News that Ohio University fraternities were suspended quickly spread across campus and the nation on Thursday.
The OU chapter of ACACIA received a cease and desist last Monday after the university received allegations that the organization had engaged in activities prohibited by OU’s Student Code of Conduct. The following Wednesday, six other fraternities had people come forward with hazing allegations.
Now, nine of the 15 fraternity chapters have hazing allegations against them, which will be investigated by the university.
It seems the main question to the university should be: Why did this suspension not happen sooner?
It has been almost a full year since freshman Colin Wiant died in the Sigma Pi’s annex house. Although he wasn’t a pledge when he died, investigations found that Sigma Pi pledges were deprived of sleep, beaten with a belt, forced to beat others with a belt, punched, pelted with eggs, forced to take drugs and forced to drink a gallon of alcohol in 60 minutes.
The university should have taken initiative after Wiant’s death to investigate other fraternities, rather than waiting for another incident to occur.
It’s shocking that a student death won’t make the university stop and address the hazing situation, but receiving complaints from more than half the fraternities about hazing will cause a full suspension.
The university said they care about the health and safety of our students. However, it took students to come forward themselves for the university to do anything about hazing.
The allegations do not come as a surprise to many students. Hazing, in some form, is expected when it comes to pledging a fraternity.
The university also started a Hazing Prevention Task Force at the start of the year. Its purpose is to do an assessment to better understand the problems and develop an education program for hazing prevention.
It’s also not only on the university to fix this problem. Each fraternity should be held responsible for the hazing allegations against them.
If fraternities’ ideals surround the notion of brotherhood, why didn’t they take a stand and stop the continued act of hazing when one of their alleged brothers had passed?
Hazing is unnecessary when it comes to proving your loyalty to a group. Fraternity members need to behave in the ideals they promote. Pledges, who are usually freshmen, are easily impressionable and look up to the upperclassmen in the fraternities they want to join.
When it comes down to it, hazing should not be acceptable under any circumstances. And those who are in positions to stop it should do so immediately.
Editorials represent the majority opinion of The Post's executive editors: Editor-in-Chief Ellen Wagner, Managing Editor Laila Riaz and Digital Managing Editor Taylor Johnston. Post editorials are independent of the publication's news coverage.