Bobcat Attack - General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events

General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic

Topic: Three sorority's reinstated

Page: 7 of 8

mail

person

rpbobcat

12/6/2019 4:19 PM

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more

rpbobcat wrote:expand_more

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more

rpbobcat wrote:expand_more

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more

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.

How, from that Twitter post, are you determining that that's not happening?

It seems like you're making an unrelated point.

The tweets,as well as the posts by bbocatt11o mention questions like "do you drink","have you ever purchased alcohol for minor".

I haven't seen anyone mention anything about being asked questions about
any specific hazing allegation(s) which was supposedly what O.U.'s investigation into the 110 is for.

Asking general questions about drinking games,bus clean up,even jacket dirtying, without reference to a specific allegation, is not what they claim to be investigating.

About the only question that could possibly fit what O.U. claims they are investigating is the one about whether any member of the 110 was "forced into anything".
Which, by the way,the answer was no.

There were very specific hazing reports about the jacket bullying.

And the other hazing reports were about a culture that pressures members of the 110 into drinking.

How can you say that questions about drinking games aren't relevant to the allegations?

I find your expectations here truly odd. The University is unable to ask any questions about the social culture of the organization they're investigating based on reports that the social culture included hazing and drinking?

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 aboutthat.

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.

And what do you do in an instance where you're a University tasked with maintaining the safety of your students and the allegations have no date, but rather are that there is a broad culture in which people who don't drink aren't accepted? How do you investigate that?

Based on your approach, you simply can't.

In this case O.U., is supposedly investigating specific allegations made against a specific organization.

I'm sure any person making this serious of an allegation would have some type of time frame and details on what led them to make their allegation.

Other then "I was told by a friend of a friend that at one time . . . "

Problem is,any allegation,against any organization,including ones made anonymously, seem to be given automatic credibility by O.U.

In the U.S,the accused is supposed to have the right to face their accuser.
Apparently not in the case of these types of investigations.

Last Edited: 12/6/2019 4:21:57 PM by rpbobcat

mail

person

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

12/6/2019 5:31 PM

rpbobcat wrote:expand_more

In the U.S,the accused is supposed to have the right to face their accuser.
Apparently not in the case of these types of investigations. [/QUOTE]Of course it's not the case in these types of investigations. The 6th Amendment applies to people who have been accused of a crime. None of the 250 members being questioned have been accused of a crime; the University is questioning them about organizational culture and the repercussions they face are not criminal in nature.

Why would the 6th Amendment apply?

[QUOTE=rpbobcat]
In this case O.U., is supposedly investigating specific allegations made against a specific organization.

The University is investigating allegations. You added the "specific" and that's criteria that you think should be required of the University. In actuality, some of the the allegations against the 110 are allegations about the culture of the organization and are not based on specific events. Is it really your stance here that under no circumstances can the University investigate allegations that aren't related to very specific events?

What if three anonymous sources reported that members of the medical staff at Michigan State were sexually assaulting female athletes. And they knew this not because anybody told them about specific incidents of sexual assault, but rather because it was a well-known secret amongst athletes there to steer clear of certain members of the staff and they'd heard rumors.

In your world, Michigan State isn't able to so much as ask athletes or medical staff about their general perception of whether or not there might be rampant sexual assault taking place? Because there aren't any specific allegations with specific dates to ask about?

C'mon, dude.

Last Edited: 12/6/2019 5:41:41 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

mail

person

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

12/6/2019 6:18 PM

Robert Fox wrote:expand_more

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.' [/QUOTE]Sure. But you and I aren't discussing whether or not the fraternity is guilty of murder/manslaughter/whatever.

You and I are discussing whether Colin Wiant is a victim that warrants the level of breathless defense that a few people here are giving to fraternity/sorority/university club members who have faced temporary suspensions.

The point I made that you initially disputed is whether or not Colin Wiant is a victim. He's unquestionably a victim of something, right? Even if it wasn't hazing that caused his death, we know he's a victim of hazing. Period. That's a proven fact. It involved forced drinking, physical abuse, and depending on how one reads certain coverage, perhaps forced drug use.

And my point is simply that we know there's hazing happening. That's been proven. And yet the victims here that people are concerned with are the ones who had to deal with temporary suspensions in the face of uncertain accusations.

