Don Abbey sueing Beta

[Nitt1300]

It’s clear to me that the real problem here is the fact that we as a society have allowed the concept of individual responsibility to all but disappear. Why is an entire frat, let alone other frats or the university involved to begin with?

A number of individuals acted irresponsibly and they – and they alone-should face the consequences. People who were not there, belong to other frats, live in dorms, and the university itself should not be liable or even part of the discussion.

Now who exactly has created this twisted situation says you? Lawyers, says I.

Old Billy was right.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Take it up with Uncle Lar. You guys are a bit too dim for my level of patience. Wow.

Non responsive reply, counselor.

 

[mn78psu83]

It’s clear to me that the real problem here is the fact that we as a society have allowed the concept of individual responsibility to all but disappear. Why is an entire frat, let alone other frats or the university involved to begin with?

A number of individuals acted irresponsibly and they – and they alone-should face the consequences. People who were not there, belong to other frats, live in dorms, and the university itself should not be liable or even part of the discussion.

Now who exactly has created this twisted situation says you? Lawyers, says I.

Old Billy was right.

Tortfeasors are gonna commit torts - both out of negligence and intent. Lots of money to be moved. An Attorney pursues torts like a:

 

[acg116]

Non responsive reply, counselor.

one thing to remember, demlion is the smartest poster on the board. Just ask him.

 

[lurkerlion]

one thing to remember, demlion is the smartest poster on the board. Just ask him.

In his last post he called us all "dim" so I guess he has decided he won the discussion and has moved on. It always feels good when someone calls you a name during an argument. It means you won and the other guy knows it but is too arrogant to admit it.

Sadly, I was never arguing with Dem. All I did was try to create a conversation which he thought was "bulls$$$". There is a difficult road ahead in deciding what to do with fraternities (ban, divorce, embrace, tightly control) so Dem's refusal to consider the different issues is counterproductive. He wanted to be a trustee?

 

[demlion]

Non responsive reply, counselor.

I'm not your counselor. You could use counseling, but I'm not it.

 

[NittPicker]

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


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.

LOL. I've never proposed eliminating frats or any other types of off campus housing. You're trying to make an argument to which there is no opposing point of view. The problem is the university trying to regulate activities which occur in off campus housing. That sets up the university to be held liable for what occurs there.

Your question about me supporting the elimination of off campus housing is bogus. I've never said that should happen. And regarding your question about the university paying out money due to the actions of a fraternity, I have no idea. To the best of my knowledge PSU is/will be a defendant in the Piazza case. We'll see where that goes. If Barron wants to put frats more under the thumb of the university then he should expect to shoulder the legal responsibility which comes along with it.

Anyway, this is one of the weirdest debates I've ever been a part of. My view is the university shouldn't be in the business of trying to control the actions of adult students who live off campus when said actions occur in their residence. To me it seems fraternity members would be in favor of this as well. Do they really want the university telling them what to do? Or do they agree with current public opinion that they're unable to control themselves?

 

[mn78psu83]

LOL. I've never proposed eliminating frats or any other types of off campus housing. You're trying to make an argument to which there is no opposing point of view. The problem is the university trying to regulate activities which occur in off campus housing. That sets up the university to be held liable for what occurs there.

Your question about me supporting the elimination of off campus housing is bogus. I've never said that should happen. And regarding your question about the university paying out money due to the actions of a fraternity, I have no idea. To the best of my knowledge PSU is/will be a defendant in the Piazza case. We'll see where that goes. If Barron wants to put frats more under the thumb of the university then he should expect to shoulder the legal responsibility which comes along with it.

Anyway, this is one of the weirdest debates I've ever been a part of. My view is the university shouldn't be in the business of trying to control the actions of adult students who live off campus when said actions occur in their residence. To me it seems fraternity members would be in favor of this as well. Do they really want the university telling them what to do? Or do they agree with current public opinion that they're unable to control themselves?

