Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board

BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: Three sorority's reinstated

Topic:  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
Author
Message
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 2,738

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 7:30:36 AM 
A few comments regarding some recent posts:

1.Alan Swank is 100% correct,BA posters on all sides of the political/social spectrum recognize this whole debacle for what it is.
A "major mistake" on the part of O.U.

2.Several of the Tweets bobcatt110 posted mention Dr Suk's comment at the Varsity Show.
"Despite what you may have read about the band,these are the finest students Ohio University has to offer."

My wife and I were in Athens for the Varsity Show.

The audience reaction said it all.

Also,given the scrutiny the band members and staff are under,Dr.Suk deserves a lot of praise for coming out and saying what he did.

3.Reading the the tweets about the 110's interrogations,these kids were walking into a legal "buzz saw".

From reading the questions,there seems to be very little attention being paid to the actual hazing allegations.

They seem to be "fishing", by asking things like "have you ever bought alcohol for a minor ?" and "do you know anyone who has".

These types of questions are way out of bounds.
Given the potential consequences,this shows why any student or staff member being interrogated needs to have legal representation to keep the interrogators in line.

4.Reading what it takes to be an "interrogator" (University Hearing Board Member) I really wonder,after a whole 1 day of training,exactly how qualified they are.

I would think that any decision they made could easily be challenged by any lawyer.

5.So JHJ has finally come out with a tweet,yea.
Still waiting on Nellis.
FYI,I'm hoping my "Where's Nellis" picture books will be available for your Christmas Gift Giving.


Last Edited: 12/6/2019 7:31:49 AM by rpbobcat

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,583

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 7:33:47 AM 
Alan Swank wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Pure speculation at best and hardly enough information to warrrant an immediate suspension.



This would be true without the added context that 15 fraternities and a half dozen other University organizations had just been suspended for hazing. The University announced a zero tolerance policy. They stuck to it.

And we all know why they implemented that, right? Somebody died.


No, not at all. Zero tolerance has and continues to be a flawed philosphopy that started in the 80s with crack and put thousands of black folks in jail. With this president, we have stepped back into an era of oppression of constitutional rights. If you look at who is calling this a major mistake, you'll find posters of far differing perspectives united to call out a lack of executive leadership which will continue to diminish the attractiveness of OU and further declining enrollments and alumni contribtions.


Yes, this is just like the war on drugs. We're inching closer and closer to Godwin's Law here.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,583

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 7:38:40 AM 
Bobcat110 wrote:
Told you these interrogations were going to go bad. These members had no idea what they were going in to. They’ve stayed silent for 2 months and the university is playing games with them and turned their backs when band members have been assaulted.

They had no help. Greeks had alumni advisors, national advisors and attorneys.

FINALS START MONDAY!!!


Maybe these were buried in the links to the Twitter accounts you linked to, but where's the info you're referencing about the interrogations? I didn't see it.
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 2,738

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 7:55:11 AM 
JHJ coming out with a Tweet is a something.

But,given the verbal and physical assaults against members of the 110 and I presume fraternity members, and given the vandalism against fraternity houses,1 tweet is nowhere near enough.

I feel O.U.,should issue a Press Release,preferably signed by Nellis and JHJ,let The Post publish it, saying the University is/has investigated all allegations of hazing.
That some allegations are several years old and some could not involve current students.

It should also say no physical or verbal assault of any member of any organization will be tolerated.
It should also condemn the fraternity house vandalism.


Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,583

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 7:58:34 AM 
Bobcat110 wrote:
https://m.facebook.com/peter.ford.7334/posts/242316423794...

“I’m extremely upset with my university. As a student at Ohio University I was physically assaulted on October 15th by a random student while on my way to a late night class. This class takes place after band rehearsal so I wear my practice uniform to this class. As I was taking the steps, a random student came by and shoved me into the railing and proceeded to yell “f*** you hazer”. As I tried to stand back up and comprehend what just occurred, the student fled with his hood up so I would not see who it was. I reported this to the university and nothing has been done. Today, long after the fact, most, NOT ALL, members of the marching 110 received an email from the university. The attached photos are the email received. Essentially stating that nothing will be done, and the marching 110 members need to just suck it up, go to therapy, and finish classes. The extreme lack of support has made me lose faith in my university I used to so proudly call my home. I fear walking alone, I am discouraged from wearing my organizations apparel, and my right to freedom of speech was violated. When I attended my “interview” that caused me to miss two of my classes, I was almost told that I was not allowed to bring an attorney. I’m disheartened by the university’s actions, but nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, will make me ashamed of wearing my band jacket. I am a proud member of the Marching 110. For the past generations, for the future generations, and for the people I’m so thankful to call my family, the Marching 110 has given me hope, inspiration, and strength. Our traditions, our perseverance, and our unity will last long after I’ve left this outstanding group of musicians.”


I have no idea what happened to this kid. But I just want to point out something incredibly ironic about BobcatAttack. Just a little ethnographic study, if you will.

