<p>Provide employees at fraternity events. But they didn’t at this one because (in theory) they didn’t know about it.</p>
<p>Well, that is going to be interesting. So the university requires functions to be registered and sends monitors to registered functions. So, parties where the members know and intend there to be “excessive” behavior going on don’t get registered.</p>
<p>Any indication that the party got so wild it became noticable from outside the building where it occurred? If not, I guess the argument would be that the college had a duty to make unannounced drop in inspections. Was the building on campus?</p>
<p>You can see why xiggi thinks you have to ban the entire greek system (with explusion of the students)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^Hazing rituals are rarely at parties. I don’t think you would necessarily hear it going on outside of the frat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. I think that the university leaders are more responsible for these deaths than the brothers in the frat. The university explicitly or tacitly endorses these frats, and by extension, their pledge system. Freshman come in and they go through pledging themselves, survive, then they become brothers and are in charge of pledging. </p>
<p>I think we’d be better off without the frat system, but as I’ve said before, if that is not possible at least ban the pledging system.</p>
<p>The unfortunate fact is that a lot of alumni of the frat system will say that this is an isolated incident and that they enjoyed their time in their frat, so the university leaders will not risk losing donations in order to take a stand. In my time in academia, I have rarely seen them take a stand on anything.</p>
<p>It would be very hard for me to believe that Northern Illinois University stands to lose much in the way of alumni donations if it took a strong stance. Heck, when my college abolished fraternities totally, alumni giving soared!</p>
<p>“Well, that is going to be interesting. So the university requires functions to be registered and sends monitors to registered functions. So, parties where the members know and intend there to be “excessive” behavior going on don’t get registered.”</p>
<p>Yes. Totally predictable, and fits into the “they should have known” category. Case will never go to trial.</p>
<p>
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>All quoted for truth!</p>
<p>After reading the article, it appears the frat brothers are more liable than usual since they deliberately didn’t register this alcohol event.</p>
<p>No Greek organization or university condones hazing or irresponsible drinking. It is strictly forbidden and the vast majority of chapters follow the rules. When those rules are not followed, there are consequences, dependent on the severity. I’ve been an alumna volunteer for my sorority since I graduated and the consequences when a chapter is caught hazing are significant. It is also rare. </p>
<p>There are numerous cases of young men and women being criminally prosecuted or found civilly liable, as they should be. </p>
<p>07DAD- I don’t see how that information could be true because UT-Austin has one of the biggest and strongest Greek systems in the nation. I don’t see how that could happen if it was illegal. </p>
<p>Hazing is immoral and illegal. When national organizations or universities are aware of it, they do try to put a stop to it. It would hardly be fair though, to shut down a whole greek system because of the actions of one fraternity or sorority.</p>
<p>“It is also rare”</p>
<p>It’s rare in the National Panhellenic Conference sororities, yes. I don’t agree that it’s rare in fraternities, or that the vast majority of fraternity chapters follow the rules. In my experience, fraternity chapters that truly have zero hazing are pretty rare. It is an open secret on many campuses, especially (though not exclusively) in the south.</p>
<p>
WHAT? So, you blame the administrators who basically said, “you shouldn’t do that,” more than the people who went out an participated in the actual events? How does that work?</p>
<p>
NO, they are not. If you are 18, you can vote, you can smoke, you can drive a car, you can own a gun, you can sign legal contracts, you can serve in the military, and you can be charged with any crime you may have committed. You are an adult. To pretend otherwise lowers expectations, removes the responsibility for ones actions, and encourages a view that adult rules shouldn’t apply to adults simply because they are fortunate enough to be students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But too childish until 21 to be responsible for alcohol.</p>
<p>^^^But only in the U.S. - the pledges and the fraternity brothers are legal in any other western democracy! Which begs the question, do our drinking laws drive binge drinking? Do our drinking laws encourage college students to join fraternities so that they are “brothers” with older students that will enable them to have a limitless supply of alcohol and parties?</p>
