The tragic loss of personal responsibility and the article which got a Forbes writer fired for discussing the sad state of modern campus life

zulu127 · 2014-09-25T12:29:35+00:00

Holy shit, he got fired for that!? Thanks for capturing that article before it got removed. I thought it gave a lot of sensible advise.

Ultramegasaurus · 2014-09-25T12:52:51+00:00

So this guy literally does everything in his power to prevent all those situations feminists are so scared of, but it's still MUH SOGGY KNEE because it inconveniences women and prevents them from having uninhibited fun? Jesus fucking Christ

user1492 · 2014-09-25T15:53:41+00:00

Don't teach fraternities to prevent drunk chicks from dancing out the window, teach drunk chicks not to dance out windows.

megapoopfart · 2014-09-25T16:43:29+00:00

Holy shit- fired? This is a fresh, real, and practical perspective. Vocal rad feminists really are the majority voice in public discourse now as well as wielding powers of censorship and intimidation. That's not social justice, that's corruption.

Ineedsomethingtodo · 2014-09-25T17:42:57+00:00

[permanently deleted]

twistedcircuits99 · 2014-09-25T14:33:03+00:00

As a fraternity member, I could not agree more with this post and I'm floored that he was fired over this.

ShitlordAndProud · 2014-09-25T14:11:37+00:00

[permanently deleted]

qwertpoi · 2014-09-25T18:19:13+00:00

I'm somewhat at a loss as to which part of this article was objectionable.

The title? Hyperbolized to be sure but that is literally the norm for internet writing. Feminist writers (and hell, mainstream writers) have made more ridiculous claims in their headlines and gone on to say worse in their piece.

The offhanded remarks against female drunkenness?

I can see people taking that wrong but its all well within the bounds of polite and reasonable discourse. Hes commenting on his own observations and drawing conclusions from them. Maybe if he had a few studies to back him up?

Maybe it was the implication that the Frats are the victims here.

While that sounds a bit off, he backs it up incredibly well, pointing out how many rules the frats operate under and how they're faced with constant occurrences that threaten their very existence even if they follow all the rules.

Aside from those possible areas of contention, this was CLEARLY an above-board piece that didn't single out any one gender for blame or ridicule. As far as I could tell it was just an honest look at the factors involved and some really useful advice as to how to mitigate risks.

megapoopfart · 2014-09-25T16:58:34+00:00

He's simply exposing the double standard that exists for drunk males and drunk females. I'm no frat boy sympathizer, but that's part of the point- I'm not a drunk college girl sympathizer either. All of the blame falls unfairly on men and it is currently considered offensive to speak of female accountability. That's not equality.

50PercentLies · 2014-09-25T17:06:46+00:00

female university student here, and I agree wholeheartedly with this.

SisterRay · 2014-09-25T12:02:54+00:00

"Personal responsibility" has become like a dog whistle for those who want to be coddled and have all their needs provided for without having to do anything themselves.

scemcee · 2014-09-25T19:02:34+00:00

I think Mr. Frezza knew exactly what the response to his article would be, he's not stupid. He knew that it would cause a shit storm, and he would probably not be permitted to continue contributing to Forbes after he posted it.

I think his goal here is twofold: to make the original point he was making about the liabilities and danger inherent in designating, and associating with, a privileged class, and also to martyr himself in a very small way to underscore the irrationality of the arguments against him.

I am glad to see this story popping up in multiple places, though. Thanks, OP. :)

5iveby5ive · 2014-09-25T18:49:17+00:00

Am I just so hopelessly out of touch with the rest of society when I think to myself that this article makes a shed load of sense, especially the bit about "why drunk female students are almost never characterized as irresponsible jerks" ... I mean... that sentence really should not be that controversial!

ANYONE regardless of gender can be characterized as an irresponsible jerk, especially when drunk. But all too often the male is expected to be responsible and the female isn't.

Is this because men can hold their liquor better, or don't get drunk as quick? Biology seems to indicate this. But then you could easily make the argument that some women are being more irresponsible by getting absolutely tanked when their bodies are just not designed to handle the amounts that they are consuming.

It's much less a case of "women know your place" and more a case of "people know your limits" because once you're absolutely fucked out of your head, and your friends run off to the next party... you're pretty defenseless. It's just a fact of biology that it takes men longer to get to that point.

tito333 · 2014-09-25T20:06:54+00:00

If we actually lived in a patriarchy, this man wouldn't have been fired, he would have been congratulated. This is a prefect example of the power women have over society. They can't understand that everything men do is to make them happy.

2014-09-25T18:36:28+00:00

i found this article to be entirely reasonable.

Salient0ne · 2014-09-26T00:40:43+00:00

But.. but Emma Watson said we were invited to the conversation...

HoneyVortex · 2014-09-25T17:39:23+00:00

I really don't understand. Does anyone have a link to the criticism of this article? We're not even allowed to talk about feminism anymore?

tothecatmobile · 2014-09-25T21:32:49+00:00

something that was written in another subreddit about this;

Ok guys, I'm going to bring up a few points here that might or might not annoy you all.

Firstly, I go to MIT. I've had a lot of interaction with Chi Phi because of friends I have there, so I know the fraternity and it's culture. My first thing that you all need to know is that frats at MIT are VERY different from frats anywhere else. Both in the way they work, the way they act, and the way they're treated.

More than half of guys are in fraternities at MIT. Think about that, more than 1 out of every 2. As a result mit (when we're not under occupancy ban as we are now) has a lot of parties going on at any given time.

Because of this MIT in general also has policies that are very different from most schools.

The biggest is that if a drunk girl passes out in your house, YOU DON'T ACTUALLY GET IN TROUBLE. You only get in trouble if you attempt to cover it up and hide it, rather than call the free, student run, 24/7 MIT Emergency medical technician and transport number to help her. I just called it for a minor last Thursday and nobody got in trouble.

Secondly the whole statement about LCA at the start is bull shit. LCA's primary reason for being in shit wasnt that a girl showed up drunk and fell out the window. (Bear with me). It's because they GAVE her the alcohol at a party that they had registered as dry with both MIT AND the city of Boston. So they lied. They also kept giving the girl drinks when she was clearly wasted.

If we can hold bar tenders accountable for giving too many drinks to patrons or letting them drive, why can't we hold fraternity brothers accountable?

So is having a girl pass out at your party inconvenient? Yeah. But you don't actually get in trouble. Also just a heads up, the fake 911 call was actually legit. There wasn't a gang rape happening but there was sexual assault. Chi Phi just likes to protect their rep as do all fraternities. So they're giving half details.

Miskatonic72 · 2014-09-25T17:51:13+00:00

His intentions were reasonable and the op-ed was written from the correct perspective of an alumni president, which is to say that he was trying to get guys to understand how to protect the frat and by association, both the men at the party and the women who might want to attend.

All things considered though, he did write a really bad article and published it in the wrong venue to boot. Based on that, it isn't all that surprising he was fired.

You should see Salon's take on it though. Women are demonized in his piece and those drunk women are victims. Why? Because they made stupid, shitty decisions?

If the article had been written by a female alumni president regarding the turning away of drunk men at the door, I'm pretty sure no one would bat an eye.

jr_ogon · 2014-09-25T15:39:00+00:00

Great article, but doesn't support current females are always the victim!

gormap18 · 2014-09-25T19:35:23+00:00

I can confirm, my frat just had a meeting about girls getting too drunk. Although it was more aimed at sorority girls getting too drunk and letting one of their sisters know.

2014-09-25T20:01:26+00:00

I, for one, will be sending Mr. Frezzy a letter of support.

theegrimrobe · 2014-09-25T21:19:59+00:00

he told the truth .. you dont do that in the modern world

remember the truth is bad!!! /s

Steve_the_Stevedore · 2014-09-25T22:18:23+00:00

He should have been clearer on why drunk guys aren't as big of a problem as girls. Something along the lines of "If a guy is piss drunk and riots we can just throw him out. If a girl does the same we are fucked either way."

Brendancs0 · 2014-09-25T16:10:54+00:00

I know people refer to libertarians as shit lords, and I don't believe in anarchy, but some of their ideals are really practical. Lowering the drinking age to 18 will defiantly change the landscape of drinking culture.

