more trouble for SAE

[Eddie P]

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.

Youre nitpicking STL. And lets stop with the informal/formal rush nonsense. Yeah, guys wait to get rushed during formal rush...especially to a house like SAE. Cmon man. And as far as them starting in novemeber during the"informal" rush period, again cmon. They will be discreetly having parties and that's where the danger lies. One sick freshmen, one write up from an RA to a drunk guy coming back to the dorms, one frosh girl getting sick...anything that happens and the person in questions says they were at an SAE event and the hammer comes down. Thats the danger. it would be admirable if SAE would have exactly zero contact with all freshmen guys and girls until november. But really?

[Dwan]

so you are saying the a student overdosing on three illegal drugs and dying in the house and another member almost dying from drinking too much is not enough ammo for the university to kick them off.....so they have come up with this elaborate way of bating them into breaking an rule?

[Eddie P]

so you are saying the a student overdosing on three illegal drugs and dying in the house and another member almost dying from drinking too much is not enough ammo for the university to kick them off.....so they have come up with this elaborate way of bating them into breaking an rule?

You change subject matter so quickly sir. I cannot tell what you're discussing from post to post.

To address the above: No...the university cannot condemn a group for the extremely poor choices this young man chose to pursue. But they've found a great way to make sure it doesnt happen again, especially when the culture surrounding the guy is so active.

And once again, it not terribly elaborate or "baiting' when you know the behavior of a certain group. They've come up with a very simple way of dealing with the problem.

It's naive to think that the feelings/thoughts/emotions of several boards of people are not taken into these things. SMU doesnt scratch it's [deleted] without several committee meetings.

This conversation bores me. I do not believe we are having a discussion anymore, therefore I no longer wish to participate. If you wish to make a large monetary wager concerning the events to happen between now and November, by all means step up. Otherwise, I'm done discussing the obvious. Famous last words: We will see.

[NickSMU17]

I am worried about the SMU Greek System, it was an integral part of my SMU experience and even though I think it gets taken way to serious at SMU, it is still needed.

If I was the SAE president, I would have 95% of members not pay dues for the next 6 months and deactivate with nationals, then there can be no SAE events...Then when the probation is over simply re-activate those members and go back to being a house, hopefully sans the drugs and rapes and other weird [deleted] those guys have been doing for over 10 years now...

I am sure this sounds far to easy, but they have a powerful alumni base, that should be able to work this out with nationals...Find the smallest number that can keep the house charter active...

[PonyKai]

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.

Youre nitpicking STL. And lets stop with the informal/formal rush nonsense. Yeah, guys wait to get rushed during formal rush...especially to a house like SAE. Cmon man. And as far as them starting in novemeber during the"informal" rush period, again cmon. They will be discreetly having parties and that's where the danger lies. One sick freshmen, one write up from an RA to a drunk guy coming back to the dorms, one frosh girl getting sick...anything that happens and the person in questions says they were at an SAE event and the hammer comes down. Thats the danger. it would be admirable if SAE would have exactly zero contact with all freshmen guys and girls until november. But really?

It's not nitpicking, the only point I was making is that SAE is an organization that would be able to do without social contact, formal or informal, and still be able to put together a good incoming group of guys.

[Dwan]

"To address the above: No...the university cannot condemn a group for the extremely poor choices this young man chose to pursue. But they've found a great way to make sure it doesnt happen again, especially when the culture surrounding the guy is so active.

And once again, it not terribly elaborate or "baiting' when you know the behavior of a certain group. They've come up with a very simple way of dealing with the problem"

To me, when the school says that the "SAE Death is No Longer An Isolated Incident," that means that the school has decided that this is not the extremely poor choices of a young man. That it is a reoccurring problem with a particular group. By then punishing the group by not allowing them to have parties, they are then condemning that group.

I guess my question is if they think it is the problem of the group and then choose to punish the group, which they state and then did, why not just get rid of them? My answer to that is really what my point is:

The Texas Monthly Article made the school look like a bunch of fools. They had 3 drug or alcohol related deaths in two years and they said of all the them, that there was not a drug problem at the school and that they were all "isolated incidents." This was the real point of the article. It was not about the SAEs. It was that the university was either incredibly naive or incredibly ineffective in dealing with a serious problem with its student body. The SAE case was used as an example because the parents of the student were trying to get the university to act and do something about it. That was the example that spoke to the larger problem, and it was not an SAE problem as much as it was an SMU problem. The problem was what is SMU doing about 3 students dying in 2 years from drug overdoses....and the response was clear, nothing, they felt they were all "isolated incidents"

So this article, which is essentially a press release from the school, it is their way of publicly saying, hey, were are doing something about this problem with our student body. The school is not trying to seriously punish anybody cause frankly, too much time has passed for that punishment to be just. So that is my point.

Personally, I'm shocked that nobody at the University has lost their job over the way the University has handled the tragic deaths of their students. SMU has a very small undergraduate student body and 3 deaths in 2 years is not something you put on a fraternity or a student who made bad judgment. One death perhaps, but 3 in 2 years shows there is a serious problem and clearly SMU chose to do nothing about it until the Texas Monthly Article

[EastStang]

Remember in the academic world it takes a village and there is no personal responsibility for anything. As a result, the school has tasked the fraternity system with being their own brothers' keeper. Whether that's a good idea or a bad idea, I'm not sure, but the University is clearly saying to the fraternity system that each fraternity is the brothers' keeper. And if you buy into the fraternity b/s about brotherhood and helping brothers, etc., that might be a good way of dealing with a portion of the substance abuse problems on campus. Only time will tell. As for independents, those that live in dorms have RA's who are tasked with some responsibility in this area. Will there still be drug and alcohol related deaths for SMU students, no doubt, but hopefully this will help to save lives.

[HB Pony Dad]

Apparently SMU is not alone...

USC fraternity suspended after alleged sex assault

I'm sure Harry Truman would be proud of his ΛΧΑ!