Greek students are targeted based on rumors. College protesters who break laws get off scot-free. Francesca Block reports on the double standard on the American campus.
Maryland has been like this for a long time. Very one sided. I worked with students there as a pastor from 2000 to 2006. We tried to establish a chaplaincy for our denomination and were given no help, very vague answers to the questions we asked, and were ultimately kept from having a spot on campus. They fast tracked an Islamic chaplaincy that same year—not only securing a chaplaincy spot, but offering the man a salary. We weren’t asking for any funding whatsoever. Our student group was relegated to the worst meeting area on campus. Nothing about this surprises me.
Until school administrators and higher up get held personally accountable (loss of job, personal lawsuits) for their draconian actions they will always continue to deny due process and treat fairly and objectively those groups that are not in favor (Frats) versus protestors of favored groups.
If you are a school administrator and you attack and strong arm a disfavored group (ie. a frat) you are celebrated by the woke politicos, faculty and press. If you eventually get called out for your bad actions in a lawsuit you personally suffer nothing. The school and its insurance companies pay all the costs. (Oberlin)
If you go after a favored group such as BLM and antifa for actual destructive acts such as vandalism and physical assaults you will face sit ins by the woke students, faculty revolt, attacks in the press.
90% of higher education administrators are not there because they are the best for the job. They are there because they successfully navigated the political games of the university which in almost all cases is to be a woke, DEI, supporter of left wing social, political and economic positions.
Unfortunately the occurence of double standards has multiplied, even in Europe. I came up with the following explanation straight from the Woke ideology. Since 1964, the birth of the PLO, the muslim narrative has successfully presented the « Palestinians » as the victims of the colonizing by the West. And victims are necessary good people that deserve your sympathy and your help. It is a good cause to fight for. According to this narrative, Hamas fight is a fight for national liberation. and those who take their defence in the West are necessarily « good people » on the right side of history. So even if they transgress the laws, it is for a good cause and they should be forgiven . I believe this is why there is a double standard . It is the eternal epitomizing of the opposition between the laws and the ethics.
The PLO in 1964 already called for the « liberation of Palestine ». But what did they mean? At the time, there were no « territories occupied by Israel ». There was just tiny Israel. Cisjordania had been swalled in 1948 by Jordania and Gaza by Egypt. Clearly then , the only « liberation » they possibly could have in mind was the liberation from the presence of the minuscule Israel that had been granted 22000 km2 from its historical homeland by the international community.
This massive misunderstanding of the nature of the war waged by Hamas against Israel is one of the reasons why Hamas has attracted sympathy around the world expressed by tsunamis of hatred against the jews, epitomizing as usual the evil in the world , and in this case the colonizing evil. But this war is fundamentally the war of Iran on the West and the war in Gaza is just the top of this hidden iceberg, which aims at islamisation of our democracies by force. Hamas leaders clearly say so. They clearly say they are not interested in a two states solution. They want to eradicate Israel from the map and all Iran’s leaders have clearly said so, before turning against the democratic societies. The real question is why nobody listen to what they say ?
Do they not have the same rights as other students? Or do they automatically deserve to be treated differently or poorly because they are in a Fraternity?
Until Proven Innocent, the book that chronicles the Duke University Lacrosse Team and the false charges they faced, goes a long way towards explaining how this happens.
I disagree with the ATO chapter president in suggesting that the college has a duty to protect students in these cases. This is the job of local law enforcement. Otherwise all the hallmarks of justice are tossed aside. The rights we all associate with getting at objective truth - the right to counsel, to call witnesses and compel testimony, to cross examine - these are barred because the result might be "further trauma" to the accuser(s). An open and above board process would have also put accusers (and their list of hazing tortures) under oath. False testimony should come with consequences, if only to deter others from making similar false charges. Finally, letting these things play out in court offers immunity. Duke ate an undisclosed money judgement in their loss to the wrongfully accused lacrosse players.
I know I’m a little late to the game for commenting. It, however, seems to me that there exists a massive blurring of the line between politically protected speech (that may involve a certain degree of civil disobedience) and outright disregard of the law. My perception is that those in authority are so afraid of standing up for the rule of law that any action that *may* qualify as political speech gets a pass. These leads us all down a degraded social order. Theoretical republics place the greatest amounts of liberty in the hands of the individual. Our collective lack of education and hyper-focus on democracy leads us to blindness to its shortfalls that include group think, mob justice, and extreme intolerance.
The medium changes but the consistency of the unjustified outcomes stem from legal policy that was introduced in Jim Crow, then bizarrely adopted to the women's rights movements in the 1990's. i.e. 'mandated reporting'. These are laws that on their face are awesome. You have to report abuse. However, there is not a legitimate legal construct for false claims in these laws. If there is such a construct it is not funded and thus there is due process. There is plenty of righteous justification for unjust action and prejudice, but there is no room for fairness.