Don't bother. This guy is master of moving the goalposts, false analogy, question begging, rationalization, straw man, non sequitur, etc... He leaves no common logical ground to share for fruitful discussion.

 

[demlion]

LOL. I've never proposed eliminating frats or any other types of off campus housing. You're trying to make an argument to which there is no opposing point of view. The problem is the university trying to regulate activities which occur in off campus housing. That sets up the university to be held liable for what occurs there.

Your question about me supporting the elimination of off campus housing is bogus. I've never said that should happen. And regarding your question about the university paying out money due to the actions of a fraternity, I have no idea. To the best of my knowledge PSU is/will be a defendant in the Piazza case. We'll see where that goes. If Barron wants to put frats more under the thumb of the university then he should expect to shoulder the legal responsibility which comes along with it.

Anyway, this is one of the weirdest debates I've ever been a part of. My view is the university shouldn't be in the business of trying to control the actions of adult students who live off campus when said actions occur in their residence. To me it seems fraternity members would be in favor of this as well. Do they really want the university telling them what to do? Or do they agree with current public opinion that they're unable to control themselves?

It is the last resort of those with nothing to say.

 

[demlion]

In his last post he called us all "dim" so I guess he has decided he won the discussion and has moved on. It always feels good when someone calls you a name during an argument. It means you won and the other guy knows it but is too arrogant to admit it.

Sadly, I was never arguing with Dem. All I did was try to create a conversation which he thought was "bulls$$$". There is a difficult road ahead in deciding what to do with fraternities (ban, divorce, embrace, tightly control) so Dem's refusal to consider the different issues is counterproductive. He wanted to be a trustee?

I think I was talking about LBEAR and Uncle Lar. But by all means, if "dim" fits you, go for it.

I have explained repeatedly why I think PSU is making a terrible mistake here. Also NittPicker has SEPARATELY explained it. Yet you continue to claim that all I have ever said is "bullshit." People who can read know that's not so. I am sure they have seen the answer by now. You like frats, and nothing they do cannot be excused somehow.

 

[MoonOverMyHammy]

It’s clear to me that the real problem here is the fact that we as a society have allowed the concept of individual responsibility to all but disappear.

You are acting like this is an isolated incident. It's not. This frat has a history of "incidents"


Republicans who whine about personal responsibility are usually the first ones to blame gays, Muslims, feminists, etc. for their problems.

 

[lurkerlion]

I think I was talking about LBEAR and Uncle Lar. But by all means, if "dim" fits you, go for it.

I have explained repeatedly why I think PSU is making a terrible mistake here. Also NittPicker has SEPARATELY explained it. Yet you continue to claim that all I have ever said is "bullshit." People who can read know that's not so. I am sure they have seen the answer by now. You like frats, and nothing they do cannot be excused somehow.

You have a compulsion to insult but that is your problem not mine. Your argument is simply that liability must be eliminated. Period. I have pointed out some problems with your position and you either restate your position or say bs. No discussion of related issues.

I don't excuse fraternity mistakes like beta. You would know that if you read my posts. However I try to understand how things happen, not simply indict and hang from a tree. Were they evil frat kids? Entitled rich kids? Dumb kids? Why was there a gauntlet when they knew better?

Frats may end soon, but your explanation and solution are simplistic and show a lack concern for the bigger picture.

 

[Nitt1300]

You are acting like this is an isolated incident. It's not. This frat has a history of "incidents"


Republicans who whine about personal responsibility are usually the first ones to blame gays, Muslims, feminists, etc. for their problems.

OK then.

But I wasn’t whining, I’m not a Republican. and my problems are my own.

 

[demlion]

You have a compulsion to insult but that is your problem not mine. Your argument is simply that liability must be eliminated. Period. I have pointed out some problems with your position and you either restate your position or say bs. No discussion of related issues.

I don't excuse fraternity mistakes like beta. You would know that if you read my posts. However I try to understand how things happen, not simply indict and hang from a tree. Were they evil frat kids? Entitled rich kids? Dumb kids? Why was there a gauntlet when they knew better?