For those victims, folks are evoking the ACLU, the 6th Amendment, making comparisons to the war on drugs. For the victims of hazing though? Those are adults who should take some personal responsibility. The upperclassmen in the fraternities and sororities who hazed people don't have to take any responsibility, of course. Nor do the organizations themselves. Just the victims of hazing. Those are the only people here who need to take personal responsibility, based on the comments here.

Robert Fox wrote:expand_more

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.

And band members are calling frats murderers. And Bobcat110 is accusing a rogue fraternity member of making up all of the accusations against sororities, clubs, and the 110. And BillyTheCat is baselessly accusing the Administration of an anti-fraternity conspiracy.

Also interesting: according the Alan Swank, I'm a "one man chorus." According the BillyTheCat, this 'reaks' (sic) and I'm the only one who refuses to smell it. Here, I'm clearly in the minority. But on campus? I guess that's a different story. Out of curiosity, why do you think the sentiment is different on campus? What is it that has folks on campus so firmly of the belief that these organizations are guilty of hazing? Do you think it's because they take the University's word as inherently true? Or do you think it's possible that people believe these organizations haze because of things they've heard about the general culture of these organizations? And things their peers have told them? And things they've seen.

I said this a bunch prior, but there's still one argument literally nobody here has been willing to make outside of Bobcat110 and his 110 tinted glasses. And that's that hazing isn't happening.

Why is it that nobody is willing to make that argument, exactly?

Robert Fox wrote:expand_more

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.

They went public after allegations were filed against 7 different fraternities. As a direct result of Colin Wiant's death 11 months ago. I mean, I'm probably the one who first used the phrase "zero tolerance" policy so it's my fault that it's being thrown around -- but let's be super clear: this wasn't a zero tolerance policy. The University was super tolerant. They investigated a death as an isolated incident. They ceased being tolerant after a huge influx of allegations against all manner of organizations. Were some of those allegations self fulfilling? Probably. Does that eliminate the University's responsibility to investigate them? No.

[QUOTE=Robert Fox]
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'?

Yep, dumb thing to say. But said as a direct result of the Sigma Pi dudes going all gag order on investigators in the wake of their friend's death. They refused to cooperate and the University -- stupidly -- tried to make it harder for people to coordinate stories this time around by limiting their communication.

And again -- I'm not stating that the University handled this perfectly. I'm simply stating that there's plenty of room to both dislike their handling and not call for resignations of every executive in Athens and insist on the level of malice so many here are ascribing to the University. It's a very, very weird level of fervor, and one that's been there since day 1.

So it's not even like it's purely about the handling, or lack of communication, weird insistence on 6th Amendment rights or infringement on civil liberties. Those are points nobody even got around to noticing until a full month into this. This anger was present first. The reasons came later.

Last Edited: 12/6/2019 6:43:56 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/6/2019 7:09 PM

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more

And again -- I'm not stating that the University handled this perfectly. I'm simply stating that there's plenty of room to both dislike their handling and not call for resignations of every executive in Athens and insist on the level of malice so many here are ascribing to the University. It's a very, very weird level of fervor, and one that's been there since day 1.

So it's not even like it's purely about the handling, or lack of communication, weird insistence on 6th Amendment rights or infringement on civil liberties. Those are points nobody even got around to noticing until a full month into this. This anger was present first. The reasons came later.

Ok, but I think we're right back where we started. We disagree on how this was handled overall. My only remaining point is one I've made before. You describe this "fervor" as "weird." I don't agree. I think you'd see this same degree of outrage at any university where this same thing took place.

mail

OhioCatFan

12/7/2019 12:36 AM

Though I have not participated much in this thread, I feel the need to point out one distinction that I think has been overlooked. While the band is a "wholly owned subsidiary" of the university, the greek system is not. Greek chapters are affiliated with the university, but are not owned by it. The university is within its rights to deal with band anyway it might like, short of violating relevant laws. Heck, they can decide tomorrow to drop football and disband the band. This is not to say that they should take such drastic action, but they are legally entitled to do so. However, with the fraternities and sororities it's a different matter. To prohibit the right of free association among members, to proscribe free speech rights, to presume guilt, is all a little bit beyond the pale, IMHO. They do not in any way own the Greek groups on campus. The university does not in any meaningful way financially support them, give members scholarships based on their Greek affiliation, or employ them based on that affiliation.

