Fraternity Danger at UMD

[Anonymous]

So, yes I am lazy.

Do we know what one or more UMD Frats did to get in this trouble?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they decided to suspend every fraternity and sorority except for the traditionally black ones, I'm assuming they have evidence on each of them because other wise, they will get sued by those they don't have evidence on and it will be really hard to argue they weren't discriminated against based on race when none of the traditionally black houses were effected

They did not suspend the chapters; they told them they could no longer host events where alcohol was served, and can not recruit new members. They are allowed to continue to exist, to hold meetings, to do their philanthropy, host study sessions for members, spruce up their chapter house, to have social gatherings (without alcohol) for themselves and their friends as long as they aren't trying to get new members.

That sounds like race based discrimination to me. I hope some chapter sues. I'm sure the e-mail between administrators trying to decide whether or not to include traditionally black houses in the punishment will be interesting

Race-based discrimination. Why?

The historically black houses were exempted from punishment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they decided to suspend every fraternity and sorority except for the traditionally black ones, I'm assuming they have evidence on each of them because other wise, they will get sued by those they don't have evidence on and it will be really hard to argue they weren't discriminated against based on race when none of the traditionally black houses were effected

They did not suspend the chapters; they told them they could no longer host events where alcohol was served, and can not recruit new members. They are allowed to continue to exist, to hold meetings, to do their philanthropy, host study sessions for members, spruce up their chapter house, to have social gatherings (without alcohol) for themselves and their friends as long as they aren't trying to get new members.

That sounds like race based discrimination to me. I hope some chapter sues. I'm sure the e-mail between administrators trying to decide whether or not to include traditionally black houses in the punishment will be interesting

Race-based discrimination. Why?

The historically black houses were exempted from punishment

So, they didn't do anything wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they decided to suspend every fraternity and sorority except for the traditionally black ones, I'm assuming they have evidence on each of them because other wise, they will get sued by those they don't have evidence on and it will be really hard to argue they weren't discriminated against based on race when none of the traditionally black houses were effected

They did not suspend the chapters; they told them they could no longer host events where alcohol was served, and can not recruit new members. They are allowed to continue to exist, to hold meetings, to do their philanthropy, host study sessions for members, spruce up their chapter house, to have social gatherings (without alcohol) for themselves and their friends as long as they aren't trying to get new members.

That sounds like race based discrimination to me. I hope some chapter sues. I'm sure the e-mail between administrators trying to decide whether or not to include traditionally black houses in the punishment will be interesting

Race-based discrimination. Why?

The historically black houses were exempted from punishment

So, they didn't do anything wrong.

I say this as a white female- the fact people are complaining that the black fraternities/sororities weren’t put on cease and desist too seems racist.

They are governed by completely different groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they decided to suspend every fraternity and sorority except for the traditionally black ones, I'm assuming they have evidence on each of them because other wise, they will get sued by those they don't have evidence on and it will be really hard to argue they weren't discriminated against based on race when none of the traditionally black houses were effected

They did not suspend the chapters; they told them they could no longer host events where alcohol was served, and can not recruit new members. They are allowed to continue to exist, to hold meetings, to do their philanthropy, host study sessions for members, spruce up their chapter house, to have social gatherings (without alcohol) for themselves and their friends as long as they aren't trying to get new members.

That sounds like race based discrimination to me. I hope some chapter sues. I'm sure the e-mail between administrators trying to decide whether or not to include traditionally black houses in the punishment will be interesting

Race-based discrimination. Why?

The historically black houses were exempted from punishment

So, they didn't do anything wrong.

Neither did every house suspended. Some where exempted based on race, others weren't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they decided to suspend every fraternity and sorority except for the traditionally black ones, I'm assuming they have evidence on each of them because other wise, they will get sued by those they don't have evidence on and it will be really hard to argue they weren't discriminated against based on race when none of the traditionally black houses were effected

They did not suspend the chapters; they told them they could no longer host events where alcohol was served, and can not recruit new members. They are allowed to continue to exist, to hold meetings, to do their philanthropy, host study sessions for members, spruce up their chapter house, to have social gatherings (without alcohol) for themselves and their friends as long as they aren't trying to get new members.

That sounds like race based discrimination to me. I hope some chapter sues. I'm sure the e-mail between administrators trying to decide whether or not to include traditionally black houses in the punishment will be interesting

Race-based discrimination. Why?

The historically black houses were exempted from punishment

So, they didn't do anything wrong.

Neither did every house suspended. Some where exempted based on race, others weren't

No they were exempted by governing body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they decided to suspend every fraternity and sorority except for the traditionally black ones, I'm assuming they have evidence on each of them because other wise, they will get sued by those they don't have evidence on and it will be really hard to argue they weren't discriminated against based on race when none of the traditionally black houses were effected

They did not suspend the chapters; they told them they could no longer host events where alcohol was served, and can not recruit new members. They are allowed to continue to exist, to hold meetings, to do their philanthropy, host study sessions for members, spruce up their chapter house, to have social gatherings (without alcohol) for themselves and their friends as long as they aren't trying to get new members.

