Yale is being sued in a class action brought by three female students who allege that fraternities create a hostile environment for women. Anna McNeil, Eliana Singer and Ry Walker object to the parties and atmosphere created by such fraternities. In their filing, they tell the court that “they have been shocked, disappointed, and disturbed by the prominent role that the Fraternities play in the campus social scene.” Many would note that there is not one social scene at Yale and that these students can simply avoid Frat parties and activities. That may be the response of the Court, which could view this as an effort in part to force Yale to curtail parties that these students do not want to attend. The filing objects to the very structure and role of fraternities on campus.
Some of the conduct described in the filing like groping and sexual assault and harassment is abhorrent and must to be deterred by any school. However, much of the complaint deals with objections to the atmosphere created by these organizations. The women insist that fraternities are the most popular locations for parties and that this popularity marginalizes them from fully socializing on campus:
“Yale’s fraternities are dominant social institutions on campus. Fraternities throw the largest parties and often host vulnerable first-year students. Women and non-binary students at Yale lack comparable spaces in which to host events and socialize. Yale’s sororities, for example, are prohibited from hosting parties by their national organizations. Most other student organizations lack the money and space to host regular social gatherings.”
The plaintiffs seek to fundamentally change the fraternities and their role on campus, citing other universities which have barred fraternities as discriminating institutions based on gender:
“In so doing, Yale has fallen behind peer institutions. For example, in May 2016, Harvard banned student participation in single-gender “final” clubs and Greek organizations. According to Rakesh Khurana, Dean of Harvard College, the College recognized that “the discriminatory membership policies of these organizations have led to the perpetuation of spaces that are rife with power imbalances . . . . In their recruitment practices and through their extensive resources and access to networks of power, these organizations propagate exclusionary values that undermine those of the larger Harvard College community.” Unmoved, Yale has failed to match the progress of its historic rival.”
Some of us have been critical of the move by Harvard against these student organizations. There are associational rights that are held by other students as well. Yet, the three plaintiffs insist that
“‘Separate but equal’ Greek life reinforces gender norms, stereotypes, and prejudices. Sex segregation can hinder cross-gender relationships, facilitate the objectification of people of other genders, and normalize sexual assault. Greek life, with its binary assumptions, also largely excludes non-binary students.”
Indeed, the list of complaints in this filing begs the question on why these students should force such changes rather than avoid these parties and activities. Yale’s is a remarkably diverse community with many different groups. It is pluralistic like society at large. That is the world that these students will have to join in time. While universities should actively address sexual harassment and discrimination, they should also allow students to engage in associations of their choosing, particularly off-campus.
The dean of Yale College, Marvin Chun, may have expressed the likely view of a court when, after a review of campus culture, he stated “I condemn the culture described in these accounts; it runs counter to our community’s values of making everyone feel welcome, respected, and safe. I also offer some plain advice about events like these: don’t go to them.”
30 thoughts on “Yale Sued For The Hostile Environment Created By Fraternities”
On point No. 3 of the filing…these ladies need to get in some defense classes.
Here is what you do ladies: You counter the groping with body slam into a wall. 😉 Everyone will be laughing, except him. In fact, he might even start apologizing. Problem solved.
Not that I am condoning violence, because violence is a bad, a very bad thing.
I would like to emphasize that this violence-on-violence, tit-for-tat, quid-pro-quo advice is in no way, my legal advice, and shall not be interpreted as such.
(music to tune of What Kind of People Eat Armour Hotdogs)
Frat Boy! Call him Frat Boy!
What kind of people wanna be Frat Boys?
Fat kids, skinny kids,
Kids who climb on rocks….
Fag kids, whinny wimps…
Even kids with chicken pocs join frat boys.
Armoured Frat Boys!
The dog, kids .. like… to… BITE!
As a proud member in good standing of GDI or Gamma Delta Iota I learned to laugh at the Neo Aristocracy but then wonder why the great unwashed are so easily fooled no matter which group is awarded ‘ back in the day’ bragging rights. No wonder thing s are something on a shingle when it only takes one day.
I think these women want that operation that makes them men( add-a-d::k to- me).
