A few comments regarding some recent posts:

1.Alan Swank is 100% correct,BA posters on all sides of the political/social spectrum recognize this whole debacle for what it is.
A "major mistake" on the part of O.U.

2.Several of the Tweets bobcatt110 posted mention Dr Suk's comment at the Varsity Show.
"Despite what you may have read about the band,these are the finest students Ohio University has to offer."

My wife and I were in Athens for the Varsity Show.

The audience reaction said it all.

Also,given the scrutiny the band members and staff are under,Dr.Suk deserves a lot of praise for coming out and saying what he did.

3.Reading the the tweets about the 110's interrogations,these kids were walking into a legal "buzz saw".

From reading the questions,there seems to be very little attention being paid to the actual hazing allegations.

They seem to be "fishing", by asking things like "have you ever bought alcohol for a minor ?" and "do you know anyone who has".

These types of questions are way out of bounds.
Given the potential consequences,this shows why any student or staff member being interrogated needs to have legal representation to keep the interrogators in line.

4.Reading what it takes to be an "interrogator" (University Hearing Board Member) I really wonder,after a whole 1 day of training,exactly how qualified they are.

I would think that any decision they made could easily be challenged by any lawyer.

5.So JHJ has finally come out with a tweet,yea.
Still waiting on Nellis.
FYI,I'm hoping my "Where's Nellis" picture books will be available for your Christmas Gift Giving.

Maybe these were buried in the links to the Twitter accounts you linked to, but where's the info you're referencing about the interrogations? I didn't see it.

I have no idea what happened to this kid. But I just want to point out something incredibly ironic about BobcatAttack. Just a little ethnographic study, if you will.

1. 27 women (and counting) accuse Donald Trump of sexual assault, which he then discusses on a 'hot' mic. Posters here doubt the stories.

2. Several women come forward to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of inappropriate behavior. Posters here doubt the stories.

3. Roy Moore is accused credibly of preying on young children. Posters here doubt the stories.

4. A kid says he was shoved by a fellow student and told "fuck you hazer" and it goes completely unquestioned.

In case you're scoring at home, there's people here who at one point have claimed all of the following. And they all happen to be on the same side:

1. This is a witch hunt that's just an excuse to ban fraternities forever.
2. The is an anti fraternity conspiracy.
3. Nellis and the Dean should be fired because we don't know any information.
4. Nellis and the Dean should be fired because we do know information and don't like it.
5. The accusations against sororities and student groups were perpetrated by an angry frat guy and completely made up.
6. Zero tolerance policies on hazing are akin to the drug war. (By the way, people nodding in agreement with this Alan Swank's point in this case voted for a man who called for the death penalty for drug dealers. You know, because they're anti-drug war.)
7. The Ohio University student body, 45% of which is currently too high to figure out how a vending machine works, now includes hooded vigilantes attacking marching band members in the dark of night and calling them "hazers."

A few times early into this I remarked on how baffling it is that Americans all seem so desperate to cast themselves as victims. I stand by that.

Interestingly, the only group here that doesn't seem to have garnered any support at all on ol' BobcatAttack is the victims of hazing themselves. Far, far less outrage that the people responsible for Colin Wiant's death didn't face any legal consequences. Or that the his fraternity brothers refused to cooperate with police.

The University made plenty of unforced errors here. There are plenty of valid reasons to be frustrated. But let's try and embrace some nuance here. Things don't have to be all of one thing or another. As I keep saying, there's all sorts of very comfortable middle ground here.

I agree with this, but don't understand why you accept that there are reasons to be frustrated, yet when people post about those frustrations, you post-up and fight back. If you agree there's reason to be frustrated, for God's sake, let people vent a bit.

I'm not fighting back about the basis of their frustrations. I've agreed with that in many instances. I'm challenging the obviously emotional conclusions they reach, the overwhelming desire to play victim, and the leap to conspiratorial thinking.

You're right that that's probably just venting. But I think that sort of venting reflects poorly on the University community, so I challenge it.

You made this exact point before we had any insight into what was actually asked. Now we have a student posting her recollection of her interrogation, and I don't think it actually supports what you're saying at all.

That student lists the very specific incidents she was asked about. She said"

"So they put me in a room alone and asked me a series of questions about nicknames, the drinking game, posting party, bus clean up, and the jackets (these were the biggest things they talked about but there was more)."

