@boolaHI I’d imagine it’s because of the extreme amounts of excessive drinking associated with fraternities. And as much as I defend the right for the Greek system to exist (and despite my exasperation at the self-righteousness of many CCers), I would certainly agree that fraternities would be a justifiable insurance risk because of the frequent high levels of drinking and more-than-occasional property destruction. However, I think this is less to do with the fraternities, per se, and more to do with their demographic: young social males, who tend to exhibit much more risky behavior than their peers. Insurability, however, has nothing to do with issues like sexual assault, and I think it’s foolish to draw connections that aren’t there. Yes, young males are more likely to engage in risky behavior. No, fraternities are not responsible for rape. Individuals are, and colleges should focus on fixing their broken investigative procedures rather than banning fraternities and being surprised when rape reports don’t decline. Furthermore, underage drinking still occurs en masse even at colleges without Greek systems. Mount Holyoke College, for instance, which is an all women’s college with no sororities, has a very active drinking culture, according to a relative who just graduated (by the way, she engaged in regular drinking and still graduated with high honors and a department prize). The difference between schools with Greek life and many of those without is that in the latter case many non-drinking aspects of Greek life, which many members consider beneficial, are not present, which leads me again to defend the Greek system’s right to exist despite the best efforts of many on this site.
@xiggi I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Both of us have stated our points and neither are satisfied with the other’s logic or conclusions. I don’t exactly understand what point you’re trying to make at this stage, as I’ve clearly explained the reasons for my view that CCers are largely anti-Greek and for often illogical reasons. I’d like to reiterate that I don’t think everyone needs to LIKE Greek life; merely that they shouldn’t think they have the right to determine whether of not it can exist, especially if they’ve never even been exposed to it. While being genuinely critical of any organization or system is always appropriate and I’m glad that we’re paying attention to issues like sexual assault, I still maintain that many CCers unfairly judge Greek life and its members because of their personal distaste. This leads them to blame them for social ills and crimes, which I believe is counterproductive in the long run effort of reducing sexual assault on college campuses. We have similar goals but very different understandings of how to achieve those goals, and I think at this point we’re just going to have to accept those differences.
@Hunt I think that has less to do with Greek organizations and more to do with the fact that many colleges are terrible at handling sexual assault cases, and all too often allow rapists to walk free to assault again while coercing victims to withdraw. One other reason why colleges should leave it to trained authorities, rather than be allowed to handle cases themselves when they are evidently incompetent.
@medbound17 then perhaps you would also like to comment on the 40 plus years of having a fatality a year, or more, going back to the 70s. I know of no other college related entity, that is campus based, that has such a profoundly auspicious record. Not even the rogue nature of D1 football (which I am a former player) has such a history…
The accidental death rate for 18-24 year old males in the US is something like 58 per 100,000. There are about 350,000 - 400,000 fraternity members, so one per year is very low. Do you have corresponding death rates for non-fraternity members per year? Then we can compare whether it is more dangerous to be in a fraternity than not.
Yes, I have read several articles in the past about mortality among college students being lower than the non-college population. But we still don’t know whether 1 fatality per 350,000 college males is high or low. From the article you posted, it still sounds low. One would need to examine the causes of death for the fraternity members and compare that incidence to the non-fraternity male college population. No matter the cause 1 per 350,000 sounds low to me.
You can’t compare 58 per 100,000 deaths with fraternity deaths to get good numbers. 58 deaths per 100,000 are deaths from all accidental causes. I am assuming the 58 per 100,000 number is correct.
Those articles do not help. They say there have been 60 “fraternity-related” deaths since 2005. That is 10 per year. The causes are not uniform; they include falls, drunk driving, drugs and alcohol.
BoolaHI’s source says there should be 3.37 deaths per 100,000 from drunk driving, 1.49 from alcohol, and 3.00 from “unknown.” That means there should be 10-13 fraternity members dead from drunk driving per year, 4-5 dead from alcohol per year, and 9-12 dead from other causes (drugs?). In total, there should be 23-30 dead per year from the causes included in the Bloomberg article in order to match the general student population.
Yes, I understand that dstark. But as I wrote earlier, compare those deaths to non-fraternity member male deaths. That is the only way to determine whether fraternity members have a higher rate of death than non-fraternity members. The number is meaningless, otherwise.
I’m going to guess that there was more than one incident of the death of a college male due to head injury or drowning in that year.
And “hazing” is a legal term. There were certainly incidents of deaths due to alcohol poisoning and other dangerous activities spurred by peer pressure. We don’t hear about those.
I agree that I have seen no reliable numbers that make fraternities into places any more dangerous than college in general. It is entirely possible that there is a protective effect of fraternity membership. Brothers looking out for brothers could make life safer at college, I don’t think it is too far-fetched to think that, without better information proving otherwise.
I think there are positives when a group of guys get together. There are also negatives. Guys behave differently in groups than as individuals. I think frat guys drink more than non frat guys. I don’t think that is in dispute. Excessive drinking leads to poor decision making.
What I would live to see is the 10 groups or activities that are the most expensive to insure. Fraternities are in that top 10. I would like to see the rest of that list.
That may be true, but we don’t know whether, in the case of fraternity members, it leads to more deaths. That is what this line of discussion is about. I have not seen the numbers showing that it does.
“I’m going to guess that there was more than one incident of the death of a college male due to head injury or drowning in that year.”
My son’s freshman roommate unfortunately drowned in Lake Michigan (their sophomore year - he was not rooming with my son at the time). He was not involved in a fraternity. He had been drinking at an off campus party from what it seems.
@boolaHI Not sure what your point was, though I believe other posters have responded already. I agreed that fraternities often encourage member to engage in risky, and probably even compound the risks, though to a lesser extent than you suggest. That doesn’t mean the Greek system should cease to exist. My argument stands, and frankly at this point you’re just embarrassing yourself.
I am? How so–when the exact same comments have been made with college Presidents, The Atlantic Magazine, NPR, WSJ, NYT, I think I’m in rather fine company.
