ADVERTISEMENT

Don Abbey sueing Beta

Actually, everyone who criticized Bata faced some of that, except Abbey. Now that the University has doubled down on the fake control, we'll ride the merry go round again until the next kid dies or gets raped or hurt or hazed to death, then repeat. With luck well get whacked for another $few million for the privilege of failing to control the uncontrollable.

It is not bias to recognize an unpalatable risk. And these folks have a lot more notice than Joe had.

So dem,
I suppose the next time someone gets drunk and gets killed at an appartment you'll be for closing appts and making all the kids live in dorms?
I don't know the stats and that could change my mind but do the number of fatalities on college campuses increase dramatically if associated with fraternities/
I have said this before i was in a fraternity 45 years ago and but for the grace of god go I. I too often drank way too much, but never was I forced to drink during pledging or any other time. In fact my days as a pledge were spent serving the brothers and cleaning the house the next day so my drinking was probably less than later on.Unfortunately when you put 40,000 kids between age 17-22 and independent from home for the 1st time bad things are occasionally going to happen. We can only pray they stay safe. Not sure we can insure their safety.
 
Repeating myself but should the dorms be shut down also? Personally I saw much worse in the dorms where there was no incentive to behave as opposed to a common purpose in the house.
People with bad judgement live everywhere but there's a big difference between the frats and dorms. The frats are privately owned homes and it's nearly impossible for the university to monitor who lives there unless Barron wants to pay a university employee to stand guard at the door. As for the dorms, the university can easily boot someone out if they violate the conditions of residency, if they are aware of it of course. Maybe Barron's next step will be to crack down on dorm life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: demlion
People with bad judgement live everywhere but there's a big difference between the frats and dorms. The frats are privately owned homes and it's nearly impossible for the university to monitor who lives there unless Barron wants to pay a university employee to stand guard at the door. As for the dorms, the university can easily boot someone out if they violate the conditions of residency, if they are aware of it of course. Maybe Barron's next step will be to crack down on dorm life.
The University undertakes to control the behavior of frat boys. They. Always. Fail. 40 years ago they made a movie called Animal House, about this very thing.

Now, things have changed, @rosewelllion. When the U takes on thst responsibility, they take on liability too.

Cut these MFers LOOSE. They can still have a frat, it just won't be sanctioned and governed by the University. End of liability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lyons212
So dem,
I suppose the next time someone gets drunk and gets killed at an appartment you'll be for closing appts and making all the kids live in dorms?
I don't know the stats and that could change my mind but do the number of fatalities on college campuses increase dramatically if associated with fraternities/
I have said this before i was in a fraternity 45 years ago and but for the grace of god go I. I too often drank way too much, but never was I forced to drink during pledging or any other time. In fact my days as a pledge were spent serving the brothers and cleaning the house the next day so my drinking was probably less than later on.Unfortunately when you put 40,000 kids between age 17-22 and independent from home for the 1st time bad things are occasionally going to happen. We can only pray they stay safe. Not sure we can insure their safety.
We are insuring them. I want to stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tony '83
People are kidding themselves if they think doing away with fraternities solves all the problems. Closing things down drives everything underground. Just look at some of the schools that have repressed fraternities. It's fools gold and not a great solution to drinking and the craziness that can come with it.
 
??

Whatever made you conclude that? Abbey was a Beta. He loaned and/or gave $10M to the his fraternity on several different occasions over the years. But the fraternity that he belonged to no longer exists. The only thing he is trying to do now that the fraternity had been dissolved is to get some of his $10M back. That seems like the logical thing that anyone would do under the circumstances. .
People are kidding themselves if they think doing away with fraternities solves all the problems. Closing things down drives everything underground. Just look at some of the schools that have repressed fraternities. It's fools gold and not a great solution to drinking and the craziness that can come with it.
Nobody is saying it will resolve underage drinking or the associated harms. But people are dying, and the university's involvement just makes the University liable without fixing the problem. What part of taking the liability without fixing the problem do you think is such a great idea?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lyons212
??

