OT: 5 more UM fraternities & sororities suspended
So, media outlets are reporting that in addition to Sigma Alpha Mu, the 5 additional fraternities and sororities involved in damage to ski resorts have been suspended by their National Organizations.
Pi Kappa and Chi Psi fraternities and Sigma Delta Tau, Alpha Phi and Delata Gamma sororities were placed on suspension by their national offices over the weekend, joining Sigma Alpha Mu fraternity, which was suspended last week.
The fraternities and sororities inflicted tens of thousands of dollars in damages on scores of rooms rented Jan. 16-17 at Treetops Resort in Gaylord and Boyne Highlands in Harbor Springs, according to UM officials.
"These incidents simply do not reflect the University of Michigan's values or its expectations," said E. Royster Harper, vice president for student life. "The behaviors are a contradiction of what it means to be in and of a community, and we do not believe that being away from campus is a license to act in destructive and irresponsible ways."
Note: you would think that the newspaper could get the names right. Pi Kappa? Delata Gamma? It shouldn't be that hard to have an editor figure that out. FTR, the Freep got the names of the frats and sororities right, but they aren't quoted or referenced on this website.
January 27th, 2015 at 1:39 PM ^
It's good to see that the UM Greek community has a presence on mgoblog.
January 27th, 2015 at 10:42 AM ^
Correction: Their parents will pay the hotel for the damage. It will be fine, and they won't have learned anything. Repeat process.
January 27th, 2015 at 10:58 AM ^
Their parents will also help them get nice jobs through connections. Or companies will hire them because their parents will be potential clients. Hell, some of them will probably just work at their parents company.
Also, their parents money will help attract a lot of attractive women.
It will also allow them to live a better lifestyle than others in similar jobs because of the lack of debt and the occassional help.
BUT, if the kids act like that they will blow through their parents money sooner than they realize (or their kids will). The family companies will fail with immature kids running the show. What is the old saying? .... Shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations.
Some of the kids are responsible and will do well and some may have too much money to fail soon, BUT society will weed out and take the money from the kids who "don't learn anything" from things like this....
January 27th, 2015 at 11:01 AM ^
I'm totally confused as to what you're actually arguing for or against here.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:29 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 27th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^
College (or young life in general) isn't a free pass to act like an asshole. The "time and life" you are talking about has already started for them. Heck, that starts a lot earlier on. There are or should always be consequences for poor behaviour.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:39 AM ^
I did a search for "advantage" and "spoiled" on this page. You're the only one who's said those words. I don't know what kind of personality disorder you have that intentionally confuses being angry at vandals with being angry at spoiled rich kids.
January 27th, 2015 at 12:17 PM ^
Since when did reading comprehesion mean searching for two key words? C'mon.
January 27th, 2015 at 1:30 PM ^
You're arguing against things that people didn't say and basing a huge crusade of some kind around an assumption, and you're the one lecturing on reading comprehension? Talk about 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.
January 27th, 2015 at 1:50 PM ^
that the moon landing was fake is not good at all. I mean you didn't even mention it in your post.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:46 AM ^
I went to school with lots of kids who came from ridiculously wealthy families and I was neither jaded nor bitter towards any of them for that reason. I am pissy, however, towards destructive little punks tarnishing the image of Michigan.
January 27th, 2015 at 3:43 PM ^
January 27th, 2015 at 1:50 PM ^
this is a spot on description of the life of one of our recent presidents (and surely a great number of career politicians, bankers, etc...) so I disagree with you. plz delete if im getting too political here. just disagreeing with peter's point in his last paragraph.
January 27th, 2015 at 3:29 PM ^
There really isn't a no politics rule as much as a no conservative politics rule. Saying that a lot of politicians and bankers, etc are spoiled rich idiots who never had to live in the real world is fine. Nothing to see here folks.
Edit: The fact that I'm getting negged and avid didn't is kind of proving my point. I'm not complaining about the negging, just making an observation. I'm used to being in the minority on this type of issue.
Edit 2: I hope the mods don't take this as a shot at them. They do a great job of removing any posts that are egregious or that the board brings to their attention.
