Larry – first, I want to thank you for the thoughtful
response to my recent blog post. The
purpose of the post was to generate discussion – I am glad you brought your
thoughts into the open to be viewed and considered by everyone.
The last thing I want to do is get into a back and forth debate
via the internet. That is not something I find constructive or enjoyable. I hope that at some point in the near future we can discuss our differences in person or over the phone. However, since you chose to challenge my
integrity in a public forum, I have no choice but to respond publicly in order
to set the record straight.
To begin, I would like to respond to each of the
"errors" you point out in the order in which they are presented in
your response.
1 – Joe Gilman’s Role with FGRC/FSPAC and HPO - I apologize that I mistakenly attributed Mr. Gilman with a position of formal leadership within the FGRC/FSPAC. I was under the impression that he was a former FGRC board member. I was mistaken, and I apologize for the error. He is, however, a donor listed on the organization’s website. As you also noted, Joe is a former regent of Sigma Nu fraternity, an organization that is a top contributor listed on the FSPAC website. Mr. Gilman is also prominently featured on the banner picture on the top of the FGRC homepage, indicating that he has, at the very least, been personally and intimately involved with the group’s lobbying efforts. Suffice it to say, Joe has a vested interest in the operations and activities of the FSPAC and the FGRC.
With regards to the response of HazingPrevention.Org to my article, here is a copy of the email sent by Charles Hall, HPO Executive Director, upon receipt of the article:
"Gentry,
After some discussion with Joe Gilman, our Chairman of the Board, we feel HPO needs to pass on this article for the newsletter. At this time we do not have a position on federal anti-hazing legislation, and even if we did, we have to be careful about going over the line on the ‘legislative lobbying’ infringement which could impact our non-profit status in the future. I trust you understand this delicate position for HPO when it comes to political legislation implications.
Thank you for all the support you have provided HPO over the years. We appreciate your efforts to continue the HPO mission to educate organization and individuals with the hazing prevention model. We look forward to continuing to have you as a HPO supporter.
Thanks….
Charles"
I found it very odd that HPO, a group that is committed to hazing prevention, was unwilling to publish an article aimed at starting a dialogue regarding how prevention might be promoted at the federal level, regardless of whether organizational leadership agreed with all of the suggestions. They did not come back to me with feedback or suggestions for improvement – they dismissed the article out of hand. I personally served as the editor of the HPO newsletter for two years. During that time, I am not aware of a single instance where articles were vetted through the board chairman. Also during that time, I published an article comparing the hazing prevention movement to the anti-bullying movement. In that article, I specifically pointed out that the anti-bullying movement has been more effective at lobbying for change at the federal level, which was part of the reason for their success. No one in HPO leadership had any issue or expressed any concern with that article at the time. Why the sudden change in position? Could it be that many of the same individuals and groups that support the efforts of FGRC and the FSPAC are also the largest contributors to HPO? And could it be that HPO leadership did not want to promote an article that was in open disagreement with the stated position of FGRC/FSPAC? I suspect that there may be some connection between the two, and I think most reasonable people who look at the facts would agree with me.
1 – Joe Gilman’s Role with FGRC/FSPAC and HPO - I apologize that I mistakenly attributed Mr. Gilman with a position of formal leadership within the FGRC/FSPAC. I was under the impression that he was a former FGRC board member. I was mistaken, and I apologize for the error. He is, however, a donor listed on the organization’s website. As you also noted, Joe is a former regent of Sigma Nu fraternity, an organization that is a top contributor listed on the FSPAC website. Mr. Gilman is also prominently featured on the banner picture on the top of the FGRC homepage, indicating that he has, at the very least, been personally and intimately involved with the group’s lobbying efforts. Suffice it to say, Joe has a vested interest in the operations and activities of the FSPAC and the FGRC.