Whatever made you conclude that? Abbey was a Beta. He loaned and/or gave $10M to the his fraternity on several different occasions over the years. But the fraternity that he belonged to no longer exists. The only thing he is trying to do now that the fraternity had been dissolved is to get some of his $10M back. That seems like the logical thing that anyone would do under the circumstances. .
Conclude what? It is clear you don't understand. Abbey loves frats. Nobody will say he doesn't. He bet his money and faces losing it. The University just doubled down on the same kind of dumbass bet.

Abbey can do what he wants. But this kind of waste is why PSUs tuition has gone up 535% in the last 30 years.
 
And you seem a little bit too married to the Greek system. I feel as your as biased for it as demlion is against it.
Unlike Dem, I freely admit my fraternity affiliation and fond memories from it. My problem with Dem has been his inability to admit where he starts his analysis.

With that said, I really struggle finding a real world solution of giving kids a good college environment versus a liability free University. Kids screw it up because they are kids. University administrators will screw it up because they are administrators.

Am I married to the Greek system? No. Just biased.
 
Unlike Dem, I freely admit my fraternity affiliation and fond memories from it. My problem with Dem has been his inability to admit where he starts his analysis.

With that said, I really struggle finding a real world solution of giving kids a good college environment versus a liability free University. Kids screw it up because they are kids. University administrators will screw it up because they are administrators.

Am I married to the Greek system? No. Just biased.
Admitting a bias you so obviously have still leaves you blind to the solutions. I guess you are okay with the U taking even more responsibility for the frats.

As for dorms, when is the last time you talked to an RA? My daughter was one. The restrictions on such 70s era free for all as keg parties in the dorms, and daily pot smoking in every other room, are over. Over.

My daughter was told her boss would be dropping in on her floor and sniffing the hallways. If they smelled pot, her job was on the line. If it turned out that she had any suspicion she had not reported, she was gone.

It ain't like it used to be. That's because the University is liable. But the frats are not university property, and they don't have an RA there and they never will. Everything else they do is doomed to fail.

The frats need to grow up, but they won't. They need to be cut loose.
 
So does Don Abbey hate frats? Is his conclusion, and the lawsuit he filed to back it up, the final proof that he is "jealous" 30-40 years later that nobody ever offered him a place in the frats?

Conclude what? It is clear you don't understand. Abbey loves frats. Nobody will say he doesn't. He bet his money and faces losing it. The University just doubled down on the same kind of dumbass bet.

Abbey can do what he wants. But this kind of waste is why PSUs tuition has gone up 535% in the last 30 years.

Are you totally confused or what?

One moment you are asking if Abbey hates frats and suggesting that he never was a member of one, then shortly later you are saying that Abbey love frats" and "nobody will say that he doesn't".

Make up your mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerseylion109
Are you totally confused or what?

One moment you are asking if Abbey hates frats and suggesting that he never was a member of one, then shortly later you are saying that Abbey love frats" and "nobody will say that he doesn't".

Make up your mind.
HAA! I guess there is no room for irony or satire or sarcasm on the radio. Well, this ain't the radio, Lar. I guess you will have to sort it out for yourself. Maybe lionlurker can help you with the intricate shades of meaning in my post
 
Nobody is saying it will resolve underage drinking or the associated harms. But people are dying, and the university's involvement just makes the University liable without fixing the problem. What part of taking the liability without fixing the problem do you think is such a great idea?
Tim Piazza dying is a tragedy. No one disputes that.

He died during an illegal hazing event. That is undisputed. Hazing events are the events most likely to cause a tragedy if I understand the claims of administrators correctly. I don't know why the Betas did what they did when they are told there is an absolute ban on alcohol at brotherhood initiations.

However, you go engage in a little hyperbole with
Admitting a bias you so obviously have still leaves you blind to the solutions. I guess you are okay with the U taking even more responsibility for the frats.

As for dorms, when is the last time you talked to an RA? My daughter was one. The restrictions on such 70s era free for all as keg parties in the dorms, and daily pot smoking in every other room, are over. Over.

