<p>From the Tulane article linked by Midwest mom:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That these sorts of incidents are the result of rogue behavior by a handful of members, and not part of the overall culture of the frat, seems not credible to me. </p>
<p>Were the pledges told up front that they did not have to comply with any activity likely to result in physical injury, and still be allowed to join, or did they subject themselves to abuse because if they refused, they would not be admitted to the frat? </p>
<p>Unless it’s part of the pledge program for brothers to be warned that physically abusive hazing would not be allowed and the pledges were present to hear and understand that they did not have to comply with any individual “brothers’” requirements that they submit to such rituals in order to be admitted, I don’t buy the argument that the fraternity as a whole is not responsible.</p>
<p>That the university plays into this subterfuge by indicating that individuals would be punished, but not necessarily the frat as a whole, is why it continues to happen. </p>
<p>When incidents like this, severe injury and death occur, the response should be much more forceful than a brief “suspension” and the prosecution of a few individuals. The frat should be closed down. That would have a real deterrent effect.</p>