I was in a fraternity at Penn State. In 2017, they have outlived their usefulness and become far more of a liability than an asset. If not for the fierce loyalty of vocal alums/donors, they would be history on many campuses by now.
Penn State IFC tells Barron to grow up
- Thread starter jerseylion109
- Start date
I was in a fraternity at Penn State. In 2017, they have outlived their usefulness and become far more of a liability than an asset. If not for the fierce loyalty of vocal alums/donors, they would be history on many campuses by now.
Dem, Dem Dem.
I once again need to remind you of your point.
"Well, maybe they need to bag all that. You want to join a club, join, but we are not offering you any deal that others don't get. Like being able, (if they are) to pick who lives on your dorm floor and shut other folks out."
Are you backtracking? I asked about athletics and interest houses, because they apply to your premise. You switched this to: that Fraternity men were bad actors, and that football creates more value. You're going all cruisin on me.
You made a point, I said I'd agree if it applied as stated, and now you are have changed it because you really only want to trash greeks. Now realizing that you can't make the same blanket statement about sororities, you are drifting again. Therefore, why do you support sororities getting the same restrictions as fraternitites?
I have only been debating your no special treatment point , so you are really jumping to conclusions calling me a greeker through this discussion. I was in a fraternity at Penn State, and really enjoyed it. In fact my involvement in Thon was defining for my college years( Which even if it could survive today without greeks, would not exist without the IFC and Panhel driving it for the first 30 years.). I do think there are issues that need to be addressed and must see significant change change in the Greek system or probable extinction. However, your dialogue shows a prejudice and disdain for Fraternities and Sororities with minimal facts to back it up.
...or the nearly 20% of the student population that chooses to be involved with them.
I think that I and a lot of others were looking at it more from the angle of university liability as opposed to curbing binge drinking, serving alcohol to underage students, etc. No one can legislate that behavior out of existence. Even if the university were to say that one more alcohol violation at a frat house, and that house is gone, the parties would just move elsewhere. That's a cultural issue within the Greek system - maybe the type of students that are attracted to Greek life? - that has more to do with immaturity, irresponsibility, a sense of entitlement, and a blatant disregard for the welfare of others. And of course I'm generalizing a bit, but there's a reason why these issues are the most egregious at frats. At any rate, the question isn't so much how do we stop that type of behavior, but rather since the frats are unwilling to stop acting that way, is the potential liability their actions bring upon the university worth it?
If the issue is simply one of liability, why doesn't the University require the Fraternities/Sororities to name the University as an additional insured on their liability insurance. Require a high coverage limit and have a written agreement that the Fraternity/Sorority coverage is primary as long as there is negligence on the part of the Fraternity/Sorority.
Dem, is there any legal reason, in PA, that this could not happen?
Dem, is there any legal reason, in PA, that this could not happen?
Ya think? Maybe there's even more entitlement and immaturity in the apartments and rental houses. You wouldn't know because any incidents would be on page 6. Not page 1.
I would be interested in seeing statistics on the number of students treated at the medical center for alcohol and drug issues broken down between the Greek Students, those living in other off campus housing and those living in dorms.
No, I don't want to trash Greeks. I want groups that cannot follow rules to cease having special positions within the University's system. When that turns out to be the fb or other athletic groups, f them too.
You want them to have the status and the special access without the responsibility and that actively hurts both recruiting AND the University. If the IFC does not want to be tarred with the same brush as the wrongdoers, kick the wrongdoers out of the IFC.
Letting your buddy die drunk on the couch ought to get you the boot from the IFC. Does that org police it's own? Are they going to boot this frat, or wait for the university to lead the way?
Frats are different in some ways even from sororities. The rape count is higher in frats. These people never spoke for me. I would not permit it if they tried. Why do they deserve special access to the University's leadersip?
Why are you asking Dem about this? No disrespect intended to him, but this is not a subject with which he is familiar.
The fact is that Universities do this already. The practice is essentially universal. Every University has an form of recognition agreement (aka "association agreement") that the University demands from each fraternity chapter seeking recognition at that campus. Recognition by the University confers the benefit of participation in formal rush, greatly facilitating recruitment. That is probably the single greatest benefit, along with status as a permitted "non-conforming use" under the local municipality's zoning ordinance.