"She talked about any situation where I was forced into anything. . .And I was like “no, I don’t drink but I’ve been to the get togethers and no one is ever forced into anything. We do not do that, and to suggest we do is against everything the 110 stands for. This is established by the upperclassmen and the start of training week”

Which questions do you feel were out of bounds? What about those questions doesn't address the accusations? Weren't the accusations against the 110 about a culture of hazing and forced drinking? What would you expect the questions to look like?

I don't think he's an evil kid. But you don't have to be an evil kid to be found guilty of criminal negligence, and the question around hazing and culture is one of how an organization managed to get to a point where somebody could be lying dead on the floor and that could so easily be mixed up with a regular ol' Saturday night. It's perfectly reasonable to try and understand what organizational decisions lead to that state of affairs, and to consider a Colin Wiant a victim of that. Victimhood doesn't assume maliciousness or evil.

Again,I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who does a lot of
testimony as both a "fact" and "expert" witness.

I would consider any question,not directly pertaining to a specific hazing allegation,or violation the Code of Conduct "out of bounds",unless a lawyer said it was o.k. to answer.

Again,based on my experience,I would expect questions like "an allegation has been made that,on _______(date),_________ occurred."

"Were you aware of this ?"

If the answer is "yes" then the interrogator could follow up.

The University's investigation uncovered that pledges were made to do whip-its and other drugs as part of the hazing process. That is an organizational decision and it's one that I'd argue has a very clear purpose: to demonstrate to pledges the culture of that particular fraternity and weed out the people who don't want to be a part of that culture. Do you disagree?

Given that, it doesn't really matter if kids outside of fraternities do whip-its. Of course they do. The question in this case is does the fraternity encourage or condemn that behavior? And the fact that whip-its and other drug use were uncovered as a part of their initiation process clearly answers that question, in my view.

The fact is that fraternities are held to a different standard out of necessity. They are a formal organization with policies and governance in place, and as a direct result that changes how their behaviors are judged. Had Colin Wiant just been friends with a bunch of people who liked whip-its and died doing them, it's just a sad story. That he was part of a formal, University-endorsed organization that made drug use a part of their initiation process changes things legally.

Colin Wiant's death was both tragic and sad.

Including drug use as part of pledging is unconscionable.
It does indicate the "culture" of that particular organization.

Any frat or sorority that does that has no place at O.U. or any other university.

That being said,Mr Wiant may have been coerced,but none of the stories I've read say he was forced to do the Whip Its that apparently caused his death.
He was apparently aware of the culture and chose to participate.

When you as a pledge or an active see an initiation activity,including one that involves potential bodily harm,including drug use,you need exercise some personal responsibility and common sense.
Quit and report the fraternity.

But I guess the people involved didn't see this as a problem.

Problem is,when people don't report these things,it has,and will,continue to happen.

Same thing here. Show me a link that establishes that. I'm simply not aware of it. If it's true, then yes, I'll happily agree with you ON THIS PARTICULAR FRATERNITY. I will not automatically ascribe that behavior to other organizations, fraternities, sororities, band, rugby team.

My expectations are quite simple.

If you are purporting to be investigating specific allegations of hazing,or violation of the Student Code of Conduct that's what you ask questions about.

Just saying there was a "culture of pressuring members of the 110 into drinking",without a reference to a specific incident is nothing more then "fishing".

If there is a specific allegation of this,or anything else,like jacket bullying,then ask about that.

But you're supposed to ask by referencing the date and nature of the allegation.

My advice to any member of the 110 would be to talk to a lawyer before any interrogation.
When you meet with the interrogators,before you answer any questions, have them put,on the record,exactly what the purpose of their interrogation is,potential consequences and what the "ground rules" are.

This is particularly important when you're dealing with interrogators who have had that extensive 1 day training.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure about that. I read both of your links. I believe I had read them both before. This time I read them more carefully to find that evidence. It's just not clear. Certainly not clear enough to definitively say that the fraternity is guilty of killing someone. That is certainly a step too far, and yet that is what is now happening. One of the tweets that is posted further up the page has some OU band student complaining that the 110 is being targeted while one of the 'frats killed someone.' That is now the belief around campus, that these organizations are guilty. So guilty that the university has suspended them. Guilty enough that some whacked out individual(s) is spray painting frat houses. Another whacked out individual--allegedly--is body checking band members and calling them out.

This response is partly the result of the approach OU administration is taking. They could have targeted only the accused, quietly, until they made some sort of finding that was actionable. Instead, they chose to go public right from the first accusations. The assistant Dean of Students sends a cease and desist letter complete with some line about 'don't talk to anyone unless I approve it.' (By the way, how full of himself is this guy?) And no one in the department thought 'gee, maybe we better check this with legal before we go off half cocked'?