Sanguine et Purpure
Ah. Our core ideals and cardinal principles are alive and well.
Here is what a UW blog (Critical Badger) has to say about it - excerpted comments:
Dr. No
May 6, 2008 at 6:25 pm
My fraternity, as I believe most on campus, does not support actions like this.Anonymous
Frankly, in my experiences, SigEp is led by assholes and it’s not shocking that they are doing things like this.
May 6, 2008 at 6:33 pm
As a member of the Greek Community, I am shocked and disgusted to see something like this happen. No one in my fraternity would ever allow something like this to happen."Is it better to be loved or feared?" How about ...neither.
If the Dean of Students’ office finds even a shred of truth behind these allegations, there is no reason why Sigep shouldn’t be kicked off.
I’ve weighed in on this on The Critical Badger blog:
FIRST POST: May 7, 2008 at 3:28 am
“A few guys were lined up on the street…”: If this were a hazing activity, it would not have been conducted outdoors, in public, in the middle of Langdon Street. Get a grip!
“…a mixture of what I think included feces, blood, and other ridiculous items poured on their head.” Feces and blood, in this context, are not “ridiculous” items. I’d wager it was catsup and chocolate syrup, with perhaps some oatmeal sprinkled on top to make a real, sticky mess. That was a common concoction when I was in college 40 years ago.
“Several of the guys vomited.” They were likely inebriated to some degree. After all, this was on a Friday night on a college campus. And they probably wretched because they were running around half drunk, not because of having some sort of gooey mixture poured on them.
“This was while many people on the street WATCHED what was going on and members of SigEp surrounding the house stood and cheered.” Of course. The entire idea was to engage some sort of audience; otherwise, this would have been done indoors in the dark. The previous suggestion that this was the pledges vengeance on a handful of the actives – most likely the Membership Development Committee (Pledge Board) – seems reasonable. I doubt, though, that this feigned retribution, seemingly encouraged by the rest of the upperclassmen in the fraternity, reflected in any way the pledges’ developmental or formation programs during the preceding semester.
“This seems like a textbook hell week event.” Yes, there are a few books that chronicle similar “eyewitness” accounts of fraternity atrocities [e.g., “Fraternity Gang Rape” by Peggy Sanday (1992), a feminist radical from Penn]. In the library on my campus, these sorts of books are catalogued in a “Special Collection” of volumes chronicling “eyewitness” accounts to other generally-assumed deviance such as Mormons eating children, the horizontal genitalia of Asian women, and Catholics drinking blood…all “eyewitness” accounts, mind you. These books are available to anyone who wishes to read them, but they do not circulate.
The “hazing” hoax is on the Dean of Students Office.
_________________________________________
SECOND POST: May 7, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Regarding the preceding thread of Comments:
If the sort of vitriolic prejudice directed toward SigEp and fraternities by some of the respondents were directed toward any other visible, identifiable minority on campus – or toward women who, I imagine, are in the majority at Madison as they are on most campuses – the propagators would likely be expelled from the university.
Anonymity seems to allow us to truly be ourselves. I wonder what Germany would have been like in the 1930’s if the Internet and blogs existed then.
_________________________________________
THIRD POST: May 7, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Response to Chris VE:
There are some small, liberal arts colleges where the fraternities and sororities both determine the social life of the campus and provide 80 percent of on-campus student housing (e.g., Gettysburg College, Washington and Lee University, DePauw University). But on large and medium-sized campuses like Wisconsin and my college, fraternities generally represent no more than a quarter of the men. That is a “visible, identifiable minority on campus” and it has nothing to do with race, history, class, or suspicion.
Prejudice is prejudice, regardless of the demographics of the target. The American tradition of prejudice has been to attack visible populations that are a minority in the community. The university campus is a community, and fraternity men with their esoteric traditions are a minority on most university campuses today.