<p>2016BarnardMom:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My post #16 was a Tex. Education Code provision applicable to state public primary and secondary schools. My point (apparantly poorly made) was that the legislators see membership as inappropriate to a public education purpose at least at that level. I speculate that once 18, the right of association would pehaps only allow a state university to refuse to accept a frat/sor as an offical approved student organization and I have some doubts they could go that far.</p>
<p>“Do our drinking laws encourage college students to join fraternities so that they are “brothers” with older students that will enable them to have a limitless supply of alcohol and parties?”</p>
<p>Fraternities were popular, and members drank to oblivion, in the 80s and before, when the drinking age was lower in many states. The older drinking age may play a role in the preference for hard alcohol over beer in some circumstances, though there were plenty of buckets of Everclear punch back in the day.</p>
<p>The preference for hard alcohol among youth is a relatively recent phenomenon, really beginning around 2003 with the availability (and promotion) of the new so-called “malt beverages” to teenagers. It didn’t have anything at all to do with the drinking age (which was changed 20 years earlier). We have data on these preferences going back to 1975. The preference for hard liquor changed the very nature of binge drinking. </p>
<p>Fraternities have been associated with an endless supply of alcohol for a very long time.</p>
<p>mini take a look at these stats. You would think that with 37% of US over 15 abstaining and beer as the alcohol of choice there would be a low alcohol death rate. Seems it is not so.</p>
<p>[U.S</a>. drinks the lowest amount of alcohol in the developed world, figures reveal | Mail Online](<a href=“U.S. drinks the lowest amount of alcohol in the developed world, figures reveal | Daily Mail Online”>U.S. drinks the lowest amount of alcohol in the developed world, figures reveal | Daily Mail Online)</p>
<p>The pref for hard alcohol was clearly evident going back to my days in college. And, the age was 18, then. The preference for a solid drunk, not the time beer takes. Problem starts with the desire to get drunk. Rip roaring drunk. It was a big joke at the major U near me- a mixed up badge of honor.</p>
<p>Of the many things I have done in my day, one was a major U study (in the 70’s) that correlated alcohol consumption with death and severe injury due to illness and accident, punishable offenses (eg, drunk driving arrests,) allowance for deep pockets lawsuits, versus strength of alcohol-related laws, etc, by state. Oddly (or not,) the one clear finding was that the severity of laws did lower the incidences, across the board. Problem: study funded by the distillers assn. </p>
<p>You see trends at schools that have cracked down on hazing- the fact that many kids still test the line. I’m torn about the Amethyst Initiative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And Captain Renault was “shocked” too that gambling was going on at Rick’s.</p>
<p>…Hazing is supposed to be a stressful situation that bonds those who are suffering together and also, bonds them to those who underwent the same hazing before them …</p>
<p>I’m gonna have to respectfully disagree here. Going through a tramatic or stressful situation may create a temporary bond in some situations if the ones who are bullied can join together against the aggressor, but in the case of hazing, it’s usually each pledge for himself, and pledges can’t join together to overcome the power of the aggressor (the brothers). Therefore, there’s no bonding. It’s kind of like having a father who beats the crap out of you and your siblings; there’s more “I hope it’s not me who gets hit tonight” because you’re all so little that you and your siblings can’t come together against the bigger father. I think freshmen/sophomore pledges are like little kids, there’s more of the “Just let me live through this” than “we’re all in this together” mentality. It takes a real emotionally, mentally, and physically strong pledge/child to stand for his-self in hazings and beatings.</p>
<p>I looked up the hard alcohol age limits by state over time. Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, NY, North Carolina, Ohio and Louisiana all had hard liquor age limits of 18 after prohibition until the mid 1980s.</p>
<p>Are there CC posters who attended college in the above states during the 18 y.o. age limit (up thru mid 1980s) who could give us an idea of whether when hard alcohol was legal to purchase and consume the college students drank in moderation and responsibly?</p>
<p>We drank hard liquor illegally and to excess at Emory in 1968-70. My older brother attended Tulane in 1966-68 and they did too except it was legal.</p>
<p>Hazing as a common stress? I see hazing as an abuse of power. </p>
<p>07Dad, from DOT: Between 1970 and 1975, 29 States lowered their drinking ages to 18, 19, or 20. By 1983, safety concerns had led many of these States to reverse course. In 1984, the Uniform Drinking Age Act reduced Federal transportation funding to States not prohibiting alcohol “purchase and public possession” for those under age 21. All States eventually restored their legal ages.</p>