My daughter was told her boss would be dropping in on her floor and sniffing the hallways. If they smelled pot, her job was on the line. If it turned out that she had any suspicion she had not reported, she was gone.

It ain't like it used to be. That's because the University is liable. But the frats are not university property, and they don't have an RA there and they never will. Everything else they do is doomed to fail.

The frats need to grow up, but they won't. They need to be cut loose.

HAA! I guess there is no room for irony or satire or sarcasm on the radio. Well, this ain't the radio, Lar. I guess you will have to sort it out for yourself. Maybe lionlurker can help you with the intricate shades of meaning in my post
Your last couple posts may be the most ironic I have seen on this board. You refer to a free for all 1970s as far as alcohol. Your graduation date indicates that you were probably a freshman and in the dorms in 1976.

1976 was a watershed moment in PSU dorm life. In the spring or summer of 1976 a kid chugged a fifth of Jack Daniels and was sent home to his parents in a coma. I may be wrong with the details, the gist is all that matters. The free for all drinking was gone.

PSU immediately initiated a strict no alcohol policy in the dorms. Did that stop underage drinking in the dorms? No, it just changed. For some, it meant that you had to know your RA's schedule. For others, RA's played stupid. For others fraternities became an attractive option and fraternities actually prospered from the policy change.

So, if you were in the dorms then, did you follow the policy, or did you circumvent it? Regardless, dorm life changed while you were there and you apparently didn't even notice.
 
So does Don Abbey hate frats? Is his conclusion, and the lawsuit he filed to back it up, the final proof that he is "jealous" 30-40 years later that nobody ever offered him a place in the frats?

Because that sure seems to be the conclusion many folks here reached when the rest of us criticized Beta over the last month or two--that we were biased and jealous that we were never frat boys.


He is suing one. YOU want to get rid of them all.

Since you are so concerned with liability and the cost to the university, should PSU get rid of sports? #Sandusky $250 million.
 
Tim Piazza dying is a tragedy. No one disputes that.

He died during an illegal hazing event. That is undisputed. Hazing events are the events most likely to cause a tragedy if I understand the claims of administrators correctly. I don't know why the Betas did what they did when they are told there is an absolute ban on alcohol at brotherhood initiations.

However, you go engage in a little hyperbole with



Your last couple posts may be the most ironic I have seen on this board. You refer to a free for all 1970s as far as alcohol. Your graduation date indicates that you were probably a freshman and in the dorms in 1976.

1976 was a watershed moment in PSU dorm life. In the spring or summer of 1976 a kid chugged a fifth of Jack Daniels and was sent home to his parents in a coma. I may be wrong with the details, the gist is all that matters. The free for all drinking was gone.

PSU immediately initiated a strict no alcohol policy in the dorms. Did that stop underage drinking in the dorms? No, it just changed. For some, it meant that you had to know your RA's schedule. For others, RA's played stupid. For others fraternities became an attractive option and fraternities actually prospered from the policy change.

So, if you were in the dorms then, did you follow the policy, or did you circumvent it? Regardless, dorm life changed while you were there and you apparently didn't even notice.
My daughter was an RA in Atherton (the honors dorm) for two years less than ten years ago. The number of drinking incidents she had to deal with certainly surprised me, and I lived in a frat house in the 70s. These kids were drinking hard liquor, and lots of it-we drank beer had a good time.
 
Nobody is saying it will resolve underage drinking or the associated harms. But people are dying, and the university's involvement just makes the University liable without fixing the problem. What part of taking the liability without fixing the problem do you think is such a great idea?

Should the university cut ties to all students that drink? "But people are dying, and the university's involvement just makes the University liable without fixing the problem." Is there any liability with students drinking in the dorms or at the football game?
 
Admitting a bias you so obviously have still leaves you blind to the solutions. I guess you are okay with the U taking even more responsibility for the frats.

As for dorms, when is the last time you talked to an RA? My daughter was one. The restrictions on such 70s era free for all as keg parties in the dorms, and daily pot smoking in every other room, are over. Over.