The SigEps engaged in something unusual, in public, on Langdon Street. What occurred was visible for anyone in the vicinity to see. The Dean of Students Office should certainly respond to the reports it has received. But until the student affairs administration determines if Wisconsin statutes and/or the university and IFC conduct codes were violated, accusations of “hazing” are premature. Perhaps that’s why it’s called “prejudice.”
Stupid is forever and you can't fix stupid. Whatever was in the bucket makes no difference. It was clearly hazing, we all know it was hazing, and we all know it has most likely always been a tradition at this chapter. Any effort to justify it or suggest that what happened didn't occur is absurd. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Guilty or not we should all take a very valuable lesson away from this article. Perception is fact! The person(s) who reported this saw the activities and reported hazing.
I am reminded of an incident that happened at one of my chapters who were having a BBQ and drinking from what was perceived as beer cups outside the chapter house. The campus police stopped by and hassled the people at the BBQ and threatened to arrest them until they realized that they were drinking soda from the chapter soda fountain.
How many of our chapters do activities that are perceived to be something other than what they were doing?
This chapter will now have to spend hundreds of hours during exam weeks trying to defend their actions detailed in this article.
Stop and think.....
The stupidity of the Wisconsin SigEps resides in the bad judgment exercised when the decision was made to conduct whatever they were doing in public, outdoors, literally in the middle of fraternity row. As Gene points out, public perception can lead to misinterpretation and false conclusions that are, nevertheless, damaging to the reputation of the fraternity.
But I’ll still hold that for conduct to rise to the level of “hazing” as defined by state statute, various tests must be met. Until the Wisconsin student affairs administration completes its investigation and debriefs the involved students, no one will know whether the idiocy on Langdon Street last week rises to that level. Stupid, embarrassing, disgusting conduct…yes. But hazing? I want to know more before I sew that scarlet letter on Wisconsin Beta.
My posts on The Critical Badger blog are in response to a parallel disgust with alleged witnesses crying “Hazing!” and conjuring up every negative fraternity stereotype. The very idea that someone would believe that “feces and blood” were being thrown around in public is absurd. If that were the case, the SigEps would have been arrested for violation of the health and sanitation laws of the City of Madison, if not for deviant public conduct. The accusations posted on the blog are often shrill and irrational.
One articulate individual countered my arguments with the political and sociological definitions of discrimination. My position is not that the Wisconsin SigEps are the victims of discrimination. They are not disenfranchised; they are not denied access to political systems nor to political power. But I hold that the fraternity community at Madison is a minority within the university, that it is very visible, that it engages in esoteric activity which makes it suspect to non-participating sectors of the community, and that it can be on the receiving end of a prejudice grounded in resentment, myth, and distrust. For these reasons, every fraternity on every campus is well advised to conduct itself in public in a manner beyond reproach.
Although some in this chapter obviously made some dumb choices on a Friday night, I strongly disagree with Brother Davenports broad assertion about this chapter. Wisconsin Beta has been an exemplary chapter in recent years and hazing is not a long tradition there.
I must be misinterpreting Roger as it appears he is trying to justify having pledges run around in their underwear while they have buckets of "stuff or whatever" poured over them. By the fraternity's definition as well as most statutes this is hazing. Also, Okie, this is not some stunt that they just thought of out of the blue. I do not have enough fingers and toes to count the chapters we have who win exemplary awards, etc., that still have some form of explicitly defined hazing going on (including alcohol violations). If it's out of sight doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And Gene, your example is an orange to the apple.
I think we are getting hung up over whether what happened is "Hazing" as defined by statute or policy. I don't see that as the issue. I don't even see that doing it where "the public" can see it is the issue either. Those points have a bearing on liability, public relations and general embarrassment, but they are not the core of the problem.
The issue I see is one of core values and Cardinal Principles. I fail to see how running around in your underwear and dumping "indecent substances" on each other exemplifies the Cardinal Principles of our fraternity. In other words: "It may be legal, but it just ain't right."
Any of you business majors want to take a crack at fitting this incident into a marketing campaign aimed at parents of prospective members?
I do not condone hazing in any form.