With regards to the response of HazingPrevention.Org to my article, here is a copy of the email sent by Charles Hall, HPO Executive Director, upon receipt of the article:
"Gentry,
After some discussion with Joe Gilman, our Chairman of the Board, we feel HPO needs to pass on this article for the newsletter. At this time we do not have a position on federal anti-hazing legislation, and even if we did, we have to be careful about going over the line on the ‘legislative lobbying’ infringement which could impact our non-profit status in the future. I trust you understand this delicate position for HPO when it comes to political legislation implications.
Thank you for all the support you have provided HPO over the years. We appreciate your efforts to continue the HPO mission to educate organization and individuals with the hazing prevention model. We look forward to continuing to have you as a HPO supporter.
Thanks….
Charles"
I found it very odd that HPO, a group that is committed to hazing prevention, was unwilling to publish an article aimed at starting a dialogue regarding how prevention might be promoted at the federal level, regardless of whether organizational leadership agreed with all of the suggestions. They did not come back to me with feedback or suggestions for improvement – they dismissed the article out of hand. I personally served as the editor of the HPO newsletter for two years. During that time, I am not aware of a single instance where articles were vetted through the board chairman. Also during that time, I published an article comparing the hazing prevention movement to the anti-bullying movement. In that article, I specifically pointed out that the anti-bullying movement has been more effective at lobbying for change at the federal level, which was part of the reason for their success. No one in HPO leadership had any issue or expressed any concern with that article at the time. Why the sudden change in position? Could it be that many of the same individuals and groups that support the efforts of FGRC and the FSPAC are also the largest contributors to HPO? And could it be that HPO leadership did not want to promote an article that was in open disagreement with the stated position of FGRC/FSPAC? I suspect that there may be some connection between the two, and I think most reasonable people who look at the facts would agree with me.
This is precisely the reason I no longer volunteer for
HPO. It is an organization with
tremendous potential for good, but it is too beholden to the groups that fund
it. The organization is unwilling to take any position that runs counter to the
beliefs of its major donors, which severely limits its ability to prevent
hazing within fraternal organizations.
Also, let me be clear about one thing - I am not in any way implying that Joe Gilman has done anything unethical. Joe is a good man, someone I consider a friend, and has done many wonderful things for both HPO and the fraternal movement. I am only suggesting that his involvement with FGRC/FSPAC was a significant factor in the decision not to publish the article in the HPO newsletter.
Also, let me be clear about one thing - I am not in any way implying that Joe Gilman has done anything unethical. Joe is a good man, someone I consider a friend, and has done many wonderful things for both HPO and the fraternal movement. I am only suggesting that his involvement with FGRC/FSPAC was a significant factor in the decision not to publish the article in the HPO newsletter.
2 – Use of the Term
“FratPAC” - As has been noted by others, the term "FratPAC" was not
coined by the Bloomberg author, nor was it coined by me. It was the original
web domain and twitter handle created by the leadership of the
Fraternity/Sorority Political Action Committee. The fact that those same
individuals are now running from that moniker makes no difference to me. Also,
you will notice that I only used the term "FratPAC" in setting up the
article and explaining the blog. This was done intentionally, to draw attention
to the article, as this "scandal" is now associated with that term.
The actual article itself uses the "correct" terminology.
3 – Overstatement of
Federal Financial Aid Restrictions - I do not see that I overstated
anything. There are a variety of drug and sexual violence-related crimes for
which one can be denied federal financial aid. I did not state a number. I do not know the number of students who have been affected by this legislation, or if
those data are even available. The point to be made is that withholding federal
financial aid after a criminal conviction is not without precedent. There are a “variety of ways” in which this
is done. Please help me understand how
this is an overstatement. Perhaps I
overgeneralized, but I did not overstate.