The extension of this legal construct has now gone from not supporting those falsely accused in domestic violence, to Jews, the Collegiate Greek system.... basically anyone you chose to go after. That is, go after if you have power #1, and are zealous enough to abuse it.
The fact, and make no mistake it is fact, is that the self righteousness of these types of legal abortions all ended up in a contorted, twisted and disgusting result. University of Maryland should be sued. They should be sued to the point that those in authority are removed, those who espouse this crap are removed, and the tenants of justice, fairness and human rights are restored to those who have been infringed upon.
It is an intention that was paved with good intention. It has led to the path of hell for civ/human rights. FYI these laws- mandated reporting- are constructed in the identical fashion to voter suppression laws that we know as 'Jim Crow'. As a reminder from the old axion... What is the road to hell paved with? Good intentions.
Seems analogous to what is happening in the UK at the moment with what appears to be "two-tier policing" of speech, riots...
I don't condone violence in any of its forms, but it seems that the Nationalists / Right are heading straight to jail without passing "Go" and collecting their $200. Meanwhile the pro-Hamas activists get away with extremely toxic speech and behaviour.
I imagine there was a double standard “nation-wide” in how universities treated the pro-palestine F-wits vs probably how they handled just about any other issue that would have warranted investigation/discipline. This is not hard to believe.
But I was waiting on examples of egregious UMaryland examples of pro-Palestine idiocy that they let slide, yet none was forthcoming.
You need a UMaryland counter-example to make a point. Citing the moronic administrators of Columbia does not establish your argument.
Well said. It's like taking any criminal in Los Angeles who got convicted and punished and saying it's not fair because OJ killed TWO people and was let off scot-free.
This is kind of a stretched comparison, for one, you don't have an apples to apples comparison of how, say any lawbreaking/campus rule breaking Maryland U pro-Palestinian protestors (admitting that they weren't any of those) were handled vs the Greek organizations in question. Comparing how UMD (and Stanford) conducted investigations and penalties against Greek organizations vs campus protestors breaking campus rules/laws would actually require examples of each on the same campus.
And I do agree that Columbia/NYC let those "protestors" who smashed and took over a campus building and held campus employees hostage (many of which weren't even students) off the hook too easily, but that doesn't necessarily square up against how not-Columbia OR Columbia colleges handle campus organizations/charters accused of/proven of breaking campus rules. The allegations as provided against the UMD Greek orgs seemed pretty serious (even if later disprove), how would TFP suggest the university should have responded though? What if there was a basis for those allegations, and a student died and UMD had not investigated and/or halted Greek activities (which, I guess TFP left out of this article, is how many pledges have died during hazing and Greek-sponsored parties of alcohol poisoning consumed during pledge "trials")?
Yeah maybe some universities are coming down too hard on "fun" and "normal" campus mayhem, but there has also been a disturbing uptick in the sort of pledging deaths and partying deaths because I guess, the alcohol consumption seems to move past "fun" into "very dangerous" at higher rates since the days of "Animal House"? And families do sue when it's their kids so maybe you can see the university's position as well.
Anyway, weak argument, apples to oranges presented as comparison points, intending to trigger "outrage" that conservatively coded campus groups are getting the hard boot while left coded campus groups run roughshod. And maybe that is true at some campuses, but that would require some actual apples to apples examples, let alone some sort of equivocating of the crimes that occurred: as unpleasant and disruptive and threatening some of the "Free Palestine" campus demonstrations were, none resulted in death, yet there are actual deaths (I don't have numbers right now) that result from hazing/partying at Greek sponsored organizations/events. It doesn't seem that crazy that universities would treat these events and issues differently - even on the same campus, FWIW to begin with. Chartered organizations and their practices that could potentially result in harm and/or death of campus members versus the boundaries around student led protests and demonstrations that conflict with campus peace/student life/etc, yeah these are different issues no matter what so there will likely never be an equally meted distribution of "justice and punishment" for one versus the other to begin with...
I stopped giving to the university I graduated from a long time ago. My wife and I took a 7 figure scholarship away based on their DEI nonsense. Their response - better you walk away than us change our progressive policies. I hope many follow our lead - so far, based on what has been reported many people are following us.
Too often university administrators run scared. Too often they do not stand for moral principles, but look for the path of least resistance that will keep them employed. That is how it appears to work or as Kurt Vonnegut once said in one of his books, "And so it goes."
