Reflections Of Shame

I do not remember what the laws in 1992 were; and legal age for permitting drinking varies from state to state.

I think the fraternity was acting illegally in serving alcohol to minors (the rape victim is mentioned to be a minor). The ``Animal House`` image of fraternities is well justified if they persist in behaving as though, wink, wink, the laws do not apply to them.

In any case, providing the means to get drunk and then taking advantage of somebody`s being drunk is shameful in of itself.

In the above two, the whole fraternity hold responsibility, not just the one individual.

In face of this, being ``loyal`` to your fraternity member is like the misplaced ``loyalty`` within gangs. The correct action for the author would have been to resign from the fraternity, not for sacrificing one member to cover the culpability of all, but out of disgust for their behavior.

-arun gupta

Feroz:

There are a few things not very clear.

1: Why would the National Headquarters order you to expel the ‘alleged’ rapist.

2: Did they have solid proof or irrefutable evidence.

3: And if so why did they not pass it on to you?

4: Or, was cover-up and sweeping it under the rug their sole motive?

5: In your deliberations, why was the girl herself and the alleged rapist not brought before you so that your peers or a jury can question and decide for yourselves what may have transpired?


As you say this is still affecting you after all these years. I don’t think it should. First, you were a marginal player --- a minor executioner --- who had to carry out procedures and unpleasant duties. You must not let that leave a scar on your psyche after all these years.

As for the serious issues you have raised -- viz. No Means No! and one of its incarnation -- date rape -- all sane persons would be on the same side.

But this debate gets over heated at times because of perspective and conjectures.

When was the firm indication delivered? Much prior to, prior to, during the ‘foreplay’ during the act or as an after thought. Intoxicants complicate the matter no bounds. What were the intoxicants involved, how ‘affected’ the participant/s were. If you are intoxicated enough not to be allowed to drive ---that means not allowed to make driving decisions that advertently may affect other drivers or pedestrian`s life, can you make clear, concise decisions that may affect someone’s life under similar state of inebriation?

Enough.... let us see what others have to say.

regards,

t