As a former employee of a fraternity I read this whole thing, and am confused about its point. I guess the author was trying for "Fraternities are bad because bad things happen to people that visit them" but all of the cited cases have nothing to do with the fraternity and have everything to do with a bunch of 18-year-olds being drunk and in a house together. Am I missing something?
I think one could also tell a biologist or psychologist that their objects of study are just a bunch of atoms stuck together.
Systems (like human institutions) have organizing principles, which are at least a level above the members which comprise them. Two different institutions can have the exact same people in them, but show vastly different outcomes.
Ok I understand even less now -- the drunk kid that shoves a bottle rocket up his butt while partying with friends is at fault unless he is in a building owned by a fraternity due to the organizing principles of the fraternity? As the article notes, he wasn't a member of the fraternity, he was just on their property.
What I'm missing is how this article is HM-relevant.
The fraternity house is generally scapegoated in the article as the locust of bad deeds because they tend indeed to be a locust for collegiate social interaction. Some bad things really do happen in fraternities.
I'll say though, the ~"60 people died in incidents related to fraternities over 10 years" stat is almost laughable if the author wasn't apparently serious. From a risk management perspective, focusing on 6 people a year out of 10's of millions that interact within a fraternity environment doesn't seem like the right prioritization.
Sexual assault happens more frequently and concern there is well-placed. But I do wonder if its incident rate wouldn't simply transfer to the general school population should, for example, fraternities be close on a campus.
It just seems to make sense to me that, if folks are going to come together and socialize with inhibition-inhibiting substances, some people with bad intentions are going to act on them, whether at a fraternity house party or a non-fraternity house party.
A snippet from the article: "An 1857 letter that a Sigma Phi member named Jenkins Holland sent to one of his fraternity brothers suggests the new system was already hitting full stride: 'I did get one of the nicest pieces of ass some day or two ago.'"
The author makes the argument that it was a mistake not to talk to the alleged perpetrators and get their point of view, which is a fair point.
I don't think it invalidates the whole piece though, and the UVA administration's behaviour closely resembles those of other universities that have recently become public, so it still seems credible.
That article, as far as I can tell, makes a single point, namely that rapists shouldn't be expelled from campus, for various reasons.
I'm not sure why that points to gaping holes in the UVA case. While some of the criticism is valid, frankly I find the overly sensationalist deconstruction of the original article for the sake of attention and page impressions rather distasteful.
Allegations of rape are generally really problematic in a society were rape is normalized and the justice system has a skewed view of what a "legit rape" is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture). I'm not too familiar with cases in the US but the "legit rape" in my country is more or less "the black man/immigrant that lurks in the shrubbery in a dark park". This despite the fact that most rapist are "normal" men. This leads to a situation were the few cases that do get reported and have enough evidence are dismissed in court because the minimum punishment for rape is a life destroying two years in prison. The punishment scale doesn't really recognize the "normal young men" and the courts have no tools but to free the alleged rapist.
I agree that the journalist behind the Rolling stones article should have heard the alleged rapists. It's bad journalism not to, but I seriously don't think the story would benefit from hearing them unless someone actually would admit guilt.
What really struck me as weird in the Reason article is how the colleges are involved in rape cases. I suppose it's PR but how on Earth are they able to expel rape:y students on their own without going through the justice system.
Friends don't let friends climb up things while intoxicated. We watched a guy come inches away from utter annihilation at a warehouse party once. Right in front of our faces, if we hadn't been there he would have fallen several more storeys on top of the three he did. Had to get airlifed out by helicopter.
Now I'm the party pooper every time. I've almost gotten into fights trying to stop people from climbing trees. It's always worth it.
Jesus, this article gets better and better the further you get through it.
> Gentle reader, if you happen to have a son currently in
> a college fraternity, I would ask that you take several
> carbon dioxide–rich deep breaths from a paper bag before
> reading the next paragraph. I’ll assume you are sitting
> down. Ready?
> “I’ve recovered millions and millions of dollars from
> homeowners’ policies,” a top fraternal plaintiff’s
> attorney told me.
17 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 50.1 ms ] threadSystems (like human institutions) have organizing principles, which are at least a level above the members which comprise them. Two different institutions can have the exact same people in them, but show vastly different outcomes.
The fraternity house is generally scapegoated in the article as the locust of bad deeds because they tend indeed to be a locust for collegiate social interaction. Some bad things really do happen in fraternities.
I'll say though, the ~"60 people died in incidents related to fraternities over 10 years" stat is almost laughable if the author wasn't apparently serious. From a risk management perspective, focusing on 6 people a year out of 10's of millions that interact within a fraternity environment doesn't seem like the right prioritization.
Sexual assault happens more frequently and concern there is well-placed. But I do wonder if its incident rate wouldn't simply transfer to the general school population should, for example, fraternities be close on a campus.
It just seems to make sense to me that, if folks are going to come together and socialize with inhibition-inhibiting substances, some people with bad intentions are going to act on them, whether at a fraternity house party or a non-fraternity house party.
Warning: this is quite a shocking read about what was going on in frat houses at UVA, and the administrations utter failure to handle it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/sabri...
I don't think it invalidates the whole piece though, and the UVA administration's behaviour closely resembles those of other universities that have recently become public, so it still seems credible.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/25/uva-rapists-should-not...
I'm not sure why that points to gaping holes in the UVA case. While some of the criticism is valid, frankly I find the overly sensationalist deconstruction of the original article for the sake of attention and page impressions rather distasteful.
I agree that the journalist behind the Rolling stones article should have heard the alleged rapists. It's bad journalism not to, but I seriously don't think the story would benefit from hearing them unless someone actually would admit guilt.
What really struck me as weird in the Reason article is how the colleges are involved in rape cases. I suppose it's PR but how on Earth are they able to expel rape:y students on their own without going through the justice system.
Now I'm the party pooper every time. I've almost gotten into fights trying to stop people from climbing trees. It's always worth it.