1. 27 women (and counting) accuse Donald Trump of sexual assault, which he then discusses on a 'hot' mic. Posters here doubt the stories.

2. Several women come forward to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of inappropriate behavior. Posters here doubt the stories.

3. Roy Moore is accused credibly of preying on young children. Posters here doubt the stories.

4. A kid says he was shoved by a fellow student and told "fuck you hazer" and it goes completely unquestioned.

In case you're scoring at home, there's people here who at one point have claimed all of the following. And they all happen to be on the same side:

1. This is a witch hunt that's just an excuse to ban fraternities forever.
2. The is an anti fraternity conspiracy.
3. Nellis and the Dean should be fired because we don't know any information.
4. Nellis and the Dean should be fired because we do know information and don't like it.
5. The accusations against sororities and student groups were perpetrated by an angry frat guy and completely made up.
6. Zero tolerance policies on hazing are akin to the drug war. (By the way, people nodding in agreement with this Alan Swank's point in this case voted for a man who called for the death penalty for drug dealers. You know, because they're anti-drug war.)
7. The Ohio University student body, 45% of which is currently too high to figure out how a vending machine works, now includes hooded vigilantes attacking marching band members in the dark of night and calling them "hazers."

A few times early into this I remarked on how baffling it is that Americans all seem so desperate to cast themselves as victims. I stand by that.

Interestingly, the only group here that doesn't seem to have garnered any support at all on ol' BobcatAttack is the victims of hazing themselves. Far, far less outrage that the people responsible for Colin Wiant's death didn't face any legal consequences. Or that the his fraternity brothers refused to cooperate with police.

The University made plenty of unforced errors here. There are plenty of valid reasons to be frustrated. But let's try and embrace some nuance here. Things don't have to be all of one thing or another. As I keep saying, there's all sorts of very comfortable middle ground here.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat110
General User



Member Since: 3/5/2005
Location: Mount Gilead, OH
Post Count: 566

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 8:13:48 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Bobcat110 wrote:
Told you these interrogations were going to go bad. These members had no idea what they were going in to. They’ve stayed silent for 2 months and the university is playing games with them and turned their backs when band members have been assaulted.

They had no help. Greeks had alumni advisors, national advisors and attorneys.

FINALS START MONDAY!!!


Maybe these were buried in the links to the Twitter accounts you linked to, but where's the info you're referencing about the interrogations? I didn't see it.


They are in there, bits and pieces. I’ll try looking when have a chance. Here’s the most extensive account I’ve seen

https://twitter.com/MacArchives/status/1202655176705753093

They expected these to be interviews that would let them voice concerns, not a platform to place them on trial. The interview feedback I have heard has ranged from “my interview was pretty chill, my interviewer said he didn’t want to be there either.” To a couple of reports of interviewer calling the student a liar when the student couldn’t provide the answer they wanted. The letter from the Dean’s office yesterday telling the band kids “to seek counseling “ if they’ve been subjected to assaults while the Greeks got public letter decrying vandalism was tipping point.

Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 8:25:11 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


4. A kid says he was shoved by a fellow student and told "fuck you hazer" and it goes completely unquestioned.


I'll leave the first three alone as that will open an enormous can of worms no one is interested in, but #4 here is not "completely unquestioned," at least not by me and I suspect others. I take it as an anecdote that may be true, false or somewhere in between.


Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

Interestingly, the only group here that doesn't seem to have garnered any support at all on ol' BobcatAttack is the victims of hazing themselves. Far, far less outrage that the people responsible for Colin Wiant's death didn't face any legal consequences. Or that the his fraternity brothers refused to cooperate with police.


I have not kept up with the legal proceedings of the Wiant death. I don't know if what you post above is entirely accurate. You keep saying this death was "caused by the fraternity" or some such thing. I strongly suspect that is, or has been, refuted. I'm not taking sides on that issue as I don't know all the facts, but I suspect you don't either. If that's the case, don't oversimplify and simply post the fraternity is guilty of killing someone.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

The University made plenty of unforced errors here. There are plenty of valid reasons to be frustrated. But let's try and embrace some nuance here. Things don't have to be all of one thing or another. As I keep saying, there's all sorts of very comfortable middle ground here.


I agree with this, but don't understand why you accept that there are reasons to be frustrated, yet when people post about those frustrations, you post-up and fight back. If you agree there's reason to be frustrated, for God's sake, let people vent a bit.

Last Edited: 12/6/2019 8:26:15 AM by Robert Fox

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,583

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 8:26:23 AM 
Bobcat110 wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Bobcat110 wrote:
Told you these interrogations were going to go bad. These members had no idea what they were going in to. They’ve stayed silent for 2 months and the university is playing games with them and turned their backs when band members have been assaulted.

They had no help. Greeks had alumni advisors, national advisors and attorneys.

FINALS START MONDAY!!!


Maybe these were buried in the links to the Twitter accounts you linked to, but where's the info you're referencing about the interrogations? I didn't see it.