That sounds like race based discrimination to me. I hope some chapter sues. I'm sure the e-mail between administrators trying to decide whether or not to include traditionally black houses in the punishment will be interesting

Race-based discrimination. Why?

The historically black houses were exempted from punishment

So, they didn't do anything wrong.

Neither did every house suspended. Some where exempted based on race, others weren't

No they were exempted by governing body.

It’s not a good look for frats to complain about the historically black ones not being censored. I’m sure if it was the reverse, you wouldn’t think it was fair that the non- black frats were held accountable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the frats makes them more dangerous than dorm life or non frat off campus housing? Lack of RAs and neighbors who call the landlord or the police?

Maybe frats should buy a social hall and not live together.

The peer pressure aspect is amplified: If you don't drink as much as they tell you to, you are OUT. At most parties you drink a lot but you are not forced.

My DS was never forced to drink during or after pledging. In fact he does not really drink much and does not smoke (anything). People on this thread are just going immediately to the worst examples not the 80% of the experience that others have had.

Which frat doesn’t force drinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they decided to suspend every fraternity and sorority except for the traditionally black ones, I'm assuming they have evidence on each of them because other wise, they will get sued by those they don't have evidence on and it will be really hard to argue they weren't discriminated against based on race when none of the traditionally black houses were effected

They did not suspend the chapters; they told them they could no longer host events where alcohol was served, and can not recruit new members. They are allowed to continue to exist, to hold meetings, to do their philanthropy, host study sessions for members, spruce up their chapter house, to have social gatherings (without alcohol) for themselves and their friends as long as they aren't trying to get new members.

That sounds like race based discrimination to me. I hope some chapter sues. I'm sure the e-mail between administrators trying to decide whether or not to include traditionally black houses in the punishment will be interesting

Race-based discrimination. Why?

The historically black houses were exempted from punishment

So, they didn't do anything wrong.

Neither did every house suspended. Some where exempted based on race, others weren't

They aren't suspended.

[Anonymous]

all IFC and PHA new member program activities are suspended indefinitely, pending the results of a thorough investigation. Additionally, all IFC and PHA organizations are on social moratorium indefinitely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the frats makes them more dangerous than dorm life or non frat off campus housing? Lack of RAs and neighbors who call the landlord or the police?

Maybe frats should buy a social hall and not live together.

The peer pressure aspect is amplified: If you don't drink as much as they tell you to, you are OUT. At most parties you drink a lot but you are not forced.

My DS was never forced to drink during or after pledging. In fact he does not really drink much and does not smoke (anything). People on this thread are just going immediately to the worst examples not the 80% of the experience that others have had.

Which frat doesn’t force drinking?

Many if not most of them since they do know that it will get them in trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since they decided to suspend every fraternity and sorority except for the traditionally black ones, I'm assuming they have evidence on each of them because other wise, they will get sued by those they don't have evidence on and it will be really hard to argue they weren't discriminated against based on race when none of the traditionally black houses were effected

They did not suspend the chapters; they told them they could no longer host events where alcohol was served, and can not recruit new members. They are allowed to continue to exist, to hold meetings, to do their philanthropy, host study sessions for members, spruce up their chapter house, to have social gatherings (without alcohol) for themselves and their friends as long as they aren't trying to get new members.

That sounds like race based discrimination to me. I hope some chapter sues. I'm sure the e-mail between administrators trying to decide whether or not to include traditionally black houses in the punishment will be interesting

Race-based discrimination. Why?

The historically black houses were exempted from punishment

So, they didn't do anything wrong.

Neither did every house suspended. Some where exempted based on race, others weren't

No chapters have been suspended. The university is conducting an investigation to see which chapters had wrongdoing. The allegations came up at a meeting of one particular Hellenic council about members of that council. No other councils were involved in the allegations.

[Anonymous]

I agree this was an over reaction. What is really going in? I heard they want to get rid of frats and sororities so they can take the land. True?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree this was an over reaction. What is really going in? I heard they want to get rid of frats and sororities so they can take the land. True?

Rumor and no its not an overreaction. I'm sure they would love the land, but fraternities misbehaving and intentionally harming others is not a new story. Fraternities brought this upon themselves. UMD was right to act to ensure that no one was killed. It's time for more scrutiny of behavior that is harmful. Where it goes from there will likely be a suspension of a specific fraternity or two and the rest continue to operate as normal with more oversight.

[Anonymous]

Now UMD is saying they will choose to interview members and that you will receive a notice if you were selected.

If hazing is as rampant at UMD as people make it out to be, this should be very scary for everyone in the system.