4 – Public statements
regarding FGRC/FSPAC’s hazing lobbying efforts - You may be surprised to
learn the extent to which I did research this particular issue. Let’s look at
the facts. One of the two groups who support FGRC, the NIC, has a government
relations page on its website. That page mentions only CHIA – there is absolutely no
mention of hazing or any other legislative priorities, even though NIC
leadership has been intimately involved in those efforts. There is no mention of
hazing legislation/lobbying on the FGRC website. In fact, the front page lists five
legislative priorities – hazing is not one of them. While the FSPAC newsletters
you cite make some mention of the hazing activities, one must do a great deal
of digging, clicking and reading in order to find them. Hence, I used the
phrase "public documents and websites make little mention..."
The only place I can find these references are in the FSPAC newsletters.
Please note that I did not say "no mention." That would have been
misleading, but that is not what I said. Regardless, the fact remains that someone
would have to be looking very hard in order to find any public statements
related to NIC/NPC/FGRC/FSPAC and their lobbying efforts related to proposed
hazing legislation. The fact that so many people involved in the “fraternity
movement” were surprised by the revelation that FGRC/FSPAC had lobbied against
Rep. Wilson’s proposals should be evidence enough that there was very little/poor
communication regarding these lobbying efforts. Again, I think reasonable
people who look at the facts would agree with my assertion that the publicly
available information would qualify as "little mention."
Now, on to the substantive issues.
In addition to attempting to correct me, you also laid out a
number of arguments to support your position that my proposals were without
merit. First, you cited the
Insidehighered.com article related to the Corprew study (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/08/hypermasculinity-sexual-aggression-link-non-fraternity-members-points-need-broader)
I encourage you to re-read the article that you reference, as well as the study
upon which that article is based. The article found that the link between
individual levels of hyper-masculinity and sexual aggression was less
pronounced among fraternity members than non-members. This study does not say
that fraternity members are less sexually aggressive or less hypermasculine, as
you incorrectly state (In fact, I can point you do dozens of studies which find
that they are more sexually aggressive).
The study also does not control for the fact that the social norms of
certain peer groups (i.e. fraternities, sports teams) may have more
hypermasculine cultures that do not manifest themselves in individual measures
of hypermasculinty. In other words, it
is the hypermasculine culture of the group that impacts sexual aggression, not
an individual’s level of hypermasculinity. Much like the NIC when UniLOA data
first became available, I am not surprised to see that you are latching on to
one shred of positive data and twisting (or misunderstanding) it to fit your own
narrow objectives while ignoring literally hundreds of other studies to the
contrary.
You also question the effectiveness of the “Dear Colleague
Letter” in determining how campuses respond to sexual assault. I am happy to
furnish you with a bevy of articles related to the manner in which institutions
of higher learning have been grossly negligent in their adjudication of sexual
assault. This includes ignoring
complaints of sexual misconduct, pressuring rape victims to remain silent, and
retaliating against rape victims who speak out publicly. I can also point you to articles explaining
how the new changes mandated by the federal government are drastically changing
the way that campuses handle these issues.
Whether or not these changes represent an improvement is a matter for
debate – I happen to think that they are an improvement. Many people happen to agree with me.
Along those lines, you specifically take issue with the assertion that a
misconduct hearing could take place without the direct participation of a
victim. You and I have both been a part
of hazing investigations. You know that
significant evidence must be provided in order to find a group responsible for
hazing in a student conduct hearing. I have taken part in several
investigations in which hazing victims would openly discuss their experience
with me privately, but could never muster the courage to testify in an open
hearing against their organization. The
fear of retribution is too great. An
investigative model that allowed for an independent, unbiased investigator to
present information uncovered during an investigation to the hearing panel
would allow the information to be presented without forcing the victim to
publicly confront those who abused him and have the power to make his life
miserable. I see no problems with such a
model - it would balance the needs of basic process for the accused student
while providing needed protections to a victim.