They are in there, bits and pieces. I’ll try looking when have a chance. Here’s the most extensive account I’ve seen

https://twitter.com/MacArchives/status/1202655176705753093

They expected these to be interviews that would let them voice concerns, not a platform to place them on trial. The interview feedback I have heard has ranged from “my interview was pretty chill, my interviewer said he didn’t want to be there either.” To a couple of reports of interviewer calling the student a liar when the student couldn’t provide the answer they wanted. The letter from the Dean’s office yesterday telling the band kids “to seek counseling “ if they’ve been subjected to assaults while the Greeks got public letter decrying vandalism was tipping point.



I get why members of the 110 are frustrated.

But. . .what's so bad about that, exactly? Can you explain what about that description is different than what you expected an investigation to look like? As far as I can tell, the University asked a member of the band about accusations. The member of the band explained she'd never seen such behavior. And it sounds like she was very upset about being there and and having to answer questions at all.

What should my takeaway be here, exactly? That band members shouldn't have to answer questions like adults if doing so upsets them? That the University shouldn't make a good faith effort to understand if students in a University organization are being hazed after reports of such?

I mean, after reading that explanation of one of the interrogations, is there anybody here that's still comfortable comparing this to the drug war?
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,583

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 8:34:06 AM 
Robert Fox wrote:

I have not kept up with the legal proceedings of the Wiant death. I don't know if what you post above is entirely accurate. You keep saying this death was "caused by the fraternity" or some such thing. I strongly suspect that is, or has been, refuted. I'm not taking sides on that issue as I don't know all the facts, but I suspect you don't either. If that's the case, don't oversimplify and simply post the fraternity is guilty of killing someone.


I'm referencing the Dispatch article Alan shared in one of these threads. The reporting indicated that fraternity members cooperated in the University's investigation and then changed their stories when investigated by legal authorities because their legal counsel likely indicated that they'd be found guilty of some level of criminal negligence.

But that their willingness to cooperate seems to have shifted indicates something, right? And that a student died is, by far, the biggest tragedy here and the thing that we as a University community should be most invested in getting to the bottom of, right? I just find it interesting that thousands of words have been devoted to the victimhood of the innocent fraternity/sorority/110 members.

And basically zero words have been devoted to clear wrongdoing that led to a death. There is at least one very real victim of hazing. Likely more. But those aren't the victims here anybody's concerned about.

Interesting, is all.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

I agree with this, but don't understand why you accept that there are reasons to be frustrated, yet when people post about those frustrations, you post-up and fight back. If you agree there's reason to be frustrated, for God's sake, let people vent a bit.


I'm not fighting back about the basis of their frustrations. I've agreed with that in many instances. I'm challenging the obviously emotional conclusions they reach, the overwhelming desire to play victim, and the leap to conspiratorial thinking.

You're right that that's probably just venting. But I think that sort of venting reflects poorly on the University community, so I challenge it.
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 2,738

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 8:35:11 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

I get why members of the 110 are frustrated.

But. . .what's so bad about that, exactly? Can you explain what about that description is different than what you expected an investigation to look like? As far as I can tell, the University asked a member of the band about accusations. The member of the band explained she'd never seen such behavior. And it sounds like she was very upset about being there and and having to answer questions at all.

What should my takeaway be here, exactly? That band members shouldn't have to answer questions like adults if doing so upsets them? That the University shouldn't make a good faith effort to understand if students in a University organization are being hazed after reports of such?

I mean, after reading that explanation of one of the interrogations, is there anybody here that's still comfortable comparing this to the drug war?


The purpose of these interrogations were supposed to be to investigate specific allegations of hazing/violations of the student code of conduct.

From what's been posted,it doesn't appear the band members have been asked about specific incidents.

The questions that have been posted about a 110 member's behavior,like drinking at a party,unless related to a specific allegation are out of bounds.

If I was required to participate in a hearing,concerning a specific issue,I would expect the questions to focus on that.
If,instead I was being asked all kinds of questions,unrelated to that,I'd be upset also.

Sorry,but in my opinion, when it comes to this whole mess,University and "good faith",should not be used in the same sentence.



Last Edited: 12/6/2019 8:47:36 AM by rpbobcat

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,583

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 8:57:30 AM 
rpbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

I get why members of the 110 are frustrated.

But. . .what's so bad about that, exactly? Can you explain what about that description is different than what you expected an investigation to look like? As far as I can tell, the University asked a member of the band about accusations. The member of the band explained she'd never seen such behavior. And it sounds like she was very upset about being there and and having to answer questions at all.

What should my takeaway be here, exactly? That band members shouldn't have to answer questions like adults if doing so upsets them? That the University shouldn't make a good faith effort to understand if students in a University organization are being hazed after reports of such?

I mean, after reading that explanation of one of the interrogations, is there anybody here that's still comfortable comparing this to the drug war?


The purpose of these interrogations were supposed to be to investigate specific allegations of hazing/violations of the student code of conduct.

From what's been posted,it doesn't appear the band members have been asked about specific incidents.

The questions that have been posted about a 110 member's behavior,like drinking at a party,unless related to a specific allegation are out of bounds.