Such recognition agreements invariably require that the chapter add the University as an additional insured on its liability policy. They also quite frequently specify that the chapter's insurance policy shall be primary in the event of a claim, specify minimum coverage amounts, and impose other requirements. These recognition agreements also typically employ wonderfully creative language in which the University attempts to simultaneously impose a variety of rules and restrictions on the chapter and deny/negate any inference that the University is assuming liability for regulating the chapter.
You're right, I don't know about these details, but if what you say is true, then that is part of the problem right there.
"Additional insured" is not enough. INDEMNITY (like TSM had) is what's required.
Dem: ??! You are surely aware that an insurance policy is in its essence a contract of indemnity. The indemnitor is the insurer. That is pretty essential, since an indemnity is only as good as the financial ability of the indemnitor to honor it. Most local fraternity chapters do not have pockets sufficiently deep to serve as indemnitors.
And why would the availability of insurance coverage be "part of the problem?" Should people who are injured as a result of a fraternity function have no recourse to insurance coverage? If your suggestion is that having insurers assume financial responsibility for the legal and financial consequences of a claim is problematic, then you do not understand how this works. The frequency and amount of Insurance claims/payouts has a very significant effect upon the availability of insurance coverage and, therefore, on the kinds of risks that insurers will cover. The availability of coverage has in turn had a considerable effect on rules and regulations governing the operation of fraternities. (Many rules and regulations affecting a local fraternity chapter are imposed by its National Fraternity, rather than by the host University.)
The availability of insurance does not mean that incidents of negligence or willful misconduct are not gonna continue to occur (that is, unfortunately, impossible to prevent), but it nonetheless has a salutary effect when looked at from a broader perspective.
Last edited:
Just keep knitting your own facts together w/ zero substantiation, correlation, or anything else other than emotion.
You asked the question. You can either accept my answer, or rely on whatever answer Dem feels inclined to provide. Your choice.
I get the point you're trying to make, but the actions of a student off campus - at a non-sponsored university event and also not at a frat house whose very existence is dependent upon Penn State's recognition of them - doesn't carry any liability issues for the university.
Students in dorms - maybe a liability issue but I would imagine that that is mitigated by having RA's on duty. Maybe frats should be forced to have a 24 hour babysitter - which is essentially what an RA is - someone who goes through training on what to do in an emergency situation, etc.
I actually appreciate your answer. I was responding to your first line telling me what Demlion is not familiar with.
Actually, I don't think you understand my question at all. This question had nothing to do with liability rather your generalization regarding fraternities. I am fully aware of the liability differences between the fraternities and apartments.
LOL! Let's keep it real. A kid that is pledging a social frat is pledging so they can party; no need for an invite, lots of chicks at the parties, no danger of being turned away. I doubt most of them are thinking about potential business connections down the road. There is a certain sense of entitlement and exclusivity that comes with being a member of such an organization, and let's face it, that attracts a certain personality type.
Wait! LOL! You don't think that groups that are exclusive, require an "invite"to join, segregate themselves to a large degree from the rest of the student body, and think of themselves as being so different and special from the general student population that they need their own housing and unique councils don't attract a certain personality type??? I'm taking the social frats and sororities mostly.
You mean this?: "A kid that is pledging a social frat is pledging so they can party; no need for an invite, lots of chicks at the parties, no danger of being turned away. I doubt most of them are thinking about potential business connections down the road. There is a certain sense of entitlement and exclusivity that comes with being a member of such an organization, and let's face it, that attracts a certain personality type."
I think it is absolutely correct
Local chapter? Uh uh. National org indemnifies the University, or get out. If they can't or wont, bye bye.
Fair enough. I could and should have phrased that particular sentence differently. I respect Dem and his general intelligence, but his posts in this thread had indicated he was not a member of a fraternity, and suggested to me that fraternity insurance coverage issues are not in his particular bailiwick.
This is exactly it. It's a liability and I'm not sure how the University can protect itself from the inevitable. Unless a frat is willing to never hold parties and be a dry house (with inspections) I just can't see a solution here.
Thanks for the response. I know that's a bit of generalizing, but some times generalizations are more true than not.