Pardon me, if I make a Civil War analogy. What a surprise! ;-)

In the election of 1860, there was a Republican paramilitary group on many campuses called the Wide Awakes. On the campus of the University of Rochester one student, Albion Tourgée, objected when the president of the university ordered the group to disband. Young Albion -- who would later distinguish himself as a soldier, a benevolent carpetbagger, an author, a journalist, and a civil rights lawyer and advocate -- confronted the president and told him he did not have the right to disband their Wide Awake chapter, since they were simply exercising their right of free association. The president insisted that he had the right to disband them since they called themselves the University of Rochester Wide Awakes. Albion held his ground, too. The impasse was finally resolved when the president agreed to allow the group to continue on campus as long as they took the name of the university out of their name. I submit that this might be an action the Ohio University sororities and fraternities should consider. That is, dropping the name Ohio University from their chapter names and charters, thus breaking any remaining legal "hooks" that the university might have to treat them as wards of the institution. Just a thought!

If you are interested in finding out more about the illustrious career of Albion Tourgée, I'd refer you to his wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion_W._Tourgée Among other things, he was the lead attorney for Homer Plessy in Plessy v. Ferguson and coined the phrase “color blind justice,” which Justice John M. Harlan Sr. took from Tourgée’s brief and used in his dissenting opinion.

I might point out that I wrote the copy for the historical marker, pictured on the wikipedia page, that was placed in front of Tourgée's boyhood home in Kingsville, Ohio (Ashtabula County), a few years ago. The marker was financed by the Ashtabula County Bar Association Foundation, and the project was completed under the auspice of the Kent State University Ashtabula Campus.

Last Edited: 12/7/2019 10:10:27 AM by OhioCatFan

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/7/2019 8:36 AM

OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more

In the election of 1860, there was a Republican paramilitary group on many campuses called the Wide Awakes. On the campus of the University of Rochester one student, Albion Tourgée, objected when the president of the university ordered the group to disband. Young Albion -- who would later distinguish himself as a soldier, a benevolent carpetbagger, an author, a journalist, and a civil rights advocate -- confronted the president and told him he did not have the right to disband their Wide Awake chapter, since they were simply exercising their right of free association. The president insisted that he had the right to disband them since they called themselves the University of Rochester Wide Awakes. Albion held his ground, too. The impasse was finally resolved when the president agreed to allow the group to continue on campus as long as they took the name of the university out of their name. I submit that this might be an action the Ohio University sororities and fraternities should consider. That is, dropping the name Ohio University from their chapter names and charters, thus breaking any remains legal "hooks" that the university might have to treat them as wards of the institution. Just a thought!

Interesting. Thanks for posting. On a similar vein, I've often wondered what actual power universities have over Greek life. From afar, it would seem the universities have total power. I'm not a lawyer so I don't understand why that is so stark. Contrary to what has been posted on this thread, it seems to me that national fraternal organizations offer very little in support of these college-level chapters, often fighting weakly or not fighting at all as chapters are closed down for various reasons. University of Tennessee has recent examples of exactly that.

mail

person

Alan Swank

12/7/2019 9:08 AM

Worth the read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternities_and_sororities

mail

person

rpbobcat

12/7/2019 10:13 AM

President Nellis 12/6 First Friday letter includes a paragraph on the issue of hazing.

If someone could figure out how to post it,I'd appreciate it.

He says in part "our University community has made significant progress over the last few months as we have worked collaboratively with students,faculty and staff to eliminate hazing."

I don't know if "collaboratively with . . ." is exactly accurate.

"collaboratively " seems to be Nellis,JHJ and others in that inner circle.

I also notice there wasn't any reference to the vandalism of frat houses.

mail

person

Alan Swank

12/7/2019 11:07 AM

In today's Dispatch:

https://www.dispatch.com/news/20191206/vandals-hit-ou-sor...

mail

person

74 Cat

12/7/2019 3:39 PM

Here is a copy and paste from the First Friday epistle from the president.