The courts have been clear on the issue of due process – the rights
guaranteed to accused students are not as broad as you would have others believe. Accused students have a right to be notified
of the charges against them, they have the right to refute those charges in an
administrative proceeding, and in limited instances they have the right to
counsel. I am not aware of any binding federal
opinion in which a court has suggested that an accused student has the right to
confront or cross-examine the victim of their alleged misconduct. If such an opinion exists, I hope that you
will provide it to me.
If the FGRC/FSPAC wants to go on record indicating that they
are more concerned with the due process rights of accused rapists/hazers than
they are with ensuring that college campuses have a fair and equitable process
in place to address allegations of sexual violence/hazing, then you are
certainly within your rights to do so. I
do not share that position, and suspect that many of my colleagues would agree with
me.
Finally, you indicate the problems associated with the
proposal of adding hazing into the Clery Act. You first point to the problem of
finding a universally agreed-upon definition of hazing. While I will not debate with you the
ineptness of our federal government, I will point out that they were
able to win two world wars and put a man on the moon. I am fairly certain that they could establish
a definition for hazing. Additionally, adding hazing to the Clery Report would
not be an unfunded mandate, as you suggest. The report is already mandated. Compiling
data for the Clery Report is one of my responsibilities at the University of
West Florida. Adding hazing violations
to the report would take, in a conservative estimate, roughly two minutes of my
time. You also question whether we have proof that mandated hazing reporting
already in place at the state level has reduced hazing. Do we have proof that
this would work? Not that I am aware. But can you point me to the studies that have
shown it has not been effective? If
indisputable proof of effectiveness is now the standard we are trying to meet
before experimenting with new prevention initiatives, then I must have missed
that memo. It certainly is not the philosophy articulated at the Novak
Institute for Hazing Prevention, where participants are asked to ground their
approaches in best practice and to assess results. In explaining the social-ecological model, the
curriculum specifically discusses how changes to law at both the state AND
federal level were responsible for reducing highway traffic fatalities. Why would federal intervention work with
highway fatalities but not hazing?
Based on your post, there are a few questions I have for
you:
1. You, and several others involved in the
leadership of FGRC/FSPAC, have indicated that the group has “led the fight to
prevent hazing” and will “continue our efforts to make hazing a crime in all 50
states,” indicating that this work has already begun. Can you please provide us with evidence that
FGRC/FSPAC has engaged in lobbying in any of the 6 states (and the District of
Columbia) that do not have hazing laws?
Please provide records of legislative visits, as well as donations made
to any state legislators in those six states, or evidence of any other work
done by FGRC/FSPAC related to hazing at the state level.
2. You frequently but vaguely cite your concerns
with the April 4, 2011 OCR “Dear Colleague” letter. Will you please go on the
record to state exactly what about this letter is concerning to you and the
FGRC/FSPAC/NIC/NPC leadership, and what you would propose as an alternative
framework for the manner in which campuses respond to allegations of sexual
assault?
Larry, I am sorry you feel that my blog post was sensationalized. That was certainly not my intention. My intention was to begin a dialogue related to what efforts on the federal level might be
beneficial in preventing and adjudicating hazing. I am also sorry that you felt
the need to personally attack and scold me.
I understand that by personally attacking me and my motivation in
writing this article, you are attempting to shift the argument away from substantive
issues and to cast my credibility into doubt. Your outright refusal to
consider any federal intervention as an effective tool in the fight to prevent
hazing represents the "head in the sand" approach that is both
dangerous and reflective of the narrow interests of a predetermined agenda.
There are no silver bullets in our fight to prevent hazing –
we both know that. But everything we
know about prevention tells us that action must occur at multiple levels in
order to bring about change. Your assertion that “education , not legislation,
is the only method proven effective” is stunningly inaccurate. Changing both environments and individuals is
required in order to change behavior – this is a basic and widely-accepted tenant
of prevention. I would encourage you,
and others who share your views, to re-read the article and consider openly and
candidly any efforts at the federal level that might assist in the fight to
prevent hazing. That is the only agenda I have.