January 27th, 2015 at 3:57 PM ^
January 27th, 2015 at 4:44 PM ^
January 27th, 2015 at 5:06 PM ^
Avid didn't need to and shouldn't have included the Bush reference. I'm not going to delete it because the replies have been thoughtful, but next time he/she should be more careful about specifically mentioning recent politicians. To be honest I didn't notice it until there were a few replies, which is pretty standard modding, even if it's not perfect.
Especially with the point being made, George W Bush is hardly the first president with a privliged background. A better comment would have been "90% of presidents" or "pretty much every senator" or something else that didn't single out one guy.
January 27th, 2015 at 6:26 PM ^
this is a spot on description of the life ofthe comment would fit neatly next to those made by Michelle Malkin:one of our recent presidents (and surelya great number of career politicians, bankers, etc...)
Everything you need to know about Beltway nepotism, corporate cronyism and corruption can be found in the biography of Robert Hunter Biden.at the time of the Hunter Biden/Burisma Holdings affair. It may be populist, as is much of the Tea Party rhetoric. But it is assuredly not, apart from the Bush reference, a "Democratic talking point." If you comb the boards, you will find sly Obama digs here and there, and they get slightly negged just as Avid's jab at Bush got negged. Furthermore, even if you view things from the conservative side of the aisle, it shouldn't escape your notice that the line against share-the-wealth, granola-eating liberal excess is well-tended by Mgoblog's own formidable population of MBAs, military and law-enforcement careerists and others eminently suited to maintain sobrietry if dissident enthusiasm veers out of bounds. You may not have missed it on purpose, but if you look again, your search will be promising.
January 27th, 2015 at 8:26 PM ^
January 27th, 2015 at 10:45 AM ^
January 27th, 2015 at 10:49 AM ^
...that the police and authorities will handle this, then where is the story? Why do we need to keep starting threads about it and bringing it up. Its over. No need to fan the flames.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:01 AM ^
I am certain that Jim Harbaugh is going to handle his business, and get our footbal lteam on track and win a national championship in approximately 3-4 years. Let's just shut the blog down and not discuss anything about football until he is successful...
January 27th, 2015 at 11:06 AM ^
One big thing you missed on in your quick analogy..... football is pure entertainment.
We are not talking about crime and punishment for kids and fanning those flames. Leave the kids alone already. Get back to mindless entertainement.
January 27th, 2015 at 4:07 PM ^
ONTOPIC Anything Michigan sports related Anything related to other Big Ten teams or upcoming opponents Stuff about the blog itselfIf you want mindless entertainement, make your own blog. We'll do what we want, as long as it doesn't involve vandalizing any ski lodges.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:10 AM ^
January 27th, 2015 at 11:30 AM ^
Fanning the flames? Hardly. I put up what happened, the link, and a short block quote. No editorializing on my part: pretty much, just the facts.
The reality is that this is wrong, it is off season, and it is of interest. What is so hard for you to get about that? If you're not interested, why do you continue to click on this post and put so many comments in the thread? You know, honestly, PeterKlima, your comments do more to fan the anti-Greek flames than anything else.
FTR, I'd much rather read a Hello post regarding Clark or Marshall or Weber or Pickard or Roquan Smith. But on the recruiting front, only so much is happening, and there isn't a lot of other hot news I see out there.
January 27th, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^
your posts that suggests that--in your view--what they did wasn't that big a deal, that shelling out a few bucks for the clean-up should take care of it. Pretty much the rest of humanity begs to differ.
January 27th, 2015 at 10:52 AM ^
the douche barrel that was pooh poohing this in the last thread? You kinda suck a lot. So far no one has called for these punk ass morons to be shot at dawn, just held accountable for being complete fucktards.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:04 AM ^
I'd be in jail. It's crazy that they weren't all arrested that night.
January 27th, 2015 at 1:41 PM ^
black males do that.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:11 AM ^
You don't think paying back the cost of the damages and (maybe) some community service (likely voluntary in light of the media) is punishment enough?
No, it's not punishment enough, because it sends the message that you can trash anything you like, no matter who it belongs to, as long as you pay for it. How about I take a baseball bat to your car and call it OK after I write you a check?