Maryland has been like this for a long time. Very one sided. I worked with students there as a pastor from 2000 to 2006. We tried to establish a chaplaincy for our denomination and were given no help, very vague answers to the questions we asked, and were ultimately kept from having a spot on campus. They fast tracked an Islamic chaplaincy that same year—not only securing a chaplaincy spot, but offering the man a salary. We weren’t asking for any funding whatsoever. Our student group was relegated to the worst meeting area on campus. Nothing about this surprises me.
Until school administrators and higher up get held personally accountable (loss of job, personal lawsuits) for their draconian actions they will always continue to deny due process and treat fairly and objectively those groups that are not in favor (Frats) versus protestors of favored groups.
If you are a school administrator and you attack and strong arm a disfavored group (ie. a frat) you are celebrated by the woke politicos, faculty and press. If you eventually get called out for your bad actions in a lawsuit you personally suffer nothing. The school and its insurance companies pay all the costs. (Oberlin)
If you go after a favored group such as BLM and antifa for actual destructive acts such as vandalism and physical assaults you will face sit ins by the woke students, faculty revolt, attacks in the press.
90% of higher education administrators are not there because they are the best for the job. They are there because they successfully navigated the political games of the university which in almost all cases is to be a woke, DEI, supporter of left wing social, political and economic positions.
Unfortunately the occurence of double standards has multiplied, even in Europe. I came up with the following explanation straight from the Woke ideology. Since 1964, the birth of the PLO, the muslim narrative has successfully presented the « Palestinians » as the victims of the colonizing by the West. And victims are necessary good people that deserve your sympathy and your help. It is a good cause to fight for. According to this narrative, Hamas fight is a fight for national liberation. and those who take their defence in the West are necessarily « good people » on the right side of history. So even if they transgress the laws, it is for a good cause and they should be forgiven . I believe this is why there is a double standard . It is the eternal epitomizing of the opposition between the laws and the ethics.
The PLO in 1964 already called for the « liberation of Palestine ». But what did they mean? At the time, there were no « territories occupied by Israel ». There was just tiny Israel. Cisjordania had been swalled in 1948 by Jordania and Gaza by Egypt. Clearly then , the only « liberation » they possibly could have in mind was the liberation from the presence of the minuscule Israel that had been granted 22000 km2 from its historical homeland by the international community.
This massive misunderstanding of the nature of the war waged by Hamas against Israel is one of the reasons why Hamas has attracted sympathy around the world expressed by tsunamis of hatred against the jews, epitomizing as usual the evil in the world , and in this case the colonizing evil. But this war is fundamentally the war of Iran on the West and the war in Gaza is just the top of this hidden iceberg, which aims at islamisation of our democracies by force. Hamas leaders clearly say so. They clearly say they are not interested in a two states solution. They want to eradicate Israel from the map and all Iran’s leaders have clearly said so, before turning against the democratic societies. The real question is why nobody listen to what they say ?
Do they not have the same rights as other students? Or do they automatically deserve to be treated differently or poorly because they are in a Fraternity?
Until Proven Innocent, the book that chronicles the Duke University Lacrosse Team and the false charges they faced, goes a long way towards explaining how this happens.
I disagree with the ATO chapter president in suggesting that the college has a duty to protect students in these cases. This is the job of local law enforcement. Otherwise all the hallmarks of justice are tossed aside. The rights we all associate with getting at objective truth - the right to counsel, to call witnesses and compel testimony, to cross examine - these are barred because the result might be "further trauma" to the accuser(s). An open and above board process would have also put accusers (and their list of hazing tortures) under oath. False testimony should come with consequences, if only to deter others from making similar false charges. Finally, letting these things play out in court offers immunity. Duke ate an undisclosed money judgement in their loss to the wrongfully accused lacrosse players.
I know I’m a little late to the game for commenting. It, however, seems to me that there exists a massive blurring of the line between politically protected speech (that may involve a certain degree of civil disobedience) and outright disregard of the law. My perception is that those in authority are so afraid of standing up for the rule of law that any action that *may* qualify as political speech gets a pass. These leads us all down a degraded social order. Theoretical republics place the greatest amounts of liberty in the hands of the individual. Our collective lack of education and hyper-focus on democracy leads us to blindness to its shortfalls that include group think, mob justice, and extreme intolerance.
The medium changes but the consistency of the unjustified outcomes stem from legal policy that was introduced in Jim Crow, then bizarrely adopted to the women's rights movements in the 1990's. i.e. 'mandated reporting'. These are laws that on their face are awesome. You have to report abuse. However, there is not a legitimate legal construct for false claims in these laws. If there is such a construct it is not funded and thus there is due process. There is plenty of righteous justification for unjust action and prejudice, but there is no room for fairness.
The extension of this legal construct has now gone from not supporting those falsely accused in domestic violence, to Jews, the Collegiate Greek system.... basically anyone you chose to go after. That is, go after if you have power #1, and are zealous enough to abuse it.