If I was required to participate in a hearing,concerning a specific issue,I would expect the questions to focus on that.
If,instead I was being asked all kinds of questions,unrelated to that,I'd be upset also.

Sorry,but in my opinion, when it comes to this whole mess,University and "good faith",should not be used in the same sentence.





You made this exact point before we had any insight into what was actually asked. Now we have a student posting her recollection of her interrogation, and I don't think it actually supports what you're saying at all.

That student lists the very specific incidents she was asked about. She said"

"So they put me in a room alone and asked me a series of questions about nicknames, the drinking game, posting party, bus clean up, and the jackets (these were the biggest things they talked about but there was more)."

"She talked about any situation where I was forced into anything. . .And I was like “no, I don’t drink but I’ve been to the get togethers and no one is ever forced into anything. We do not do that, and to suggest we do is against everything the 110 stands for. This is established by the upperclassmen and the start of training week”

Which questions do you feel were out of bounds? What about those questions doesn't address the accusations? Weren't the accusations against the 110 about a culture of hazing and forced drinking? What would you expect the questions to look like?

Last Edited: 12/6/2019 9:03:41 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 9:04:58 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
There is at least one very real victim of hazing. Likely more. But those aren't the victims here anybody's concerned about.


We disagree on this. I don't see where this is "one very real victim of hazing" as a factual statement. I see one very real death of an OU student. A tragedy for sure. I heart wrenching tragedy. The why behind that death is not clear to me, nor to many others. The death occurred at a fraternity "annex," which simply means a rental house that was occupied by some of his fraternity brothers. This student was uptown drinking (I think that's a fact) with a female friend. Sometime after midnight, he walked to this annex house and went to a room where at least one or more others were located (along with the same female friend). At some point, the victim did "whip-its" and later passed out.

I suspect questions remain as to why he did the whip-its. Was he forced to? Did he do it on his own? Probably unknown and probably never will be known entirely.

From what I read, a fraternity brother noticed the victim looking bad (don't remember what alerted him, looking pale maybe?) and called the fraternity president to ask what to do, and specifically asked if he should call 911. The frat president said yes, call 911.

Inexplicably, the student did not call 911 for, I think, nine minutes. Why did he wait? Did he think he was overreacting and that the victim was simply passed out and would be fine? Or, was he an evil kid that wanted to protect himself and his fraternity at all costs, even at the cost of this victim?

I have a VERY hard time believing the latter. I tend to believe the former. However tragic that is, and illustrative of an immature kid in a dangerous situation, I believe something along those lines is what occurred.

Is that hazing? I don't know. Certainly there are unknowns here. And certainly it's a leap to say "we have a very real victim of hazing."
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,583

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 9:19:30 AM 
Robert Fox wrote:


We disagree on this. I don't see where this is "one very real victim of hazing" as a factual statement.


Respectfully man, one post ago you acknowldged that you haven't paid attention to the legal proceedings around Colin Wiant's death. Now you're questioning whether he's a victim here. I get your larger point -- maybe dude just partied to death, but I think the question the University it trying to get to the bottom of is how any organization develops a culture in which that's a possibility.


Robert Fox wrote:

I suspect questions remain as to why he did the whip-its. Was he forced to? Did he do it on his own? Probably unknown and probably never will be known entirely.


I believe what was uncovered is that whip-its and other drug used were a part of hazing. That doesn't mean the night he died Wiant was forced int doing hazing, but any hazing activity that requires activity that can lead to deaths is unacceptable, right?

Robert Fox wrote:

From what I read, a fraternity brother noticed the victim looking bad (don't remember what alerted him, looking pale maybe?) and called the fraternity president to ask what to do, and specifically asked if he should call 911. The frat president said yes, call 911.

Inexplicably, the student did not call 911 for, I think, nine minutes. Why did he wait? Did he think he was overreacting and that the victim was simply passed out and would be fine? Or, was he an evil kid that wanted to protect himself and his fraternity at all costs, even at the cost of this victim?

I have a VERY hard time believing the latter. I tend to believe the former. However tragic that is, and illustrative of an immature kid in a dangerous situation, I believe something along those lines is what occurred.


I don't think he's an evil kid. But you don't have to be an evil kid to be found guilty of criminal negligence, and the question around hazing and culture is one of how an organization managed to get to a point where somebody could be lying dead on the floor and that could so easily be mixed up with a regular ol' Saturday night. It's perfectly reasonable to try and understand what organizational decisions lead to that state of affairs, and to consider a Colin Wiant a victim of that. Victimhood doesn't assume maliciousness or evil.


Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 9:40:51 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable to try and understand what organizational decisions lead to that state of affairs, and to consider a Colin Wiant a victim of that. Victimhood doesn't assume maliciousness or evil.




Slight modification to illustrate our difference: It's perfectly reasonable to try and understand IF organizational decisions lead to that state of affairs...