Yes, they should have a record and jail time.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:28 AM ^
If you do it though, be ready for the public outcry.
Also, this isn't personal property, rather it is business or a company property. Businesses are all about money.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
January 27th, 2015 at 11:33 AM ^
It would be hard to get more than the trade-in value if all you got was "the cost of the damages" as you proposed above.
Second, business property is not somehow more OK to destroy than personal property.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:42 AM ^
Your first statement depends on the amount of damage.
Your second statement is wrong IMO. WHile business is important, it hardly means the same to people. If my office was ransacked or my home, I would mainly feel horrible about things that can not be replaced (like pictures and kid drawings). It is mainly the things I brought into my office from home that I would feel are irreplaceable.
January 27th, 2015 at 12:14 PM ^
Wahoo: "Second, business property is not somehow more OK to destroy than personal property."
You: "Your second statement is wrong IMO."
We already know you're an attorney. Would you be prepared to argue in court that it's more "OK" to destroy business property than personal property?
As for your statement, "While business is important, it hardly means the same to people," apparently you're disregarding the fact that most business owners are not rolling in Mitt Romney- (or George Soros, if you prefer) levels of cash. In fact, the large majority of businesses in this country are small businesses, and theft or damage on this scale to their place of business would represent a significant loss of income simply due to having to deal with it, let alone making sure the insurance covers the costs of replacement and repair. I'm one of those small business owners; if my home office sustained the sort of damage that was done to Treetops, I'd be fucked, to be crude. A friend of mine has a business in downtown Ann Arbor, and the same applies to him.
Your constant attempts at self-immolation here on this subject are rather odd. Are you simply practicing your oral argumentation chops in written form here on MGoBlog? Is it a sort of internet performance art, with the grand finalé being a complete implosion in classic MGoMeltdown style? Or is your kid in one of the frats or sororities in question?
January 27th, 2015 at 12:37 PM ^
I am also a small business owner. As you point out, it is not always a lucrative field. However, my point was that money can "make you whole" in a business sense. It does suck to dealwith that stuff, but if it is paid for, then you are fine.
You know that insurance covers business interruption as well (although that will likely not happen in this case). You also know that the people who destroy things can also be liable for the consequential damage to your business in order for you to be made whole.
On the other hand, if you destroy my wedding album and take things from my homwe with sentimental value, then I won't necessarily be made whole by money (like a business would).
In court, the business case never goes to trial or a jury. The business will calculate its damages and a settlement of some kind would be made. If it did get to damages before the jury, the damages would be compensatory and consequential. It would be a math problem.
However, if you destroyed someone's home (while still likely to settle b/c insurance companies and all) there is less certainty over the degree of damages. How do you value a family heirloom that may not have much auction value? I think in that case, you can make a claim to the jury that you have deeper damages than the numbers that needs to be compensated. IN some jurisidictions, you can probably ADD a claim for emotional distress damages because of the personal nature of the items and its effect on your life.
January 27th, 2015 at 12:43 PM ^
That is the question I was going to chime in with actually - I do not understand PeterKlima's vitriolic stance when it comes to this topic at all. It's allowable discussion here and I think we care because it gives the University a bad rap even if it was the actions of a few, as you-know-who would so strenuously remind us.
I've actually fielded some requests to clean this thread up a bit, but it is such a confused thread at certain points because of some rather strong feelings on the subject that I am honestly not sure how I would approach that.
January 27th, 2015 at 7:30 PM ^
I give you immense credit for even trying to read this thread. It's basically one guy arguing every point possible; if you told me this was a Turing Test program run amok, I'd believe you.
January 27th, 2015 at 1:12 PM ^
I have zero affiliation with any fraternity or soroity.
I just think people on here are not being fair.
I am almost done with this thread.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:35 AM ^
By the time all damages and lost revenue is accounted for, they'll have caused over $100k in damages. This is small time, petty stuff. This is felony level damage.
So A) fuck those kids. And B) I hope they are expelled and go to jail. Just because they are young and/or rich doesn't matter. The world is a harsh place with consequences. In the same way it doesn't work for rape or drunk driving, "oops I was drunk and we were just having fun" isn't an excuse.