Frats may end soon, but your explanation and solution are simplistic and show a lack concern for the bigger picture.

Never called for them to end. Apartments don't end just because the University does not grant them some special status.

You've taken on insults not directed at you. It's not the University's job to patrol these kids. That is the job of the kids, and their parents. This is not hard.
You want it to be complicated but it's not.

 

[lurkerlion]

Never called for them to end. Apartments don't end just because the University does not grant them some special status.

You've taken on insults not directed at you. It's not the University's job to patrol these kids. That is the job of the kids, and their parents. This is not hard.
You want it to be complicated but it's not.

If I mistakenly took on an insult it's because you throw them so casually.

We already discussed the dormitory corollary which you dismissed because you had no real answer as usual. Obviously the university accepts responsibility for one or two years in the dorms. You can try to distinguish but the liability is there. Just like thon, bowling team, football...

 

[voltz99]

LOL. I've never proposed eliminating frats or any other types of off campus housing. You're trying to make an argument to which there is no opposing point of view. The problem is the university trying to regulate activities which occur in off campus housing. That sets up the university to be held liable for what occurs there.?

Then eliminate recognition of ALL organizations that have off campus housing. YOu have a double standard.

Your question about me supporting the elimination of off campus housing is bogus. I've never said that should happen. And regarding your question about the university paying out money due to the actions of a fraternity, I have no idea. To the best of my knowledge PSU is/will be a defendant in the Piazza case. We'll see where that goes. If Barron wants to put frats more under the thumb of the university then he should expect to shoulder the legal responsibility which comes along with it.?

No. You are just misinterpreting my question. Do you support eliminating campus recognition of ALL campus organizations that have housing off campus? YOU want to eliminate legal responsibility for frats so why not eliminate that risk for all orgs?

Anyway, this is one of the weirdest debates I've ever been a part of. My view is the university shouldn't be in the business of trying to control the actions of adult students who live off campus when said actions occur in their residence. To me it seems fraternity members would be in favor of this as well. Do they really want the university telling them what to do? Or do they agree with current public opinion that they're unable to control themselves?

Yet you want to stay in the business of trying to control the actions of students who are associated with every campus organization except fraternities. The flaw with your plan is obvious.

If you really believe your spin on the issues then why don't you want to make your new policy apply ALL student organizations?

 

[PSU_Nut]

Barron proposing more strict regulation of fraternities is another way of saying the university will become MORE responsible for what goes on there. So you are certainly correct. Barron is setting the university up to be more liable the next time a tragedy happens. "Your honor, the Pennsylvania State University claimed more strict regulation of fraternities would be undertaken. Even with that, my clients' son suffered a tragic death due to the university not fulfilling the obligation it promised to undertake. Please assess punitive damages of $50 million."

At its basic level a fraternity is a bunch of guys living in the same house. Slapping Greek letters on the wall doesn't require the university to treat a fraternity house any differently than typical off campus student housing. For example, did the university ever have the authority or responsibility to police what went on at the Briarwood Bash (if they still have that)? I don't understand why Barron is willing to lay the PSU head across the chopping block the next time a tragedy occurs. Not that he'll be asking but my recommendation to Barron would be to cut the fraternities loose from university oversight.

The fraternities where affiliated with the university long before Barron. Just like the chess club, knitting club or any other student organization. due to that affiliation the university is at risk. He had three choices.

1. Abolish the office of Greek life and tell the fraternities and sororities that they are on their own. This would have absolved the university of all risk. The down side is it would upset many alumni because most fraternities and sororities would cease to exist because their national charter requires them to be a recognized by the university.

2. Do nothing. He could do nothing and wait for the the next tragedy to happen. This would open them up to the most risk. An attorney would state that they knew it was an issue and ignored it.

3. Increase regulation. Just like a pool owner putting a fence around a pool it doesn't make them more liable if someone climbs it and drowns. You try to distance yourself by putting in basic safeguards from preventing it from happening.

 

[demlion]

The fraternities where affiliated with the university long before Barron. Just like the chess club, knitting club or any other student organization. due to that affiliation the university is at risk. He had three choices.

1. Abolish the office of Greek life and tell the fraternities and sororities that they are on their own. This would have absolved the university of all risk. The down side is it would upset many alumni because most fraternities and sororities would cease to exist because their national charter requires them to be a recognized by the university.

2. Do nothing. He could do nothing and wait for the the next tragedy to happen. This would open them up to the most risk. An attorney would state that they knew it was an issue and ignored it.

3. Increase regulation. Just like a pool owner putting a fence around a pool it doesn't make them more liable if someone climbs it and drowns. You try to distance yourself by putting in basic safeguards from preventing it from happening.

Who runs the Office of Chess Club Life? Nobody. There isn't one. Have you got other comparisons to non Greek orgs which command the kind of resources from the University which Greeks command?

 

[PSU_Nut]

Who runs the Office of Chess Club Life? Nobody. There isn't one. Have you got other comparisons to non Greek orgs which command the kind of resources from the University which Greeks command?

The chess clubs and other clubs fall under the office of student activities. The difference is chess club doesn't have as many members. However the university does use and provide resources to many clubs.

 

[interrobang]

The university isn't concerned about risk. They've shown that many times. That's what the rainy day fund is for.

 

[demlion]

The chess clubs and other clubs fall under the office of student activities. The difference is chess club doesn't have as many members. However the university does use and provide resources to many clubs.

There's a HUGE difference between a hobby/game and an entire lifestyle. The comparison is kind of ridiculous.

 

[lurkerlion]

If I mistakenly took on an insult it's because you throw them so casually.

We already discussed the dormitory corollary which you dismissed because you had no real answer as usual. Obviously the university accepts responsibility for one or two years in the dorms. You can try to distinguish but the liability is there. Just like thon, bowling team, football...

There's a HUGE difference between a hobby/game and an entire lifestyle. The comparison is kind of ridiculous.

Keep screaming that there is a huge difference. It is always an effective argumentative technique.

 

[NittPicker]

Then eliminate recognition of ALL organizations that have off campus housing. YOu have a double standard.



No. You are just misinterpreting my question. Do you support eliminating campus recognition of ALL campus organizations that have housing off campus? YOU want to eliminate legal responsibility for frats so why not eliminate that risk for all orgs?





Yet you want to stay in the business of trying to control the actions of students who are associated with every campus organization except fraternities. The flaw with your plan is obvious.

If you really believe your spin on the issues then why don't you want to make your new policy apply ALL student organizations?

I'm not sure if you're genuinely this obtuse of if you're playing some kind of game. Also, with every post you subtly mischaracterize what I wrote and also add claims which I've never made. I should have taken the advice of another poster and not bothered with you. So I'll stop. Claim victory if you like but the sad thing is you don't even know what you're arguing about.

 

[voltz99]

The fraternities where affiliated with the university long before Barron. Just like the chess club, knitting club or any other student organization. due to that affiliation the university is at risk. He had three choices.

1. Abolish the office of Greek life and tell the fraternities and sororities that they are on their own. This would have absolved the university of all risk. The down side is it would upset many alumni because most fraternities and sororities would cease to exist because their national charter requires them to be a recognized by the university.

2. Do nothing. He could do nothing and wait for the the next tragedy to happen. This would open them up to the most risk. An attorney would state that they knew it was an issue and ignored it.

3. Increase regulation. Just like a pool owner putting a fence around a pool it doesn't make them more liable if someone climbs it and drowns. You try to distance yourself by putting in basic safeguards from preventing it from happening.

Has PSU ever paid a claim because of something a fraternity did off campus?

 

[demlion]

Keep screaming that there is a huge difference. It is always an effective argumentative technique.

It is when honest people concede, as they must, if they're honest, that it's true.