Yeah, I've never sued a frat or its insurer, but these long posts about insurance in general are not the point. If you want the University to endorse frats, then follow it's rules and indemnify the U for the times you dont. And, since as you point out the frats themselves haven't much in assets, put the national org on the hook to indemnify PSU for the first 10 million plus penny one of the defense cost. Too rich for your blood? Get out.
Well, for most fraternities, the National Fraternity procures and carries the liability policy, which covers not only the National Fraternity but also its constituent chapters.
But since the liability insurance policy essentially has the insurer indemnifying its insureds (the National Fraternity, its local chapter, and additional insureds like the University), against liability for third party claims and attorneys' fees, any separate indemnity from a National Fraternity to a University would likely be regarded by the University as secondary and far less valuable. The University is gonna want an indemnity from the deepest pocket it can find: an insurance company.
Wow. National provides whatever policy is required. BEYOND THAT,the national and the local pledge every f ing dime they have to protect the U from liability. I don't pay tuition for my kid to insure what goes on at frats. Too risky for the national org? Too expensive? See ya.
You seem to think that binge/underage drinking, and whatever concomitant liability to the U will disappear if the frats do. It won't.
I can see that we're not really communicating here. My point was that Universities quite understandably seek indemnity from the deepest pocket available (i.e., insurance companies), and they do it by insisting on being named an additional insured on the liability insurance policy of every chapter the University recognizes. They have zero interest in taking indemnities from local chapters or National Fraternities if they can get them from insurers.
But if you care to be an advocate for PSU demanding indemnities from the fraternity chapters it recognizes (or their National organizations), please have at it.
The universities should be leading a national campaign to legalize marijuana. Then once it's legal, they should be doing everything they can short of passing out joints at the forum to get students to smoke weed instead of drink. It would save a lot of lives and prevent a lot of assaults and rapes. Alcohol really is a dangerous drug but it's not treated that way.
No, I don't think that. What's more, so long as it is not my kid, it is entirely academic to me. What is not academic to me is this: if a kid in an apartment in Boalsburg whose only association with PSU is that he is a student there drinks himself to death, the University to which people pay tuition will not be financially affected. If that same kid does it in a dry frat (setting aside the idea that a PSU trainer might have been on site in some supervisory capacity) while that frat is blatantly violating the rules the University set for it as part of its bargain to be recognized by the University, then the financial effect should be EXACTLY the same: nothing.
Given their link to and acceptance by PSU, the frats occupy a middle ground between the dorms (totally owned and controlled by the University, whose employees monitor alcohol and drug usage) and the off-campus apartments (no control). In that space is a great deal of potential financial pain for PSU.
I guess there is more than one way to accomplish this. You could simply divorce the frats from the University, and the frat houses that are off campus become like apartment houses ( and the on campus ones gotta go).
If you do not want to do this, then the solution is simple: No matter who the jury says is at fault, and in what percentages, the frat pays it all. When the frat's insurance is exhausted, then we sell the frat house. If that ain't enough, the national frat org pays. Sure gives those frat boys a reason to follow the rules, right? Makes the safety of that guy on the couch each member's own, personal business, and if that is not enough, gives the national a stake in the behavior of the local frats that is potentially existential. It IS no business of the University whether the underage drinking rules get followed, so let's make it purely the business of the Greek orgs, local and national.
I do not give a damn beyond that.
Liability without fault (aka "strict liability"). That may be work in the products liability context, but not in the context of ordinary negligence claims involving college students. You should know that, counselor.
Well I thought you could tell that I meant if it was the dead guys fault, there is no recovery.
You do understand that PSU indemnified the seconD mile, right? That means a settlement paid by PSU necessitates a release of the second mile. Jesus.
It is my understanding Penn State is self insured to a specific dollar amount and is insured above that amount. PMA is the insurer
however they denied coverage in the Sandusky matter. I believe the basis for the denial was for failure of PSU to report the potential
claims to them, in a timely fashion, per policy conditions.
Yeah, but the point we are discussing is that PSU, regardless of the status of its coverage, agreed to indemnify TSM in the Sandusky matter. Because PSU did not want to settle and have the cases go to trial against TSM. Whether that was because PSU feared embrrassment for itself, or embarrassment for the connected swells on the TSM board is not known.
They indemnified TSM, which made it possible to end the cases on the day PSU PAID.
