advisor said their attorneys were able to clear them immediately because, according to her, all their allegations were submitted from the same computer in Alden and were the same stupid rumors (such as circling fat with a sharpie) that we heard when we were in college.

Yet. We’re doing exactly that aren’t we? Relying on things kids have heard.

Again, this wasn’t kids in Athens. I heard it from an advisor to a sorority. Is it hearsay? Sure. Difference is.......my allegation isn’t restricting someone’s rights. It’s nothing more than talk on a bulletin board. But the allegations against those organizations look pretty fabricated. Have you actually read them?

BillyTheCat has made the point repeatedly that the fraternities should have been suspended after Colin Wiant's death, as well. I think that's a totally fair point and suspect that nobody would've said much about this decision had it been undertaken then.

In fact, I'm honestly not sure what you find so disagreeable about this Editorial. Isn't a big chunk of it in full agreement with you and a whole bunch of people here? Billy has said repeatedly that the frats should have been suspended back then and doing so now is unfair.

The Post Editorial Board said the following:

Isn't that the exact same conclusion that Billy's reached and super similar to what you're saying? What are you so opposed to there?

Not sure I agree. In addition to the above points, they ended with this:

I've now quoted 85% of the piece. Where do you see the condemnation of Greek Life in that?

Okay. You implied in your initial post that they should be equally upset about these two things. I don't agree. Do you, even? Do you actually think spray paint on a house and hazing are comparable and should warrant equal responses?

See, this is where you all lose me and start to go off the rails. You all are making plenty of valid points, as I've said many times. I, in fact, totally understand the basis of your stance. What I don't understand is the obvious anger (sorry -- "outrage") and extreme reactions. I don't understand the call for resignations, the insistence that money will never be donated again, and the impulse to assume conspiracy and malice.

I mean, isn't there a far more charitable reading of all of this -- even one that aligns entirely with your own perception -- that doesn't necessitate the conclusion that "It's apparent from the timing of OU's actions were intended to cause as much 'pain' as possible"? Isn't the much more obvious answer that the timing of the 110s suspension was a direct result of the national attention and the need to be perceived as treating all accusations equally and not unfairly singling out fraternities? The timing of the 110s suspension matched the timing of every other suspension. That's by far the obvious and likely explanation for the timing of the suspension.

But for some reason you arrive at the conclusion that it was timed to inflict as much pain as possible. You assume malice on the part of the University. Others on your side of this whole thing assume it's a conspiracy. What's behind that impulse?

As I've said, I think that impulse is driven by a desire to try and justify the outrage.

What don't you understand about the University's actions at this point? What haven't they explained? Further, is there any explanation that would change your mind? I suspect not. As I pointed out above, you're inclined to assume maliciousness on the University's part. What could the explain further that would move the needle for you?

I personally believe one of the fraternities had a few members who were responsible for the allegations against the sororities, band, professional fraternities and rugby team. They were pissed at the administration and then pulled out decades old rumors and hearsay.

Ok. We can’t assert who. But someone made a deliberate attack. Here’s proof:

Three sororities received allegations at the same time from same location and the event happened on the same date. Could be an anti-Greek person too:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/JRTj6qaVs4Spuuqi8

C'mon, dude. A deliberate attack? Somebody reported things they'd heard about hazing at sororities. The university investigated -- very, very briefly -- and dismissed the accusations due to lack of evidence.

What you're doing is assuming bad faith as a means of avoiding having to acknowledge the accusations themselves. It is, interestingly, the exact same psychological trick the GOP is using with the whole Ukraine thing. Their argument is now basically that because Democrats have always had it out for Trump, the wrongdoing uncovered about Ukraine was uncovered in bad faith and therefore nobody needs to pay attention to it, even if it's true and bad. By assuming bad faith and a conspiracy, it allows you reason to fault the University for investigating at all.

That's what you're doing here. You don't think the person who submitted those complaints submitted them in good faith, so you think the University should never have examined them. Your stance is that the University should have abdicated their responsibility and ignored this completely. But what if these accusations were true? And it came out next year that the University received these complaints and did nothing? That's a far worse outcome for literally everybody involved than a week long temporary suspension.

The University, instead, looked at them and dismissed them basically immediately. Which is exactly what they should have done. They fulfilled their obligation and moved on.

This isn't evidence of some grand conspiracy or evidence of the University having been duped. It's evidence that the University followed the process they laid out and were fair in just in doing so.

Pure speculation at best and hardly enough information to warrrant an immediate suspension.

Pure speculation at best and hardly enough information to warrrant an immediate suspension.

I cannot, at all, understand how the university felt it was right to disallow these individuals from then still communicating. It cannot be called a Marching 110 event, but those individuals should still have the right to hang out on their own if they choose. It doesn't need to be an ACACIA party, but if all members of the fraternity want to go to the CI, why is that not allowed?