The fact these kids were doing whip-its may or may not have been a function of the fraternity. Do kids outside of fraternities do whip-its? If this is a function of the fraternity encouraging these kids to do this kind of stuff, I'm in full agreement with you. They should be labeled as guilty of something, manslaughter or some such thing.

But if this is the result of kids partying out of control, that's not the same as hazing by a fraternity. That would be guilt of an organization (the entire university) that lead to that state of affairs.
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 2,738

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 9:58:16 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

I get why members of the 110 are frustrated.

But. . .what's so bad about that, exactly? Can you explain what about that description is different than what you expected an investigation to look like? As far as I can tell, the University asked a member of the band about accusations. The member of the band explained she'd never seen such behavior. And it sounds like she was very upset about being there and and having to answer questions at all.

What should my takeaway be here, exactly? That band members shouldn't have to answer questions like adults if doing so upsets them? That the University shouldn't make a good faith effort to understand if students in a University organization are being hazed after reports of such?

I mean, after reading that explanation of one of the interrogations, is there anybody here that's still comfortable comparing this to the drug war?


The purpose of these interrogations were supposed to be to investigate specific allegations of hazing/violations of the student code of conduct.

From what's been posted,it doesn't appear the band members have been asked about specific incidents.

The questions that have been posted about a 110 member's behavior,like drinking at a party,unless related to a specific allegation are out of bounds.

If I was required to participate in a hearing,concerning a specific issue,I would expect the questions to focus on that.
If,instead I was being asked all kinds of questions,unrelated to that,I'd be upset also.

Sorry,but in my opinion, when it comes to this whole mess,University and "good faith",should not be used in the same sentence.





You made this exact point before we had any insight into what was actually asked. Now we have a student posting her recollection of her interrogation, and I don't think it actually supports what you're saying at all.

That student lists the very specific incidents she was asked about. She said"

"So they put me in a room alone and asked me a series of questions about nicknames, the drinking game, posting party, bus clean up, and the jackets (these were the biggest things they talked about but there was more)."

"She talked about any situation where I was forced into anything. . .And I was like “no, I don’t drink but I’ve been to the get togethers and no one is ever forced into anything. We do not do that, and to suggest we do is against everything the 110 stands for. This is established by the upperclassmen and the start of training week”

Which questions do you feel were out of bounds? What about those questions doesn't address the accusations? Weren't the accusations against the 110 about a culture of hazing and forced drinking? What would you expect the questions to look like?


Again,I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who does a lot of
testimony as both a "fact" and "expert" witness.

I would consider any question,not directly pertaining to a specific hazing allegation,or violation the Code of Conduct "out of bounds",unless a lawyer said it was o.k. to answer.

Again,based on my experience,I would expect questions like "an allegation has been made that,on _______(date),_________ occurred."

"Were you aware of this ?"

If the answer is "yes" then the interrogator could follow up.



Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,583

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 12:32:13 PM 
rpbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

I get why members of the 110 are frustrated.

But. . .what's so bad about that, exactly? Can you explain what about that description is different than what you expected an investigation to look like? As far as I can tell, the University asked a member of the band about accusations. The member of the band explained she'd never seen such behavior. And it sounds like she was very upset about being there and and having to answer questions at all.

What should my takeaway be here, exactly? That band members shouldn't have to answer questions like adults if doing so upsets them? That the University shouldn't make a good faith effort to understand if students in a University organization are being hazed after reports of such?

I mean, after reading that explanation of one of the interrogations, is there anybody here that's still comfortable comparing this to the drug war?


The purpose of these interrogations were supposed to be to investigate specific allegations of hazing/violations of the student code of conduct.

From what's been posted,it doesn't appear the band members have been asked about specific incidents.

The questions that have been posted about a 110 member's behavior,like drinking at a party,unless related to a specific allegation are out of bounds.

If I was required to participate in a hearing,concerning a specific issue,I would expect the questions to focus on that.
If,instead I was being asked all kinds of questions,unrelated to that,I'd be upset also.

Sorry,but in my opinion, when it comes to this whole mess,University and "good faith",should not be used in the same sentence.





You made this exact point before we had any insight into what was actually asked. Now we have a student posting her recollection of her interrogation, and I don't think it actually supports what you're saying at all.

That student lists the very specific incidents she was asked about. She said"

"So they put me in a room alone and asked me a series of questions about nicknames, the drinking game, posting party, bus clean up, and the jackets (these were the biggest things they talked about but there was more)."

"She talked about any situation where I was forced into anything. . .And I was like “no, I don’t drink but I’ve been to the get togethers and no one is ever forced into anything. We do not do that, and to suggest we do is against everything the 110 stands for. This is established by the upperclassmen and the start of training week”

Which questions do you feel were out of bounds? What about those questions doesn't address the accusations? Weren't the accusations against the 110 about a culture of hazing and forced drinking? What would you expect the questions to look like?


Again,I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who does a lot of
testimony as both a "fact" and "expert" witness.

I would consider any question,not directly pertaining to a specific hazing allegation,or violation the Code of Conduct "out of bounds",unless a lawyer said it was o.k. to answer.