If the Wisconsin chapter is found guilty by the university and/or the national organization the chapter should suffer the punishment issued by those organizations. It not the purpose of this forum to determine the guilt of the chapter based upon a newspaper article. I take what was printed with a grain of salt until I hear a report of the findings of the authorities.
Here is something for you to consider. If some active members of a chapter force something on another active member is that hazing? Some of our chapters have "traditions" within the chapter such as 21 shots on the 21st birthday. Another one that scares me is giving someone a swirly when he gets pinned or engaged (a bunch of members dip the person head first in the toilet and flush it).
Guys do some pretty gross things to each other. I'm sure that each of us know of other activities that we have seen in our years of advising fraternity men. I do not want to list them all here for fear that someone picks up another dangerous prank.
Undergraduates don't think twice about these activities. It's all considered good fun. Alumni come back to the chapter and revel in the stupid things they did when they were in school.
Then someone gets hurt or killed. No one meant to hurt anyone.
To people outside of the fraternity this would be viewed as frat boy activity. To the law it could be viewed as hazing, I would believe. The press would have a field day with accident.
This chapter participated in an activity that they say was new members dumping crap on senior members. If this is proven out as true are the new members guilty of hazing older members? If the activity was older members dumping on newly initiated members was it hazing?
If it was done to pledges as a condition of membership everyone would agree it is hazing. Fraternity men don't seem to see any problem with these type active on active hazing.
This is the kind of thinking undergraduate members use to justify their actions.
Discuss.
I agree that we should allow the investigating organizations and authorities to reach conclusions, not the newspaper.
However, just as a point of reference, a liberal reading of Wisconsin's hazing statute would mean that it matters not if the activity is done to pledges, or to senior members. Notice the language of "affiliation with," rather than "affiliation into."
948.51. Hazing
(1) In this section "forced activity" means any activity which is a condition of initiation or admission into or affiliation with an organization, regardless of a student's willingness to participate in the activity.
(2) No person may intentionally or recklessly engage in acts which endanger the physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation or admission into or affiliation with any organization operating in connection with a school, college or university. Under those circumstances, prohibited acts may include any brutality of a physical nature, such as whipping, beating, branding, forced consumption of any food, liquor, drug or other substance, forced confinement or any other forced activity which endangers the physical health or safety of the student.
(3) Whoever violates sub. (2) is guilty of:
(a) A Class A misdemeanor if the act results in or is likely to result in bodily harm to another.
(b) A Class H felony if the act results in great bodily harm to another.
(c) A Class G felony if the act results in the death of another.
“Hazing” is a loaded word, as well as a legal construct.
The Wisconsin SigEps were stupid, indeed, to engage in their disgusting gavotte in public – in the middle of Fraternity Row – so as to attract an audience. For all my experience in working with and studying the development and behavior of college-age men, I cannot fathom the necessity of a public audience in the execution of this otherwise “inter nos” melodrama.
Consequently, they got what they should have expected…misinterpretation and false conclusions cast in the stereotypical negative imagery and nomenclature which have plagued American college fraternities since the end of World War II.
Someone has posted the Wisconsin hazing statutes in this thread. Thank you. We await the findings of the student affairs administration’s investigation to see if the SigEps conduct – unvirtuous and embarrassing to all of ΣΦΕ – rises to this level.
The University of Wisconsin is, in my opinion, one of America’s premier national universities. I would expect that the campus community at Madison is enlightened, tolerant, inclusive, and liberal (in the academic and intellectual sense).
Yet last Friday night on Langdon Street, those observing the SigEps’ unfortunate conduct – some of whom are Greek and some of whom are not – turned into a mob, pointing judgmental fingers and crying “Hazing!” “Feces!” “Urine!” “Blood!” “A Textbook Hell Week!”
Surely, I cannot be the only respondent who finds THIS conduct to be ignorant, intolerant, exclusive, and prejudicial. It is upon THIS behavior – unexpected by any standard at the University of Wisconsin – that my remarks in this thread and on The Critical Badger have been predicated.
Commenting by HaloScan
