RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceReader Comments
For Burford ’12, Dartmouth's Lohse, similar experiences with SAE, different solutions to combat hazing
Published: Monday, May 14th, 2012
When John Burford ’12 read about the allegations of hazing brought by former Dartmouth student Andrew Lohse against the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity, Burford said he was reminded of his own experiences as a whistle-blower.
“Although I’m pretty much ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
so pleased to see burford '12 back in the prince. always good to get a laugh at the expense of the campus bro hater. we'll miss you, johnny.
So, we're going to listen to a guy who planned & directed hazing (as new member ed) and then came out only after being turned in to police by his brothers and kicked out of the fraternity for his cocaine use and destruction of property... that's the guy whose suggestions to control hazing we should listen to?
As the article affirms, deferred rush has never in 50 years at any campus in the country reduced hazing, had a positive effect on campus wide grades, or caused stronger loyalty to the university than the fraternity. It is 100% ineffective in all those things, and in many cases counterproductive. The only thing it does is cause fewer people to go Greek.
Non-recognition is a joke. How much authority does Iran have over the internal affairs of Israel? That's what non-recognition means. Groups do not go away. There's nothing a school can do about off-campus groups. If they want to expel any student who joins, well, that's how fraternities started. They'll just operate in secret without divulging their membership & there's federal case law to support them. They will continue to function no matter what a university does, they'll just do so off campus with less oversight - though they still answer to advisors and nationals.
In many cases orgs grow and are vastly more successful without the invasive micromanagement of the university. However, the situation at Princeton has less to do with non-recognition and more to do with not yet having obtained adequate privately owned facilities. It is better for them to ignore the university and work on building the resources to obtain the facilities they need. There is no reason to seek recognition or have any further conversation with this administration. This isn't about liability or student safety. It's about looking good beating up on Greeks.
So, if these two techniques are proven nationwide and at other ivies to have no impact at all on the problem at hand, why are they being done? They know it's going to make things worse.
Frats are insidious. Co-ed eating clubs, where we party AND where we eat meals together every day, are vastly superior.
Good story but I wish you had included a graf near the top that concisely summarizes the allegations by both young men -- are we talking forced drinking, dehumanizing physical treatment, sexually charged ritualsm, or what? Gotta put this in context for your readers who haven't followed this story since Burford's initial outcry. That would put the policy discussion in context and more meaningful for your readers.
No.
@ William:
Out of curiosity, what federal cases are you talking about and what are you alleging that they stand for?
yeah, because the rest of the time you and your bros are the laughing-stock of the rest of the campus.
Then why does our greek involvement in any way concern you if we are already a joke to you. Fraternities in no way interfere with other social groups at Princeton and don't prevent anyone from having a good time. Anyway, I like the comparison of Burford and Lohse, as it is very clear to all that are familiar with the Dartmouth situation that Lohse lied repeatedly about his experience. His man objective was to hurt the fraternity that would not take responsibilities for his shortcomings as a person.
@Will:
There is extensive case law on many aspects of the discussion that support the fraternity side over that of universities. However, what I mentioned in my comment referred to non-disclosure of membership lists. In that context I would cite NAACP v. Alabama/Patterson in which the supreme court found a state requirement for disclosure of member lists opened those members to adverse action, and therefore abridged their 1st & 14th amendment association rights. I would argue that demanding a membership list with stated intent to suspend or expel some/all of those on it could not more clearly represent such adverse action. In regard to a private institution, they have no authority to compel release of a member lists by an unrecognized org in any case. National fraternities do business at both public & private institutions across the country. They often collect rosters from schools with recognized systems for accuracy purposes, but as a matter of internal policy do not reciprocate their roster back to schools. If required to do so, they would fight and win that case.
The earliest literary societies and fraternities in the US were created to form secret protected environments in which students could explore beliefs and information prohibited under penalty of expulsion by the administration. Really insidious revolutionary ideas like democracy and the rights of man. The difference between a literary society and a fraternity is a literary society doesn't define those beliefs, just creates the protected environment; whereas a fraternity, like a church, does define specific beliefs and prospects choose between orgs that most represent their beliefs and calling in life. Most institutions have evolved from the dark ages where their ideas are the only ones permitted, and instead come to realize that Greek orgs are a natural partner bringing diversity of thought to an environment of academic freedom in the mutual effort to reach self-actualization for some higher purpose. Fraternities just have a different way of going about it. However, a few universities have regressed. They've not only decided what beliefs are permitted but implemented social engineering to force them on students and cited hollow student safety &/or liability claims to justify their actions. That is in conflict with the mission of higher education. Fraternities are not.
WHATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT? Do you actually believe that? You are trying to compare frats today with people who talked about "democracy and the rights of man" 300 years ago? And "a fraternity, like a church"? Seriously? If frats create this sort of "intellectual", maybe they do need to go.
You are not helping your case by making such ridiculous claims. I'm not actually saying that I think the U should expel people for being in a frat, but the frats party, not discuss the merits of democracy. Be realistic.