Again,based on my experience,I would expect questions like "an allegation has been made that,on _______(date),_________ occurred."

"Were you aware of this ?"

If the answer is "yes" then the interrogator could follow up.



How, from that Twitter post, are you determining that that's not happening?

It seems like you're making an unrelated point.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,583

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 1:08:13 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable to try and understand what organizational decisions lead to that state of affairs, and to consider a Colin Wiant a victim of that. Victimhood doesn't assume maliciousness or evil.




Slight modification to illustrate our difference: It's perfectly reasonable to try and understand IF organizational decisions lead to that state of affairs...

The fact these kids were doing whip-its may or may not have been a function of the fraternity. Do kids outside of fraternities do whip-its? If this is a function of the fraternity encouraging these kids to do this kind of stuff, I'm in full agreement with you. They should be labeled as guilty of something, manslaughter or some such thing.



The University's investigation uncovered that pledges were made to do whip-its and other drugs as part of the hazing process. That is an organizational decision and it's one that I'd argue has a very clear purpose: to demonstrate to pledges the culture of that particular fraternity and weed out the people who don't want to be a part of that culture. Do you disagree?

Given that, it doesn't really matter if kids outside of fraternities do whip-its. Of course they do. The question in this case is does the fraternity encourage or condemn that behavior? And the fact that whip-its and other drug use were uncovered as a part of their initiation process clearly answers that question, in my view.

The fact is that fraternities are held to a different standard out of necessity. They are a formal organization with policies and governance in place, and as a direct result that changes how their behaviors are judged. Had Colin Wiant just been friends with a bunch of people who liked whip-its and died doing them, it's just a sad story. That he was part of a formal, University-endorsed organization that made drug use a part of their initiation process changes things legally.



Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 2,738

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 2:11:41 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Again,I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who does a lot of
testimony as both a "fact" and "expert" witness.

I would consider any question,not directly pertaining to a specific hazing allegation,or violation the Code of Conduct "out of bounds",unless a lawyer said it was o.k. to answer.

Again,based on my experience,I would expect questions like "an allegation has been made that,on _______(date),_________ occurred."

"Were you aware of this ?"

If the answer is "yes" then the interrogator could follow up.



How, from that Twitter post, are you determining that that's not happening?

It seems like you're making an unrelated point.


The tweets,as well as the posts by bbocatt11o mention questions like "do you drink","have you ever purchased alcohol for minor".

I haven't seen anyone mention anything about being asked questions about
any specific hazing allegation(s) which was supposedly what O.U.'s investigation into the 110 is for.

Asking general questions about drinking games,bus clean up,even jacket dirtying, without reference to a specific allegation, is not what they claim to be investigating.

About the only question that could possibly fit what O.U. claims they are investigating is the one about whether any member of the 110 was "forced into anything".
Which, by the way,the answer was no.







Last Edited: 12/6/2019 2:12:20 PM by rpbobcat

Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 2,738

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 2:31:56 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
It's perfectly reasonable to try and understand what organizational decisions lead to that state of affairs, and to consider a Colin Wiant a victim of that. Victimhood doesn't assume maliciousness or evil.




Slight modification to illustrate our difference: It's perfectly reasonable to try and understand IF organizational decisions lead to that state of affairs...

The fact these kids were doing whip-its may or may not have been a function of the fraternity. Do kids outside of fraternities do whip-its? If this is a function of the fraternity encouraging these kids to do this kind of stuff, I'm in full agreement with you. They should be labeled as guilty of something, manslaughter or some such thing.



The University's investigation uncovered that pledges were made to do whip-its and other drugs as part of the hazing process. That is an organizational decision and it's one that I'd argue has a very clear purpose: to demonstrate to pledges the culture of that particular fraternity and weed out the people who don't want to be a part of that culture. Do you disagree?

Given that, it doesn't really matter if kids outside of fraternities do whip-its. Of course they do. The question in this case is does the fraternity encourage or condemn that behavior? And the fact that whip-its and other drug use were uncovered as a part of their initiation process clearly answers that question, in my view.

The fact is that fraternities are held to a different standard out of necessity. They are a formal organization with policies and governance in place, and as a direct result that changes how their behaviors are judged. Had Colin Wiant just been friends with a bunch of people who liked whip-its and died doing them, it's just a sad story. That he was part of a formal, University-endorsed organization that made drug use a part of their initiation process changes things legally.





Colin Wiant's death was both tragic and sad.

Including drug use as part of pledging is unconscionable.
It does indicate the "culture" of that particular organization.

Any frat or sorority that does that has no place at O.U. or any other university.

That being said,Mr Wiant may have been coerced,but none of the stories I've read say he was forced to do the Whip Its that apparently caused his death.
He was apparently aware of the culture and chose to participate.

When you as a pledge or an active see an initiation activity,including one that involves potential bodily harm,including drug use,you need exercise some personal responsibility and common sense.
Quit and report the fraternity.

But I guess the people involved didn't see this as a problem.

Problem is,when people don't report these things,it has,and will,continue to happen.