My daughter was told her boss would be dropping in on her floor and sniffing the hallways. If they smelled pot, her job was on the line. If it turned out that she had any suspicion she had not reported, she was gone.

It ain't like it used to be. That's because the University is liable. But the frats are not university property, and they don't have an RA there and they never will. Everything else they do is doomed to fail.

The frats need to grow up, but they won't. They need to be cut loose.


You are really out of touch if you think students don't smoke pot and drink in the dorms. Should PSU close them to eliminate the liability? #CamCarter

Didn't a girl fall out of a dorm room a few years ago?
 
Last edited:
You are really out of touch if you think students don't smoke pot and drink in the dorms? Should PSU close them to eliminate the liability? #CamCarter

Didn't a girl fall out of a dorm room a few years ago?
The repeated mention of dorms as a valid comparison is ludicrous. Sure the university could reduce liability by closing dorms. They could also close classrooms. Hell, close the entire university. That'll reduce liability by 100%.

Few people are saying the frats should be eliminated. The problem is Barron's willingness to make the university more liable for what may happen off campus. Part of his job is to work in the best interests of the university. It's not to set up the university to cover the costs of an off campus screw up.
 
My daughter was an RA in Atherton (the honors dorm) for two years less than ten years ago. The number of drinking incidents she had to deal with certainly surprised me, and I lived in a frat house in the 70s. These kids were drinking hard liquor, and lots of it-we drank beer had a good time.

The repeated mention of dorms as a valid comparison is ludicrous. Sure the university could reduce liability by closing dorms. They could also close classrooms. Hell, close the entire university. That'll reduce liability by 100%.

Few people are saying the frats should be eliminated. The problem is Barron's willingness to make the university more liable for what may happen off campus. Part of his job is to work in the best interests of the university. It's not to set up the university to cover the costs of an off campus screw up.[/QUOTE
Dem is arguing to eliminate fraternities. I am responding to him.
 
The repeated mention of dorms as a valid comparison is ludicrous. Sure the university could reduce liability by closing dorms. They could also close classrooms. Hell, close the entire university. That'll reduce liability by 100%.

Few people are saying the frats should be eliminated. The problem is Barron's willingness to make the university more liable for what may happen off campus. Part of his job is to work in the best interests of the university. It's not to set up the university to cover the costs of an off campus screw up.
Even I am not saying shut them down. I am only saying, bow to the inevitable, and stop pretending you can control something you cannot control.

But it serves the needs of former frat members to pretend that they are victims here--thus the cheap talk of "bias" and "hate."
 
The repeated mention of dorms as a valid comparison is ludicrous. Sure the university could reduce liability by closing dorms. They could also close classrooms. Hell, close the entire university. That'll reduce liability by 100%.

Few people are saying the frats should be eliminated. The problem is Barron's willingness to make the university more liable for what may happen off campus. Part of his job is to work in the best interests of the university. It's not to set up the university to cover the costs of an off campus screw up.


It is not ludicrous and it is valid. YOu and Demlion want to reduce liability. THE point that goes right over your head is there is plenty of on campus liability and maybe more. Was Sandusky in a fraternity?

Can you explain why the dorm liability is acceptable? When has PSU ever covered the costs of off campus fraternity screw ups? The $250 million was not fraternity screw ups.
 
Even I am not saying shut them down. I am only saying, bow to the inevitable, and stop pretending you can control something you cannot control.

But it serves the needs of former frat members to pretend that they are victims here--thus the cheap talk of "bias" and "hate."


Why do you pretend you can control any student's behavior? Why don't you bow to the inevitable when it comes to students in dorms, athletes, and so on? It probably serves your needs to keep certain organizations(that cost PSU $250 million).
 
Last edited:
Even I am not saying shut them down. I am only saying, bow to the inevitable, and stop pretending you can control something you cannot control.

But it serves the needs of former frat members to pretend that they are victims here--thus the cheap talk of "bias" and "hate."
I never claimed victim status. All I ever asked was for you to admit bias and open your mind. I guess that you are back to just responding "bulls$$$". The situation is complicated and you show no inclination to honestly discuss it.
 
