Sigma Alpha Mu to be disbanded at Michigan
From The Daily.
http://www.michigandaily.com/news/sigma-alpha-mu-disbanded-international-board-following-ski-trip
The University’s chapter of Sigma Alpha Mu was suspended and permanently closed by the fraternity’s international board of directors following its participation in a January ski trip that resulted in property damages valued at more than $250,000.
Seems like they watched Animal House one too many times that weekend and wanted to act like the movie stars.
Sorry boys, that was pretty disgraceful and seems to have negatively impacted UM, your family and your future job interviews topics.
He spilled a little. What a baby-back bitch!
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
It's just boys being boys. Didn't we all cause damages of $250,000 when we were 18-22 years old?
Everyone kills ceiling tiles, murders drywall, steals from hotels, steals from me, whatever.
I love travel sized soap and shampoo.
Also, according to one poster on this site, everybody does in fact murder. No mention of drywall specifically though.
You paid for those shampoo packets and tiny soap bars. It is part of the service that a hotel provides. Ceiling tiles are another story.
I still think the resort "padded the tab" to the tune of thousands of dollars, but I am glad to see the fraternity disbanded. Such behavior should never be associated with or tolerated by the University of Michigan.
but if you don't want someone "padding the tab" on you, don't destroy their property wantonly and put yourself in the position of having to fund their upgrades.
on whether we are adjusting for inflation. Ages 18-22 are pretty far in my rearview mirror, so... maybe? Those were the days. Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.
I might have done total about $50 to $100 tops. But if you get 100 guys with me, that might add up pretty quick.
Waiting for Peter Klima to chime in.....
The party's still going on at Goose Loonie's, 27 years later......
So they won't be able to re-open in 4 years this time? (If Im recalling correctly)
only four years?
I wonder if the university will buy out the property like they did with Sig Eps back in1996.
What the hell does permanently banned mean??? Does this mean their National won't recolonize them in four years once the University suspension ends?
It will be like the NCAA handing down a punishment on Penn State... 4 year ban... 2 years later, go to a bowl game and get your wins back.
National SAM is basically going along with the UM's punishment, ending the fraternity on campus for the next four years. UM is too big of a school with too large of a Jewish population for SAM to stay away for long. They'll probably try again, especially as an alumni corporation owns the SAM house. They'll probably rent it to another house for the next few years, and then recolonize in 4-5 years.
The Sammies brought it on themselves:
According to the national office’s press release, senior members of the University’s SAM chapter refused to cooperate in the national office’s investigation of the incident, particularly by refusing to name the members involved in the ski trip and vandalism and the lack of action from bystanders in attempting to halt the vandalism.
“It is regrettable that these vandals, as well as the officers of the chapter decided that avoiding personal accountability and/or university sanctions took priority over the welfare of the entire chapter."
They had a decision to make, and they decided to stand together. The refusal to identify those involved in the trip and vandalism leaves me with absolutely no sympathy for any of them.
As a former SAM, that was the prevailing opinion of the alumni contacted about this incident. The brothers on campus brought this upon themselves. There were many emails (which I will NOT be posting here this time) that expressed disappointment in the current SAM brothers but not surprise, given that any names given would also wind up in the hands of the police. I had always called for those responsible for this to be booted out of SAM, and now thanks to their circling of the wagons, they are all getting the boot. But SAM will be back at UM, some day.
I didn't even know there was a SAM at Michigan but I was Class of 05 and I guess they didn't exist during 01-05.
We were there but folded in spring 2002 (my soph year) as we couldn't get enough bodies to get a house to replace the one that burned down a couple years prior (which was not our fault it was during the summer when it was vacant). They recolonized in 2004 or 2005 and bought the house they have now.
March 17th, 2015 at 11:27 PM ^
Thank you, Mike Cohodes. This is personal to me. As a pastor, I am sick and tired of priests and pastors circling the wagons and protecting their own. (FTR, I have no idea what the fraternity of rabbi's do.) Regardless, the scandal we see in the Roman Catholic Church often has to do with the Vatican and the Bishops denying and hiding and covering up priest sexual abuse.
In my own church body, I had to lead in confronting a colleague who was abusing prescription medications, and was in complete deny, deny, deny mode. Sadly, the tipping point was when we brought in his own wife to confront him. It was very painful for everyone involved: the church, his family, myself. But at the end of the day, it was the right thing to do. Ignoring the problem, enabling dishonesty and lack of accountability, giving a pass to someone you knew and were friends with, just didn't wash.
I'm sad at what has happened, but feel very strongly about this. Frankly, I'd like to know what some of the parents of these Sammies think. The lessons these guys are learning are terrible. I wish more could be done.
I also think that SDT is getting a real pass here: certainly, some of those sorority sisters who were there knew exactly what was going on, and who was doing what. Enough ranting. I can't and won't read more about this whole situation.
...but I fail to see how fraternities "develop" leaders any better than (much less as well as) any other campus organization that offers positions of leadership that are available to, and elected by, its members.