January 27th, 2015 at 11:50 AM ^
and there most certainly should be consequences. Associating these acts to rape and DUI is going way to far.
January 27th, 2015 at 12:14 PM ^
Since when do you close down a hotel for crumbled ceiling tile on the hallway floor? I think they will stay open. Some rooms might have to be closed for drywall repair, but that hardly takes long.
ALso, unlike rape or DUI, there was no danger to life or body here.
January 27th, 2015 at 12:20 PM ^
Take a closer look at the pictures. First of all, there is a lot more damage than the hallway ceiling tiles, and even if there wasn't, there is probably a weeks worth of cleanup and repair there alone. There was also smashed cabinets and furniture, holes in walls, etc. and that is only what has been shown. There is weeks of downtime and tens of thousands of dollars in labor involved.
January 27th, 2015 at 12:40 PM ^
The only way the hotels shut down for these repairs is if insurance will pay business interruption damage (or the kids' parents). As I said, some rooms will be closed, but repairs shouldnt take weeks.
I am not saying what they did was okay or anything, but let's not make it seem like they shutdown a business or something.
January 27th, 2015 at 12:46 PM ^
So if you and your buddies showed up at Treetops tomorrow and your room had all of the cabinets smashed, the walls had holes in them and the ceiling was ripped down you would just go about unpacking and starting your vacation, or would you immediately call the front desk to bitch and get another room? Who do you think is using these rooms while they are being repaired? How do you not think this is costing them business? How have you survived this long in our society believing that you can just pay to "make it whole" and move on from any incident that does not result in bodily harm?
January 27th, 2015 at 11:59 AM ^
a punishment? I'd call it fulfilling an obligation, like paying for your meal when you dine out.
January 27th, 2015 at 12:12 PM ^
If what they did was a crime why wouldn't you want them to have a record and serve some time? Paying back the damage and community service is a joke. These are adults that caused this and they need an adult punishment.
January 27th, 2015 at 12:49 PM ^
Yes, record and jail time, if appropriate. This was not just some light fun. They should get whatever punishment anyone doing that amount of damage gets charged with. So if someone steals a car they get charged, they don’t have the option of simply returning the car for no penalty.
I have two kids in college and I would expect them to get the same treatment if they were stupid enough to do this.
January 27th, 2015 at 2:51 PM ^
You don't think paying back the cost of the damages and (maybe) some community service (likely voluntary in light of the media) is punishment enough?
No.
You want them to have a record and order serve jail time?
If they violated a law for which the normal punishment is jail time and a permanent record - yes.
Michigan Property Destruction Law -
750.377a Willful and malicious destruction of property; personalty.
Sec. 377a.
(1) A person who willfully and maliciously destroys or injures the personal property of another person is guilty of a crime as follows:
(a) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00 or 3 times the amount of the destruction or injury, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(i) The amount of the destruction or injury is $20,000.00 or more.
(ii) The person violates subdivision (b)(i) and has 2 or more prior convictions for committing or attempting to commit an offense under this section. For purposes of this subparagraph, however, a prior conviction does not include a conviction for a violation or attempted violation of subdivision (c)(ii) or (d).
(b) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or 3 times the amount of the destruction or injury, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(i) The amount of the destruction or injury is $1,000.00 or more but less than $20,000.00.
(ii) The person violates subdivision (c)(i) and has 1 or more prior convictions for committing or attempting to commit an offense under this section. For purposes of this subparagraph, however, a prior conviction does not include a conviction for a violation or attempted violation of subdivision (c)(ii) or (d).
(c) If any of the following apply, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $2,000.00 or 3 times the amount of the destruction or injury, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine:
(i) The amount of the destruction or injury is $200.00 or more but less than $1,000.00.
(ii) The person violates subdivision (d) and has 1 or more prior convictions for committing or attempting to commit an offense under this section or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to this section.
(d) If the amount of the destruction or injury is less than $200.00, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00 or 3 times the amount of the destruction or injury, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine.
(2) The amounts of destruction or injury in separate incidents pursuant to a scheme or course of conduct within any 12-month period may be aggregated in determining the total amount of the destruction or injury.
January 27th, 2015 at 4:41 PM ^
I'm not sure you'd feel that way.