The fact, and make no mistake it is fact, is that the self righteousness of these types of legal abortions all ended up in a contorted, twisted and disgusting result. University of Maryland should be sued. They should be sued to the point that those in authority are removed, those who espouse this crap are removed, and the tenants of justice, fairness and human rights are restored to those who have been infringed upon.
It is an intention that was paved with good intention. It has led to the path of hell for civ/human rights. FYI these laws- mandated reporting- are constructed in the identical fashion to voter suppression laws that we know as 'Jim Crow'. As a reminder from the old axion... What is the road to hell paved with? Good intentions.
Seems analogous to what is happening in the UK at the moment with what appears to be "two-tier policing" of speech, riots...
I don't condone violence in any of its forms, but it seems that the Nationalists / Right are heading straight to jail without passing "Go" and collecting their $200. Meanwhile the pro-Hamas activists get away with extremely toxic speech and behaviour.
This article is disingenuous.
I imagine there was a double standard “nation-wide” in how universities treated the pro-palestine F-wits vs probably how they handled just about any other issue that would have warranted investigation/discipline. This is not hard to believe.
But I was waiting on examples of egregious UMaryland examples of pro-Palestine idiocy that they let slide, yet none was forthcoming.
You need a UMaryland counter-example to make a point. Citing the moronic administrators of Columbia does not establish your argument.
Well said. It's like taking any criminal in Los Angeles who got convicted and punished and saying it's not fair because OJ killed TWO people and was let off scot-free.
Absolutely agree. Need to compare apples with apples.
This is kind of a stretched comparison, for one, you don't have an apples to apples comparison of how, say any lawbreaking/campus rule breaking Maryland U pro-Palestinian protestors (admitting that they weren't any of those) were handled vs the Greek organizations in question. Comparing how UMD (and Stanford) conducted investigations and penalties against Greek organizations vs campus protestors breaking campus rules/laws would actually require examples of each on the same campus.
And I do agree that Columbia/NYC let those "protestors" who smashed and took over a campus building and held campus employees hostage (many of which weren't even students) off the hook too easily, but that doesn't necessarily square up against how not-Columbia OR Columbia colleges handle campus organizations/charters accused of/proven of breaking campus rules. The allegations as provided against the UMD Greek orgs seemed pretty serious (even if later disprove), how would TFP suggest the university should have responded though? What if there was a basis for those allegations, and a student died and UMD had not investigated and/or halted Greek activities (which, I guess TFP left out of this article, is how many pledges have died during hazing and Greek-sponsored parties of alcohol poisoning consumed during pledge "trials")?
Yeah maybe some universities are coming down too hard on "fun" and "normal" campus mayhem, but there has also been a disturbing uptick in the sort of pledging deaths and partying deaths because I guess, the alcohol consumption seems to move past "fun" into "very dangerous" at higher rates since the days of "Animal House"? And families do sue when it's their kids so maybe you can see the university's position as well.
Anyway, weak argument, apples to oranges presented as comparison points, intending to trigger "outrage" that conservatively coded campus groups are getting the hard boot while left coded campus groups run roughshod. And maybe that is true at some campuses, but that would require some actual apples to apples examples, let alone some sort of equivocating of the crimes that occurred: as unpleasant and disruptive and threatening some of the "Free Palestine" campus demonstrations were, none resulted in death, yet there are actual deaths (I don't have numbers right now) that result from hazing/partying at Greek sponsored organizations/events. It doesn't seem that crazy that universities would treat these events and issues differently - even on the same campus, FWIW to begin with. Chartered organizations and their practices that could potentially result in harm and/or death of campus members versus the boundaries around student led protests and demonstrations that conflict with campus peace/student life/etc, yeah these are different issues no matter what so there will likely never be an equally meted distribution of "justice and punishment" for one versus the other to begin with...
I am shocked, shocked that underage drinking is going on on Fraternity Row.
Wondering how the universities would have reacted if the protestors had been targeting gay students or Muslim students? I'm pretty sure we all know...
Oh dear me, where are my Pearls?, need to clutch to give a f about frat boys.
Dramatically missing the point, I'd say.
I stopped giving to the university I graduated from a long time ago. My wife and I took a 7 figure scholarship away based on their DEI nonsense. Their response - better you walk away than us change our progressive policies. I hope many follow our lead - so far, based on what has been reported many people are following us.
This inquisition was outrageous. My alumni donations have been suspended indefinitely.
Too often university administrators run scared. Too often they do not stand for moral principles, but look for the path of least resistance that will keep them employed. That is how it appears to work or as Kurt Vonnegut once said in one of his books, "And so it goes."