It is not ludicrous and it is valid. YOu and Demlion want to reduce liability. THE point that goes right over your head is there is plenty of on campus liability and maybe more. Was Sandusky in a fraternity?

Can you explain why the dorm liability is acceptable? When has PSU ever covered the costs of off campus fraternity screw ups? The $250 million was not fraternity screw ups.

Students are REQUIRED to live on campus as freshmen. That is a decision the University made a long time ago. So long as it is their policy, thy are going to be providing some supervision.

No, Sandusky was for a long time an employee of the University, and unscrupulous people made a claim that his later actions bound the University. Why, you ask? Because the University gave him access to campus, an office, the right to bring kids into Lasch, etc.

We wont be doing that anymore. Sheesh.
 
I never claimed victim status. All I ever asked was for you to admit bias and open your mind. I guess that you are back to just responding "bulls$$$". The situation is complicated and you show no inclination to honestly discuss it.
Not complicated. Easy. Cut ties, end of potential liability.
 
Students are REQUIRED to live on campus as freshmen. That is a decision the University made a long time ago. So long as it is their policy, thy are going to be providing some supervision.

No, Sandusky was for a long time an employee of the University, and unscrupulous people made a claim that his later actions bound the University. Why, you ask? Because the University gave him access to campus, an office, the right to bring kids into Lasch, etc.

We wont be doing that anymore. Sheesh.


PSU can change the requirement to live on campus. You want to cut liability.

Didn't you say PSU should stop pretending they can control something they can't control? Do you think you can control the actions of freshman or any student?
 
Not complicated. Easy. Cut ties, end of potential liability.



The repeated mention of dorms as a valid comparison is ludicrous. Sure the university could reduce liability by closing dorms. They could also close classrooms. Hell, close the entire university. That'll reduce liability by 100%.

Few people are saying the frats should be eliminated. The problem is Barron's willingness to make the university more liable for what may happen off campus. Part of his job is to work in the best interests of the university. It's not to set up the university to cover the costs of an off campus screw up.

Has PSU ever covered the costs of a fraternity screw up?
 
It is not ludicrous and it is valid. YOu and Demlion want to reduce liability. THE point that goes right over your head is there is plenty of on campus liability and maybe more. Was Sandusky in a fraternity?

Can you explain why the dorm liability is acceptable? When has PSU ever covered the costs of off campus fraternity screw ups? The $250 million was not fraternity screw ups.
Nothing is going over my head. There is liability everywhere. Every university needs to decide what liability is reasonable given their mission. Providing housing for students is reasonable therefore the university does so even given the liability which may be involved. A measure of control can be exerted over the dorms since they are university property. If a student violates the rules they can be kicked out.

What is going over your head is the fact the university is unable to exert any type of real control over fraternities or other types of off campus housing. There is no way they can tell a given fraternity, "Hey, that kid is causing trouble. Kick him out." Regardless, Barron is caving to public pressure and wants the university to exercise more oversight over the frats even though there's no realistic way it can be done. That's a recipe for financial disaster.

I have no problem with fraternities. If the brothers get fulfillment out of being a chapter member I say more power to them. But I need someone to tell me why the university should put on the hook for millions of dollars because of something which happens at a private off-campus residence.
 
Last edited:
Not complicated. No longer require freshmen to live on campus. End of liability.

You are too predictable.
That is a choice the University makes about 18 year olds. I think you would find a lot of parents that agree with that choice. That is a rule regarding ALL students, not just the 8 or 10% who join frats.
 
That is a choice the University makes about 18 year olds. I think you would find a lot of parents that agree with that choice. That is a rule regarding ALL students, not just the 8 or 10% who join frats.
Again a nonsensical answer. Either you choose to reduce exposure or not. Let private companies open dorms and manage liability.
 
Even I am not saying shut them down. I am only saying, bow to the inevitable, and stop pretending you can control something you cannot control.
."