"Our University community has made significant progress over the last few months as we have worked collaboratively with students, faculty and staff to eliminate hazing. Whether as a member of a sorority, fraternity or other student organization, our students are holding each other accountable and experiencing more of the overwhelmingly positive outcomes of being involved. I am pleased with the work of our student leaders and with the spirit that many of the organizations bring to campus."

mail

person

Alan Swank

12/8/2019 8:44 PM

74 Cat wrote:expand_more

Yep and they are spray painting houses and assauting and confronting students on campus.

mail

person

BillyTheCat

12/12/2019 10:44 AM

According to documentation released today, ACACIA Fraternity was suspended for a student wrote in a class journal that they were forced to clean houses "as part of our hazing". Wow, wonder how these folks are even allowed to stay in school.

Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity forced a member to "wake up early in the morning and text members of the fraternity organization the weather for the day".

I will support the action of suspending Lambda Chi, and question why anyone would do that.

mail

person

rpbobcat

12/12/2019 11:03 AM

BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more

Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity forced a member to "wake up early in the morning and text members of the fraternity organization the weather for the day".

One report said "early" was 6:00 am.

I'm already at work by then.

As I posted, when this was first rumored as the alleged hazing:

Set alarm,text weather,go back to bed.

To quote Herbert Morrison (Hindenberg Announcer) "Oh the humanity".

mail

person

rpbobcat

12/12/2019 11:08 AM

BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more

According to documentation released today,

Is that documentation available on line ?

mail

person

BillyTheCat

12/12/2019 12:35 PM

rpbobcat wrote:expand_more

BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more

According to documentation released today,

Is that documentation available on line ?

Would not know, that information came from the Messenger, which stated, "from documents released by OU".

Also, stated no information available yet on the band and quite a few other organizations.

mail

person

Recovering Journalist

12/12/2019 12:45 PM

rpbobcat wrote:expand_more

BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more

Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity forced a member to "wake up early in the morning and text members of the fraternity organization the weather for the day".

I'm not going to pretend these are severe issues, but you're both acknowledging that hazing occurred by the university's very clear definition of the term as laid out here: https://www.ohio.edu/policy/23-010

The university has very good reasons to legally protect itself by instituting and enforcing a zero tolerance policy toward hazing. You may not like it but you can't pretend you don't know why, or that it would be a smart idea legally for the administration to let some things slide and allow for gray areas to develop. They aim to kill the culture of hazing altogether, and that seems to make some posters sad for some bizarre reason.

mail

person

rpbobcat

12/12/2019 1:22 PM

Recovering Journalist wrote:expand_more

rpbobcat wrote:expand_more

BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more

Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity forced a member to "wake up early in the morning and text members of the fraternity organization the weather for the day".

Sorry,but when having to text weather reports,or clean someone's room allows you to be charged with "hazing",O.U. really needs to revisit how hazing is defined.

This was discussed in detail previously on another thread.

A lot of organizations have/had initiations,including the Boy Scouts.
I posted about my initiation ritual on my first Boy Scout camping trip.

Also had to go through a whole initiation period and ceremony for the Columbian Squires.

Both of these would be considered hazing by O.U.

When you define almost every organizational ritual as "hazing",it loses all meaning.

mail

OhioCatFan

12/12/2019 1:36 PM

BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more

+1

Now I know why my fraternity couldn't figure out what they had done wrong. As rpbobcat said in another post in this thread, the university needs to revisit its definition of hazing, or the Greek system needs to invoke the "nuclear option" as I described earlier in this thread -- complete disassociation from the university. University students don't surrender their rights of free association as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when they enroll in school.

Wording of First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Last Edited: 12/12/2019 1:49:27 PM by OhioCatFan

mail

person

Recovering Journalist

12/12/2019 1:45 PM

rpbobcat wrote:expand_more

Times change. None of the nostalgic pap you or anyone else in this thread posts is going to stop change.

To wit: The BSA has an official policy against hazing and ANY initiation practices. ("Hazing and initiations are prohibited and have no part during any Scouting activity.") https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/gss/gss01 /

If you or any affected group hates the university's policy, try to get them to change it. "No hazing, except lighthearted fun" probably isn't going to fly, but good luck anyway.

mail

OhioCatFan

12/12/2019 1:51 PM

Recovering Journalist wrote:expand_more

Times change. None of the nostalgic pap you or anyone else in this thread posts is going to stop change. . . .

