From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: soc.college,talk.rape,soc.women
Subject: Re: fraternities
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:29:31 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Apr13.185451.3008@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> sag0798@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Sassan Attari ) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>I'm not so sure it's dishonest to say "fraternities."  Do fraternity
>>members haze, or do fraternities? 
>
>It may not be dishonest saying you believe that fraternities have a policies
>encouraging hazing, but it would be untrue for National fraternities.

I don't believe that one bit.  Nationals were well aware of the hazing
going on at Brandeis, and the heaviest action ever taken was suspending
ZBT for one month.

>>				    One could say it's the member, but
>>having the institution there certainly makes a difference. 
>
>How does being in an organization make a difference?  Going on your thinking,
>if one of these rapists was also a member of Students for Environmental 
>Concerns, you would say that this organization rapes.

Pay attention to the arguments, because it's been well-documented and
argued why the nature of the fraternity leads to rape.  If you'd like to
demonstrate the same propensities for the Students for Environmental
Concerns, you're welcome to try.

>>But they're speculations on the conservative side.  The problem is
>>almost certainly much worse than either of us realize.  There are several
>>reasons why fraternity members are less likely to be convicted of rape:
>>(2) The rapist is going to have high credibility: the "white college
>>    boy" factor.
>
>This is pretty discriminatory.  You also are assuming that all fraternities 
>only allow "white" college men to join and/or only "white" fraternity members
>are accused of rape.

My apologies for not being completely precise and using the words "the vast
majority of the time."  I don't think you can dispute that
there is a huge socioeconomic and racial difference between the makeup of
the set of fraternity rapists and the set of convicted rapists.

>>    if the case comes to court, and D.A's....
>>    above and below, are just not going to risk their success rate
>>    in criminal trials to bring up an unpopular case that's almost a
>>    sure loser
>
>If this is true, the D.A. should not be in office.  If there is a possibility
>that there was a violation of a law, they should prosecute to determine if a 
>law was broken.

Ah, idealism.  The D.A. (1) cares about being re-elected, and (2) has a
limited set of resources.  Unless they have a strong ideological bent, or
unless there's public pressure, they're not going to devote resources to a
case that they have a slim chance of winning when they can devote those 
same resources to a perfectly good open-and-shut case against a poor 
person whose only legal assistance is a public service attorney with 
fifty other cases to handle.  

>>(3) The rape victim is likely to have low credibility:
>>	(b) She'll have arrived unescorted to a late-night party.
>
>What does this have to do with the credibility of the victim?

In a perfect world?  Nothing.  In the United States of America, with
real live flesh-and-blood juries, it means a lot.

>>(4) The rapist(s) have the backing of an institution that encourages
>>    its members to stick up for one another -- it'll be the word of
>>    the victim against that of the entire fraternity.
>
>This is not entirely true when it comes to events infringing on any local, 
>state, or federal laws and anything that goes against religious and personal
>beliefs.  At least in my fraternity, when something like a rape (and it hasn't
>to my knowledge) occurs, we, as members of the fraternity, are encouraged to
>CORRECT the wrong that has been done, not HIDE it.  If it means reporting an 
>infraction of applicable laws and beliefs, then so beit.

I'm so glad that you belong to a perfect fraternity.  (In fact, I have yet
to meet anyone who isn't in a perfect fraternity.  Maybe all these fraternity
hazing deaths and rapes come from fraternities that disappear in UFO
abductions.)  The problem I describe is well-documented.

>>Add the general insensitivity of college administrators, police, and
>>district attorneys to rape, a victim that is likely to blame herself
>>because of factors in reason (3), and the general result is that being
>>in a fraternity is virtually a license to rape. 
>
>Oh please...I don't think even you believe this last statement.

It's only a slight exaggeration.  Even the most egregious cases
(such as the St. John's incident, which was highly publicized and had
racial overtones) rarely come to trial, and then, more often than not,
result in acquittals by jurors not wanting to ruin the lives of college
boys with a future.

>With all due respect to the seriousness concerning rape and sexual assult, and
>after reading what TED has to say, I conclude that Ted has the knowledge to 
>do little else than tell stories and dream up rape scenerios in his head.

Why do you conclude this?  Because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived
notions that fraternities can do no wrong?  You certainly haven't provided
any counter-evidence other than self-serving statements like "my fraternity 
doesn't do this."
-- 
Ted Frank          + "He wanted to be the car rather than the thimble or the
1307 E 60 St, #109 +  hat."  -- District attorney explaining Marc Cienkowski's
U o' C Law Skool   +  murder with bow and arrow of Michael Klucznik in
Chi, IL 60637      +  Doylestown Borough, PA over a game of Monopoly.