Ridiculous. Yale has been one of the campus leaders in promoting gender inclusiveness. For example, since the early 1990s, Yale’s elite Skull and Bones society has selected fifteen men and women of the junior class to join the society.
Yale has been one of the campus leaders in promoting gender inclusiveness.
You say that like it’s a good thing.
Fraternities typically promote irresponsible and ugly behavior in drunken brawls. Hazing has hurt/killed many. Inappropriate sexual aggressions are routine. They have no redeeming social value.
If they had no redeeming value, no one would join them. If the ‘sexual aggressions’ were routinely de trop, women would not attend their shindigs. As for ‘drunken brawls’, let’s see the data, putz.
Yeah, and all lawyers are shysters. Obviously know nothing about fraternities or errors in logic.
It’s pathetic how these self-described “progressive women” have so readily devolved I to the prim, moralizing shrews of yore. This is what passes for “feminism” these days? SMH.
There’s nothing wrong with moralizing. The thing is, there is no moral standard offered by these women that’s worth taking seriously.
“reinforces gender norms”
And what’s the problem here?
Dictionary result for norm
something that is usual, typical, or standard.
Why wouldn’t you promote things that are normal? So these idiots are basically saying we want to enforce abnormality.
Without a doubt, this trio are impossible in mundane life. They give most of the men around them a hard time for being male. Then they turn around and treat the not-very-masculine men around them with disdain because those men are…not-very-masculine. The common element is an essential self-centeredness.
The argument has little to do with fraternities. Some people wish to dictate how others should live their lives.
That includes all influential stakeholders in higher education.
These three twerpettes may eventually get married and have children. Be thankful you’re not the husband or son of any of them, forced to put up with their fussing and clucking over your every move.
If you hail from Yale you have no tail. And no tale to tell because you smell.
Having seen pictures of the girls in question it becomes very clear why they were having a hard time. Blaming Yale for their unhappiness is typical and pathetic.
They’re satisfactory looking (though they may have rotten personalities). It’s doubtful they’re having any problems with men more severe than the disjunction between aspiration and reality. (A problem most women have).
The moderator simply refuses to acknowledge a reality of life in higher education: it’s run by people who are constitutionally incapable of speaking or acting in good faith. And they fancy themselves our natural rulers.
This wench Jerelyn Luther is the sort of person Yale wants for their student body.
Yale’s is a remarkably diverse community with many different groups. It is pluralistic like society at large.
The only element of diversity among Yale’s employees is in and among the hourly staff who have no influence over institutional policy (and typically want none). It’s possible the athletic director or the comptroller or the plant manager or the chief of security are Republicans, but that’s it. Otherwise, it’s Monovox all the way down.
Yale will throw the case. The harridans in question are acting in accordance with the preferences of the faculty administration, who only value their white male students as sources of revenue and fancy young men are just defective girls.
Indeed, the list of complaints in this filing begs the question on why these students should force such changes rather than avoid these parties and activities.
Because this is an exercise in socially-sanctioned aggression. The girls filing the suit are not aggrieved parties. They are seeking to injure others and to re-allocate status by having an official declaration that the modes of social interaction favored by fraternity members are ipso facto pathological.
Leftist nonsense. Sanctions please.
12b6 will make it go away but no rule 11. judge would not dare. they like cocktail parties and have to contend socially with widely held idiotic opinions.
I envision a summary judgment favoring the defendants.
So, no right to peaceably assemble. Nice.
Or free association.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.”
“It is not, perhaps, unreasonable to conclude, that a pure and perfect democracy is a thing not attainable by man, constituted as he is of contending elements of vice and virtue, and ever mainly influenced by the predominant principle of self-interest. It may, indeed, be confidently asserted, that there never was that government called a republic, which was not ultimately ruled by a single will, and, therefore, (however bold may seem the paradox,) virtually and substantially a monarchy.”
– Alexander Fraser Tytler
The American Founders established a restricted-vote republic under the dominion of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution which provides maximal freedom to individuals as it severely limits government. The Founders intended that citizens be “entitled” to vote having met criteria. Democracies have been restricted-vote republics since their inception. America’s mortal enemies will never allow their nations to be dominated by covetousness, hysteria and incoherence.
Comments are closed.