It is no argument to say we should treat different thing the same. Not to honest, logical people.

 

[BobPSU92]

Not even close. Bushwood was/is the most prestigious poster this board has known - will ever know.

I still miss him.

 

[lurkerlion]

It is when honest people concede, as they must, if they're honest, that it's true.

It is no argument to say we should treat different thing the same. Not to honest, logical people.

You have never made a concession in this entire discussion about even the smallest thing. So I guess that makes you "not honest"?

 

[BobPSU92]

one thing to remember, demlion is the smartest poster on the board. Just ask him.

But his most valuable asset is his ability to create politically-driven, misguided OUTRAGE. . For that, we should all be grateful.

 

[lurkerlion]

There's a HUGE difference between a hobby/game and an entire lifestyle. The comparison is kind of ridiculous.

I believe the LBGQT community receives many resources from the University. If I remember correctly, GALA threw some great Halloween parties in the HUB. Is that a lifestyle example?

 

[lurkerlion]

The fraternities where affiliated with the university long before Barron. Just like the chess club, knitting club or any other student organization. due to that affiliation the university is at risk. He had three choices.

1. Abolish the office of Greek life and tell the fraternities and sororities that they are on their own. This would have absolved the university of all risk. The down side is it would upset many alumni because most fraternities and sororities would cease to exist because their national charter requires them to be a recognized by the university.

2. Do nothing. He could do nothing and wait for the the next tragedy to happen. This would open them up to the most risk. An attorney would state that they knew it was an issue and ignored it.

3. Increase regulation. Just like a pool owner putting a fence around a pool it doesn't make them more liable if someone climbs it and drowns. You try to distance yourself by putting in basic safeguards from preventing it from happening.

I will state your post in another way and probably quit this thread:

1. If I am the risk management officer, I threaten to quit unless the University divorces from the fraternities. I don't want the blame should anything else happen.
2. If I am the director of student affairs (or whatever title), I beg the University to disband the fraternities because they cause me so many problems and take up a lot of my time. However, I also know underage drinking isn't going anywhere so I have to start planning for the future replacement of fraternities even if it is off campus because I still have to deal with many of those situations.
3. If I am the recruitment officer, I beg the University to keep fraternities because of the importance of legacies. Competition for students is increasing every year and legacies of PSU and fraternities provide me with a lot of easy enrollees. Without them I will lose a few to Pitt, but more important are the loss of out of state students. Their parents will be less likely to pay the out of state premium and keep their kids in Jersey and Maryland.
4. If I am the director of donations getting, I threaten to quit if fraternities are ended. I quote statistics regarding the number of billionaires and millionaires who I currently converse with who I believe may lose interest if their fraternity is disbanded.
5. If I am facilities director--God those are some great pieces of real estate. Let's get 'em.

Maybe this is what Barron has heard, maybe it isn't. Either way he is making a business decision when the dust settles.

 

[roswelllion]

We are insuring them. I want to stop.

Gotcha no problem with that.

 

[UncleLar]

Has PSU ever paid a claim because of something a fraternity did off campus?

If they haven't already, they likely will soon. There are currently two lawsuits, not counting the Piazza's, filed against Penn State in relation to hazing incidents. Recent rulings have gone against PSU and while they haven't gone to trial yet, indications are that PSU will probably soon pay up.

 

[demlion]

I will state your post in another way and probably quit this thread:

1. If I am the risk management officer, I threaten to quit unless the University divorces from the fraternities. I don't want the blame should anything else happen.
2. If I am the director of student affairs (or whatever title), I beg the University to disband the fraternities because they cause me so many problems and take up a lot of my time. However, I also know underage drinking isn't going anywhere so I have to start planning for the future replacement of fraternities even if it is off campus because I still have to deal with many of those situations.
3. If I am the recruitment officer, I beg the University to keep fraternities because of the importance of legacies. Competition for students is increasing every year and legacies of PSU and fraternities provide me with a lot of easy enrollees. Without them I will lose a few to Pitt, but more important are the loss of out of state students. Their parents will be less likely to pay the out of state premium and keep their kids in Jersey and Maryland.
4. If I am the director of donations getting, I threaten to quit if fraternities are ended. I quote statistics regarding the number of billionaires and millionaires who I currently converse with who I believe may lose interest if their fraternity is disbanded.
5. If I am facilities director--God those are some great pieces of real estate. Let's get 'em.

Maybe this is what Barron has heard, maybe it isn't. Either way he is making a business decision when the dust settles.

Let's hug the frats closer because 1. Enrollees (money); and 2. Donations (money).

The tradeoff we make is having people think that if there is money involved for us, we will ignore what is best for people. We will take the risk of accepting a narrative that says we value money over safety.

Certainly makes it easier to see how people concluded we let Jerry have an office on campus. So we have that going for us.

 

[lurkerlion]

Let's hug the frats closer because 1. Enrollees (money); and 2. Donations (money).

The tradeoff we make is having people think that if there is money involved for us, we will ignore what is best for people. We will take the risk of accepting a narrative that says we value money over safety.

Certainly makes it easier to see how people concluded we let Jerry have an office on campus. So we have that going for us.

Yeah. If we don't have enough students or donations, the university has to close its doors or at least downsize to second class status. Reality bites.

We didn't shut down football so people already made their judgments one way or the other.

 

[demlion]

Yeah. If we don't have enough students or donations, the university has to close its doors or at least downsize to second class status. Reality bites.

We didn't shut down football so people already made their judgments one way or the other.

Just so you add the cost of the legal fees and settlements into the subsidy calculation for the Greek orgs.

At this rate we would be almost as far ahead if we agreed to cover the debts of GREECE.

 

[Nitt1300]

this thread passed mere absurdity some time ago

 

[BBrown]

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.

Do they still require Freshman live on campus? I know they did when I was there 81-85 but I thought that had changed?
Just curious. I guess I could google. LOL.

 

[lurkerlion]

Just so you add the cost of the legal fees and settlements into the subsidy calculation for the Greek orgs.

At this rate we would be almost as far ahead if we agreed to cover the debts of GREECE.

OK. I am sure Barron will calculate those possible present and future costs. He also apparently made a decision to take action to attempt to reduce the future costs by assuming more control. Your argument is that future costs should be reduced to zero by divorcing.

Have you done any calculations or speculated as to how much net income will be lost by divorce? Obviously you don't have any such data nor do I.

I have said before that I don't know if fraternities can survive the present environment either through university action or lack of insurance availability. Perhaps Barron is just putting on a show until the insurance carriers unload all fraternities. That way he is not the bad guy. I don't know.

 

[voltz99]

If they haven't already, they likely will soon. There are currently two lawsuits, not counting the Piazza's, filed against Penn State in relation to hazing incidents. Recent rulings have gone against PSU and while they haven't gone to trial yet, indications are that PSU will probably soon pay up.

Do you want to eliminate the activities that actually resulted in the recent rulings? Was Sandusky in a fraternity?

 

[demlion]

OK. I am sure Barron will calculate those possible present and future costs. He also apparently made a decision to take action to attempt to reduce the future costs by assuming more control. Your argument is that future costs should be reduced to zero by divorcing.

Have you done any calculations or speculated as to how much net income will be lost by divorce? Obviously you don't have any such data nor do I.

I have said before that I don't know if fraternities can survive the present environment either through university action or lack of insurance availability. Perhaps Barron is just putting on a show until the insurance carriers unload all fraternities. That way he is not the bad guy. I don't know.

Barron does not have the data, either, and PSU proved beginning in 2011 that such reasonable calculations are not any part of its operations.

Remember, Barron is the guy who set up the TASK
FARCE that made no recommendations and disbanded a while back. It was supposed to address these very issues. It is like letting a 13 yo old drive a car. You can buy insurance, but it is better for the kid and the car not to do so.