more trouble for SAE

by **HB Pony Dad** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:21 am

SMU: Frat house drug use widespread

Love how UPI piles on SMU with that Headline!

UPI: 100 YEARS OF JOURNALISTIC EXCELLENCE...

NOT!!

by **smupony94** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:37 am

HB Pony Dad wrote:SMU: Frat house drug use widespread

Love how UPI piles on SMU with that Headline!

UPI: 100 YEARS OF JOURNALISTIC EXCELLENCE...

NOT!!

time for widespread panic

by **jtstang** » Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:48 am

Anyone who has not read the Texas Monthly article on Stile's death and subsequent "investigation" by SMU really ought to seek it out and read it.

by **Dwan** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:22 pm

So no parties until November 09. School gets out the end of April then starts in September. So they can't have parties for 6 1/2 months...4 of which are over summer break?

by **Eddie P** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:34 pm

This is just a nicely dressed up prelude to them getting booted next fall. The suspension encompasses rush and that's where the university will nail them eventually when they have that party/gathering whatever you want to call it. Hell, it could happen the first week before school starts, a notorious party period.

by **Dwan** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:05 pm

No, sadly this is a press release from the University as a response to a Texas Monthly article in which they were embarassed and accused of not doing anything.

by **Eddie P** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:31 am

Let me understand where you're coming from...are you saying the punishment is nada? Im just curious what you're trying to state so we can all discuss it. And if you put it on the interweb, hopefully you have an interest in discussing it.

I'm going to take a stab at your response and say that you think the SMU response is garbage. I have indicated in an earlier post exactly what is going to happen, but regardless of this, are you just trying to get your feelings out that the SMU punishment of the SAE fraternity is somehow lacking?

by **Dwan** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:01 am

What I'm saying is that the Texas Monthly Article was a PR nightmare for the University. It made it look like they did nothing. Now a month or so after the Texas Monthly Article, this comes out. I personally think it is kinda funny people getting on the DMN for running this story when I'm sure SMU PR put it in the DMN. This is SMU's public response to the public flogging they took in the Texas Monthly Article.

Since so much time has past since the incident, it would not be fair to punish the current members of the house for something that happened when most of them were in high school. Also, I agree with Stallion, it's hard to punish a group for the actions of one. This kid's death, however tragic, and considering the mixture of drugs, is hard to put on somebody else other than him.....as sad as that is and as hard as that is to accept. If the drugs were forced on him, then criminal charges should be persued against those..but no evidence of that exists.

I guess I think your response is somewhat naive....like the University really wants to bust the house for this and is just waiting and hoping that they screw up and throw a party so they can bust them. If a University wants to through a house off campus, they can for almost any reason. And the death of a student in a house on campus from overdosing on 3 illegal drugs is more than enough for a University to kick a house off campus.

Too much time has passed to punish the house, the texas monthly article embarassed the school....so they issued this press release.

by **PonyKai** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:12 am

Eddie P wrote:This is just a nicely dressed up prelude to them getting booted next fall. The suspension encompasses rush and that's where the university will nail them eventually when they have that party/gathering whatever you want to call it. Hell, it could happen the first week before school starts, a notorious party period.

No it doesn't encompass rush. It doesn't even fully encompass informal rush. They would technically have about 5 to 5 1/2 weeks after that to informally recruit potential members, if they so choose. They would then have formal rush after break if they wanted. And an organization such as SAE would not be decimated by not having two months of informal rush for one year; they would certainly be able to handle worse.

by **fivemon** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:53 am

The biggest problem I see with their suspension is not the effect of rush, but what happened to KA....SMU is just making so that one small screw up ie. a couple of brothers having a get together at an off campus house dpd gets called up to quiet them and that gets reported back to SMU and then SMU just says SEE YA

by **Dwan** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:45 pm

What does "not hold a social event" mean. Does that mean they cant throw fraternity parties on or off campus and does that include 7 guys watching college football at their apartment?

by **fivemon** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:23 pm

both on and off campus....on the second part that is where the school leaves it as vague as possible so that they can make the decision on if it is a fraternity event or not

by **EastStang** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:12 pm

I would be mildly surprised to see if the University is acting unilaterally here. I suspect that some of the alums of this or that fraternity may be behind some of the closings. That's what happened to the BETA's from discussions with some friends who were BETA's. Can't speak for the KA's situation, but if the situation was to the point where the alums (or National) wanted it shut down and recolonized, I suspect the school would accommodate that so that it looked like it was being tough on fraternity drug and alcohol abuse.

by **Dooby** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:54 pm

National shut down Betas. School kicked off ATO's and KA's.

by **Eddie P** » Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:53 pm

Dwan wrote:What does "not hold a social event" mean. Does that mean they cant throw fraternity parties on or off campus and does that include 7 guys watching college football at their apartment?

There are many sins that can be thrown at my feet, but being naive is kind of a first for me, but thank you.

And I think your question here sums it up well. The 7 guys watching a football game at an apartment who all happen to be SAE's will happen, someone will complain about the noise or beer bottles outside the door, a cop or someone will be called and it will get back to the university. And then they will be in violation and they will be gone like KA.

I think this is a brilliant way SMU has come up with to remove troublesome (in their eyes) fraternities without receiving the full wrath of the various ATO/KA/SAE etc infuential alumni.

No, I am not naive. Quite the opposite actually. On the contrary, I think this particular form of punishment is extremely perceptive of the university and shields them from some backlash. After all, when SAE throws the inevitable get together, the university can just point at the Fraternity and say, "Hey, we told them they couldnt and they did anyway."

I dont agree with this, but it is very clever. And yes, SMU wouldnt mind not having their names in the national news anymore. If that means getting rid of a fraternity, then they have obviously decided thats a small price to pay. Believe it or not, the school will move on while losing some big donors.

more trouble for SAE

Who is online