That is a choice the University makes about 18 year olds. I think you would find a lot of parents that agree with that choice. That is a rule regarding ALL students, not just the 8 or 10% who join frats.


Pretending to control something you can't control??? Do you think you can control 18 year olds?
 
Nothing is going over my head. There is liability everywhere. Every university needs to decide what liability is reasonable given their mission. Providing housing for students is reasonable therefore the university does so even given the liability which may be involved. A measure of control can be exerted over the dorms since they are university property. If a student violates the rules they can be kicked out.

What is going over your head is the fact the university is unable to exert any type of real control over fraternities or other types of off campus housing. There is no way they can tell a given fraternity, "Hey, that kid is causing trouble. Kick him out." Regardless, Barron is caving to public pressure and wants the university to exercise more oversight over the frats even though there's no realistic way it can be done. That's a recipe for financial disaster.

I have no problem with fraternities. If the brothers get fulfillment out of being a chapter member I say more power to them. But I need someone to tell me why the university should put on the hook for millions of dollars because of something which happens at a private off-campus residence.[/QUOT
 
So does Don Abbey hate frats? Is his conclusion, and the lawsuit he filed to back it up, the final proof that he is "jealous" 30-40 years later that nobody ever offered him a place in the frats?

Because that sure seems to be the conclusion many folks here reached when the rest of us criticized Beta over the last month or two--that we were biased and jealous that we were never frat boys.
What a stupid post, Demlion. Don Abbey IS a Beta. How could he possibly be "jealous that he was never offered a place in the frats?"

Your obsession with fraternities is simultaneously puzzling and entertaining.
 
What a stupid post, Demlion. Don Abbey IS a Beta. How could he possibly be "jealous that he was never offered a place in the frats?"

Your obsession with fraternities is simultaneously puzzling and entertaining.
Take it up with Uncle Lar. You guys are a bit too dim for my level of patience. Wow.
 
Nothing is going over my head. There is liability everywhere. Every university needs to decide what liability is reasonable given their mission. Providing housing for students is reasonable therefore the university does so even given the liability which may be involved. A measure of control can be exerted over the dorms since they are university property. If a student violates the rules they can be kicked out.

What is going over your head is the fact the university is unable to exert any type of real control over fraternities or other types of off campus housing. There is no way they can tell a given fraternity, "Hey, that kid is causing trouble. Kick him out." Regardless, Barron is caving to public pressure and wants the university to exercise more oversight over the frats even though there's no realistic way it can be done. That's a recipe for financial disaster.

I have no problem with fraternities. If the brothers get fulfillment out of being a chapter member I say more power to them. But I need someone to tell me why the university should put on the hook for millions of dollars because of something which happens at a private off-campus residence.

According to you there is no way a school can exert control over fraternities or OTHER types of off campus housing? DOEs that mean you are in support of eliminating ALL off campus housing?

You still have not answered the prviouse qustion
Nothing is going over my head. There is liability everywhere. Every university needs to decide what liability is reasonable given their mission. Providing housing for students is reasonable therefore the university does so even given the liability which may be involved. A measure of control can be exerted over the dorms since they are university property. If a student violates the rules they can be kicked out.

What is going over your head is the fact the university is unable to exert any type of real control over fraternities or other types of off campus housing. There is no way they can tell a given fraternity, "Hey, that kid is causing trouble. Kick him out." Regardless, Barron is caving to public pressure and wants the university to exercise more oversight over the frats even though there's no realistic way it can be done. That's a recipe for financial disaster.

I have no problem with fraternities. If the brothers get fulfillment out of being a chapter member I say more power to them. But I need someone to tell me why the university should put on the hook for millions of dollars because of something which happens at a private off-campus residence.

According to you, "the university is unable to exert any type of real control over fraternities or OTHER types of off campus housing." Will you support eliminating recognition for campus orgs that live in other types of off campus housing? This is where you flip on the issue.

When has PSU ever paid multi million dollar claim because of a fraternity? If we are going to cut costs and liability let's start with the $250 million claims.
 
ADVERTISEMENT