It has certainly been awhile UT(4)D, but hello again. It is nice to see you.
Amidst finals, packing, interning, and missing Austin entirely too much, it
seems time has gotten away from me.
That being said, this post may be a little dated, but is something I have
wanted to throw out there for a good while now.
After the death of a Sigma Alpha Epsilon pledge in 2006, the fraternity and
its hazing policies have been under investigation. Eventually, in late April
the fraternity and UT reached an agreement that allows for the organization
to continue to be recognized by the university, yet changes the pledging
process and regulates social activities.
Four members of the fraternity have also been charged with misdemeanor
hazing.
The agreement reached between the university and the fraternity has been
criticized by - well, it has been criticized by me; but hear me out.
The agreement bans hazing. Genius. I am glad that UT has reached an
agreement based on banning hazing when that has been a rule for many years
now.
Ouch, you don’t want to slap anyone’s wrist too hard, now do you?
The charges made against the fraternity members have also been criticized. The
widely accepted notion is that all fraternities haze and that these guys are
being made an example. Well, yes, they are setting an example (another point
reached in the agreement to ‘lead other UT fraternities in making similar
changes’) of what could happen when excessive hazing is involved in social
organizations. Yes, it happens throughout campus, but this organization was
doing especially bad things, things that may or may not be done elsewhere on
campus, and they got caught because someone died.
As I write this, I can’t help but remember the Duke lacrosse case, and the
critics across the country that cried ‘foul play’. They dismissed the ordeal
as an overaggressive prosecutor going after upper class white men – and, by
all accounts, he was. The fundamental difference, however, is that their
case was brought about by heresy. On these here 40 Acres, though, it is a
situation of facts, which were in fact conceded by the accused parties. These
young men did something wrong, they
got caught (again, I stress, because someone died), and now, they pay the
price. Whether or not they were made to be scapegoats is largely
irrelevant.
This is not an example being made out of innocent people. UT should look
over that agreement once more, and strive to set an example themselves. Allowing the
organization to remain on campus because they agreed stop hazing, when they
were well aware of its illegality in the first place? Very noble indeed.
Perhaps they should set an example that demonstrates that hazing of this
magnitude will not be permitted with punishment equal to a bit more than a
‘time out’