Nobody thinks what these kids did was okay. They should have to pay to make the business whole.
But, isnt it odd that they are standing together instead of ratting each other out? Isn't that more true to the idea of "brotherhood" and "fraternity" than anything else?
Rat a fellow member out and see the prosecutor of Gaylord bring down the publicly-approved hammer, which may get members thrown in jail for breaking the assets of a business in bankruptcy... or, lose sanctioned participation in greek life activities at the University of Michigan and find a new place to live?
I don't know. I was never in a fraternity, but they sound like a fraternity,
I freely admit it wouldn't be easy or pleasant, but I would definitely stand with my national office in this case. I don't really care if this sounds silly or whatever, but you're talking about a small group of people that brought a ton of bad press onto your chapter and your organization at large while going against the values the fraternity stands for. What they did was wrong and I wouldn't want myself or my chapter associated with those actions.
I'm not going to say I'd be eagerly looking to throw acid in their faces, but the thought of losing our charter over not naming names to HQ is just not an acceptable proposition.
I'll also admit I might have felt differently as an active undergrad and not an alum, but I really don't think so.
doing the damn right thing? They should have stepped up and stopped it when it was going on--and since they didn't, they should step up now and name the perpetrators. First, they aren't really brothers. They are simply people who live together and may share some common interests. And I say that as someone who was in a frat at Michigan. Second, some things trump protecting your brother, and I include real brothers. What would it be for you? Do you protect a "brother" you know committed a rape? Murder? Codes of silence are undefensible.
Rape? Murder? Those are not even on the same planet as what happened. They beat up a building and business that was in bankruptcy. Financial standing was the only victim of the crime.
Of course you give up the murderer. That is an easy one.
Try something closer to what happened. Do you give up the guy who ran into a lightpost with his car late at night? That may cause $50K in damages to the car and lightpost, whereas this Treetops thing is probably closer to $100K (using non-inflated numbers).
How about very, very mild vandalism like painting the rock?
What they did was wrong. But, feeding their members over to the local prosecutor who has little choice but to throw the book at them for this seems much more defensible in light of the circumstances.
Oh, I agree they are not the same thing. I just was looking for where you draw the line. I am pleased to learn that it falls somewhere before rape and murder. But where?
The line is much, much closer to a single car accident that causes no injury and only property damage. It is closer to "pranks" that include vandalism of public property. It is closer to illegal dumping, etc.
It is really hard to even draw a line between property damage crimes and victim crimes. They exist on seperate planes.
March 17th, 2015 at 10:02 PM ^
Why do you (PeterKlima) always bring up the fact that Treetops is in bankruptcy? It makes no difference. Vandalism and destruction of property are still crimes, regardless of the financial condition of the victim. There is this sometimes-not-so-subtle implication in many of your comments that the destruction was somehow not quite as bad because Treetops is in the midst of reorganization, and that is just not a reasonable position.
d
March 17th, 2015 at 10:09 PM ^
It is not relevant to financial damages, but it is relevant to whether criminal charges to be brought or the sentencing amount IF such charges are brought. Those are just facts of the legal system.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
I haven't followed along with this thing completely but I kind of disagree. If there was a set of member that did all of this damage on their own, I don't think I would blame the innocent parties for giving them up. In my opinion, "ratting" someone out is when you both did similar things that were illegal but you give the other one up to save yourself. If not everyone in the fraternity did the deed, they shouldn't all have to pay.
I guess you can find some sort of nobility in what they did, but I wouldn't blame them for going another direction.
Now, if everyone took part in the damaging of property, none of this matters and you are probably right.
What is repugnant is your description of these property damage crimes to a defunct business as "serious violations of the law" and analogizing it to the child rape that happened as PSU.
Seriously, get control over yourself.
This is property damage to a bankrupt business. It should be reimbursed completely, but the only victim here is someone's bottom line.
PSU is as close to this as trees are close to being gorillas.
1. With respect to PSU, nothing I saw about today's scandal involved a cover-up like the Sandusky scndal. We are talking about the concious decision not to turn people in once something is being investigated. That sounds more like the first PSU scndal and not like the one discussed directly below this. You made a poor analogy either way.
2. You confuse absolution for all financial damage with a defense to anything further being done to them. the fact they have to repay money has NOTHING to do with the financial status of the victim. That is relevant to the next thing...
3. Although the full amount should be repaid, the status of the business and the severity of such property damage to that business is VERY relevant to whether there should be any criminal charges. Sorry, but that is how justice works. There is proescutorial discretion (provided there are no angry masses like in Gaylord) and the judge has latititude in sentencing based on things such as ....the suffering of the "victim."
So you are wrong about there being some intrinsic right or wrong that applies regardless of the situation. Your inability to apply things on a more specific basis would make you a horrible, horrible judicial decision maker. In fact, judges have been attacked as subject to removal for an inflexible application of the law.
Good luck with your impractical logic.
Sorry, but that is how justice works.
Sorry, but that is how justice fails to work.