Last Edited: 12/6/2019 2:43:42 PM by rpbobcat

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,583

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 3:00:59 PM 
rpbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Again,I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who does a lot of
testimony as both a "fact" and "expert" witness.

I would consider any question,not directly pertaining to a specific hazing allegation,or violation the Code of Conduct "out of bounds",unless a lawyer said it was o.k. to answer.

Again,based on my experience,I would expect questions like "an allegation has been made that,on _______(date),_________ occurred."

"Were you aware of this ?"

If the answer is "yes" then the interrogator could follow up.



How, from that Twitter post, are you determining that that's not happening?

It seems like you're making an unrelated point.


The tweets,as well as the posts by bbocatt11o mention questions like "do you drink","have you ever purchased alcohol for minor".

I haven't seen anyone mention anything about being asked questions about
any specific hazing allegation(s) which was supposedly what O.U.'s investigation into the 110 is for.

Asking general questions about drinking games,bus clean up,even jacket dirtying, without reference to a specific allegation, is not what they claim to be investigating.

About the only question that could possibly fit what O.U. claims they are investigating is the one about whether any member of the 110 was "forced into anything".
Which, by the way,the answer was no.



There were very specific hazing reports about the jacket bullying.

And the other hazing reports were about a culture that pressures members of the 110 into drinking.

How can you say that questions about drinking games aren't relevant to the allegations?

I find your expectations here truly odd. The University is unable to ask any questions about the social culture of the organization they're investigating based on reports that the social culture included hazing and drinking?

Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 3:03:11 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


The University's investigation uncovered that pledges were made to do whip-its and other drugs as part of the hazing process.


Is that true? I have not seen that.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

That is an organizational decision and it's one that I'd argue has a very clear purpose: to demonstrate to pledges the culture of that particular fraternity and weed out the people who don't want to be a part of that culture. Do you disagree?

Do I agree that this particular fraternity was doing that? No, not necessarily. Not because it can't be true, but because I simply don't know. Was that reported? If the answer is yes, then yes, I'd agree with you.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

That he was part of a formal, University-endorsed organization that made drug use a part of their initiation process changes things legally.


Same thing here. Show me a link that establishes that. I'm simply not aware of it. If it's true, then yes, I'll happily agree with you ON THIS PARTICULAR FRATERNITY. I will not automatically ascribe that behavior to other organizations, fraternities, sororities, band, rugby team.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,583

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 3:18:13 PM 
Robert Fox wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


The University's investigation uncovered that pledges were made to do whip-its and other drugs as part of the hazing process.


Is that true? I have not seen that.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

That is an organizational decision and it's one that I'd argue has a very clear purpose: to demonstrate to pledges the culture of that particular fraternity and weed out the people who don't want to be a part of that culture. Do you disagree?

Do I agree that this particular fraternity was doing that? No, not necessarily. Not because it can't be true, but because I simply don't know. Was that reported? If the answer is yes, then yes, I'd agree with you.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

That he was part of a formal, University-endorsed organization that made drug use a part of their initiation process changes things legally.


Same thing here. Show me a link that establishes that. I'm simply not aware of it. If it's true, then yes, I'll happily agree with you ON THIS PARTICULAR FRATERNITY. I will not automatically ascribe that behavior to other organizations, fraternities, sororities, band, rugby team.



I've seen the drug use during hazing in a few places. This is from a Cincinnati.com (which I guess is USA Today?) article:

https://www.cincinnati.com/in-depth/news/education/2019/1... /

Quote:

It was there, Wiant confided to his brother, that fraternity brothers punched him and beat him with belts, leaving welts and bruises. He said there was binge drinking, cocaine and Adderall, a drug typically used to treat people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. It all left him incoherent.


Forced drug use is a big part of the Wiant's recently filed wrongful death suit.

Coerced consumption is also one of the charges that led to Sigma Pi being disbanded: https://www.thepostathens.com/article/2019/04/sigma-pi-fr...

The truth here is that we'll never know for sure. When interviewed, Sigma Pi members consistently maintained a code of silence and didn't recall details. Not at all surprising, of course.

But one would think that were there no hazing and forced drug use to hide, they all could have just told the same truth that Colin Wiant was just super into drugs and whippets and died as a result.

Either way, there's reporting to suggest forced drug use.

Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 2,738

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 3:49:18 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Again,I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who does a lot of
testimony as both a "fact" and "expert" witness.

I would consider any question,not directly pertaining to a specific hazing allegation,or violation the Code of Conduct "out of bounds",unless a lawyer said it was o.k. to answer.

Again,based on my experience,I would expect questions like "an allegation has been made that,on _______(date),_________ occurred."

"Were you aware of this ?"

If the answer is "yes" then the interrogator could follow up.



How, from that Twitter post, are you determining that that's not happening?

It seems like you're making an unrelated point.


The tweets,as well as the posts by bbocatt11o mention questions like "do you drink","have you ever purchased alcohol for minor".

I haven't seen anyone mention anything about being asked questions about
any specific hazing allegation(s) which was supposedly what O.U.'s investigation into the 110 is for.