AutoModerator · 2014-09-25T21:24:33+00:00

[permanently deleted]

TwerpOco · 2014-09-26T00:21:56+00:00

Is it even legal for him to be fired for this?

fullhalf · 2014-09-26T01:13:19+00:00

yes, let the anger flow. finally the mainstream guys have had it. i've been raging over it for at least 2 years now. for some reason, women nowadays won't take personal responsibility. if you drink so much that you don't even know what you're doing anymore, well, then if you get raped, that's half your fault. how come drunk drivers don't get off? how come people who start fights while drunk don't get off? yet a woman is completely unable to consent if she's drunk? she always gets the benefit of a doubt? bill frezza gets fired just for speaking the truth?

buckett340 · 2014-09-26T03:24:52+00:00

I'm in college, and my apartment building is next to a fraternity. There is currently a protest outside to get a fraternity disbanded. This article describes perfectly what goes on based on all of the information I've seen about the current issues.

2014-09-26T04:25:02+00:00

[permanently deleted]

meetthemets · 2014-09-28T07:08:09+00:00

The headline (his or an editor's-- either way) opened him up to this. People will get outraged over just the headline and stop reading there. It shouldn't be this way but you've gotta make it innocuous enough so they'll either drop it or keep reading.

The point he's making is great. I think it could've been written in less of a click bait sort of style. Basically if he said "here's a common problem ... and here's what my old fraternity is doing to fix it" it would've been gold. People will cherry-pick sentences and open it up to ridicule. That could've been avoided.

Also people pointed immediately to privilege and the stereotype of frats. What they don't understand is Greek life at MIT relative to it at your average big southern public school. They are not the same thing.

presentday_presenthr · 2014-09-26T00:50:56+00:00

That photo and this line is why the article got taken down:

False accusation of rape months after the fact triggered by regrets over a drunken hook-up, or anger over a failed relationship.

Even though there was a link to an article about false rape accusations, and even though false rape accusations DO happen, that line can easily be interpreted as victim blaming.

I like that this article is causing controversy/conversation, but I think I would like it more if it were just about people who pre-game outside of the fraternity's control. That's a situation I've never thought of. That's something anybody at a college party if not everywhere should be aware of.

Just to be clear, I personally feel that the article could stand on its own without that line and any other perceivable implications that girls make false rape accusations. The article would have been harder to take down without that line. That line definitely describes a truth, one that needs to be said, but I don't think this article was the right place for that battle.

What if the article said, "Don't let anyone who is drunk in your room; alcohol legally negates consent." ? An internet feminist would say to take it down, and when someone asked why, he/she couldn't say it was victim blaming. Well, he/she could, and he/she would, but at least some people who were watching could see the ridiculous unlogic of some of the internet feminists.

We know what sets these people off. Shouldn't we try to strategize around that? Yes, we'll probably get the same reaction the roofie-detecting nail polish did, but every person I told about that whole thing (and about that guy who had to pay child support for the baby he didn't know about who he conceived through statutory rape), every person I told that to said that those internet feminists were ridiculous.

I think I'm just rambling now.

2014-09-26T01:30:38+00:00

I think it would have gone a long way to have changed the article's title and edited a few key sentences that are vaguely accusatory. The guy was kind of an idiot for writing an article where even he admits he titled it for click bait and then not back tracking and asking what the worst possible result could be from someone reading it.

Well principled or not, your career is not worth an article.

Diablos_lawyer · 2014-09-25T14:36:58+00:00

I think that the title itself was what got him fired, not the content of the article. So many people don't read articles anymore. They just get irate and assume they know what the article was about.

The guy used click bait and it got him fired.

dipper94 · 2014-09-26T11:10:31+00:00

I'm not Greek, but Rugby is my bit in College right now. Everyone pays 5 dollars at the bar if they're drinking. Man or woman. It's all about that money baby. Every week we charge every scrub that we let in 5 dollars at the bar for a cup, end up making enough money every party to finance the next one, sometimes a little extra for more party equipment or a kickback to members. Guy or girl you pay 5 bucks you can drink yourself as stupid as you want. What you choose to do is on you. But it doesn't matter who you are, unless you're a dues paying member, if you're drunk as hell before you try to enter, you're not getting in.

RayPout · 2014-09-26T15:52:30+00:00

Dumbest thread ever

Comments