If you or any affected group hates the university's policy, try to get them to change it. "No hazing, except lighthearted fun" probably isn't going to fly, but good luck anyway.

What complete arrogance. It's this attitude that led several fraternities at WVU to invoke the nuclear option. Yes, times are a'changing . . .

Last Edited: 12/12/2019 2:06:17 PM by OhioCatFan

mail

person

rpbobcat

12/12/2019 2:35 PM

Recovering Journalist wrote:expand_more

Yes,times change,but not always for the better.

The carpet bombing of O.U.'s fraternities,sororities,and organizations like the 110,with Cease and Desist Orders ,showed that changing to a hastily implemented Zero Tolerance Policy ,with a vague/poor definition of hazing, didn't work out to well.

Like I posted,when an institution like O.U. defines things like texting daily weather reports, as "hazing",the word loses all significance.

As far as "hating the university's policy".

I haven't seen any posts on this topic that I would say rise to the level of "hate".

Upset,especially for the wrongly accused organizations,yes.

Angry,with how the university has handled this debacle,including wholly inadequate communication from the administration,especially JHJ and Nellis,yes.

Shocked, at how the university chose to violate students' First Amendment rights,yes.

But hate,nope.

OCF is correct,if universities continue this type of heavy handedness,
Greek organizations will just go nuclear.

OCF mentioned some fraternities WVU.

WVU is not the only school.
There are several out here on the East coast that have gone "under ground".

In some cases they maintain an on campus presence.
But all "social" activities are done off campus,NOT under their fraternity banner.

Its only groups like the 110,that are part of a university,that can't exercise that option.

I do want the University to amend their hazing policy.

I'll just speak with my wallet.

I make regular contributions to O.U.

Until something happens,including,hopefully replacing JHJ and Nellis,I'll limit
my contributions to the 110 and wrestling.

Are losing my contributions going to have an impact ?
Nope.
But if enough people are upset enough to do the same,who knows.

Last Edited: 12/12/2019 2:38:09 PM by rpbobcat

mail

person

Alan Swank

12/12/2019 3:12 PM

rpbobcat wrote:expand_more

[QUOTE=Recovering Journalist]

I'll just speak with my wallet.

I make regular contributions to O.U.

Until something happens,including,hopefully replacing JHJ and Nellis,I'll limit
my contributions to the 110 and wrestling.

Are losing my contributions going to have an impact ?
Nope.
But if enough people are upset enough to do the same,who knows.

Time to cue up Alice's Restaurant - "if enough people do it, they'll think it's a movement."

mail

person

rpbobcat

12/12/2019 3:53 PM

Alan Swank wrote:expand_more

rpbobcat wrote:expand_more

Time to cue up Alice's Restaurant - "if enough people do it, they'll think it's a movement."

Ah yes,"the Alice's restaurant anti-massacre movement".

Last Edited: 12/12/2019 3:54:58 PM by rpbobcat

mail

person

Recovering Journalist

12/12/2019 5:21 PM

You can say a lot of things about the hazing policy, but I doubt it was hastily implemented or done in a vacuum.

In fact, the policy is very similar to those of other large universities in the state, and the activities at OU would violate the policies of those schools as well. I've picked the three largest by enrollment for comparison:

OSU has a policy that's at least as expansive as Ohio's: https://studentconduct.osu.edu/for-students/hazing /
UC: https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/trustees/docs/rules_40/... (the key element here is "A forced or coerced activity shall also be considered hazing when the initiation or admission into, or continued affiliation with, a university organization is directly or indirectly conditional upon performing that activity.")
KSU follows state law but adds a very broad definition after that: https://www.kent.edu/policyreg/university-policy-regardin... ("In addition to Ohio law, Kent state university defines "hazing" as any action or situation intentionally created, whether on or off university premises, to produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment or ridicule.")

Like I said, you may not like it, but the policy is in place for a reason, and OU is far from alone in implementing something like it.

mail

person

Robert Fox

12/12/2019 5:25 PM

So very tricky to legislate common sense.