Asking general questions about drinking games,bus clean up,even jacket dirtying, without reference to a specific allegation, is not what they claim to be investigating.

About the only question that could possibly fit what O.U. claims they are investigating is the one about whether any member of the 110 was "forced into anything".
Which, by the way,the answer was no.



There were very specific hazing reports about the jacket bullying.

And the other hazing reports were about a culture that pressures members of the 110 into drinking.

How can you say that questions about drinking games aren't relevant to the allegations?

I find your expectations here truly odd. The University is unable to ask any questions about the social culture of the organization they're investigating based on reports that the social culture included hazing and drinking?


My expectations are quite simple.

If you are purporting to be investigating specific allegations of hazing,or violation of the Student Code of Conduct that's what you ask questions about.

Just saying there was a "culture of pressuring members of the 110 into drinking",without a reference to a specific incident is nothing more then "fishing".

If there is a specific allegation of this,or anything else,like jacket bullying,then ask about that.

But you're supposed to ask by referencing the date and nature of the allegation.

My advice to any member of the 110 would be to talk to a lawyer before any interrogation.
When you meet with the interrogators,before you answer any questions, have them put,on the record,exactly what the purpose of their interrogation is,potential consequences and what the "ground rules" are.

This is particularly important when you're dealing with interrogators who have had that extensive 1 day training.





Last Edited: 12/6/2019 3:55:08 PM by rpbobcat

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,583

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 3:56:06 PM 
rpbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
rpbobcat wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Again,I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who does a lot of
testimony as both a "fact" and "expert" witness.

I would consider any question,not directly pertaining to a specific hazing allegation,or violation the Code of Conduct "out of bounds",unless a lawyer said it was o.k. to answer.

Again,based on my experience,I would expect questions like "an allegation has been made that,on _______(date),_________ occurred."

"Were you aware of this ?"

If the answer is "yes" then the interrogator could follow up.



How, from that Twitter post, are you determining that that's not happening?

It seems like you're making an unrelated point.


The tweets,as well as the posts by bbocatt11o mention questions like "do you drink","have you ever purchased alcohol for minor".

I haven't seen anyone mention anything about being asked questions about
any specific hazing allegation(s) which was supposedly what O.U.'s investigation into the 110 is for.

Asking general questions about drinking games,bus clean up,even jacket dirtying, without reference to a specific allegation, is not what they claim to be investigating.

About the only question that could possibly fit what O.U. claims they are investigating is the one about whether any member of the 110 was "forced into anything".
Which, by the way,the answer was no.



There were very specific hazing reports about the jacket bullying.

And the other hazing reports were about a culture that pressures members of the 110 into drinking.

How can you say that questions about drinking games aren't relevant to the allegations?

I find your expectations here truly odd. The University is unable to ask any questions about the social culture of the organization they're investigating based on reports that the social culture included hazing and drinking?


My expectations are quite simple.

If you are purporting to be investigating specific allegations of hazing,or violation of the Student Code of Conduct that's what you ask questions about.

Just saying there was a "culture of pressuring members of the 110 into drinking",without a reference to a specific incident is nothing more then "fishing".

If there is a specific allegation of this,or anything else,like jacket bullying,then ask aboutthat.

But you're supposed to ask by referencing the date and nature of the allegation.

My advice to any member of the 110 would be to talk to a lawyer before any interrogation.
When you meet with the interrogators,before you answer any questions, have them put,on the record,exactly what the purpose of their interrogation is,potential consequences and what the "ground rules" are.

This is particularly important when you're dealing with interrogators who have had that extensive 1 day training.


And what do you do in an instance where you're a University tasked with maintaining the safety of your students and the allegations have no date, but rather are that there is a broad culture in which people who don't drink aren't accepted? How do you investigate that?

Based on your approach, you simply can't.

Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Three sorority's reinstated
   Posted: 12/6/2019 3:56:49 PM 
Yeah, I'm not entirely sure about that. I read both of your links. I believe I had read them both before. This time I read them more carefully to find that evidence. It's just not clear. Certainly not clear enough to definitively say that the fraternity is guilty of killing someone. That is certainly a step too far, and yet that is what is now happening. One of the tweets that is posted further up the page has some OU band student complaining that the 110 is being targeted while one of the 'frats killed someone.' That is now the belief around campus, that these organizations are guilty. So guilty that the university has suspended them. Guilty enough that some whacked out individual(s) is spray painting frat houses. Another whacked out individual--allegedly--is body checking band members and calling them out.

This response is partly the result of the approach OU administration is taking. They could have targeted only the accused, quietly, until they made some sort of finding that was actionable. Instead, they chose to go public right from the first accusations. The assistant Dean of Students sends a cease and desist letter complete with some line about 'don't talk to anyone unless I approve it.' (By the way, how full of himself is this guy?) And no one in the department thought 'gee, maybe we better check this with legal before we go off half cocked'?











Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  126 - 150  of 199 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8    Next >
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



Copyright ©2020 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties