As a former employee of a fraternity I read this whole thing, and am confused about its point. I guess the author was trying for "Fraternities are bad because bad things happen to people that visit them" but all of the cited cases have nothing to do with the fraternity and have everything to do with a bunch of 18-year-olds being drunk and in a house together. Am I missing something?
The fraternity house is generally scapegoated in the article as the locust of bad deeds because they tend indeed to be a locust for collegiate social interaction. Some bad things really do happen in fraternities.
I'll say though, the ~"60 people died in incidents related to fraternities over 10 years" stat is almost laughable if the author wasn't apparently serious. From a risk management perspective, focusing on 6 people a year out of 10's of millions that interact within a fraternity environment doesn't seem like the right prioritization.
Sexual assault happens more frequently and concern there is well-placed. But I do wonder if its incident rate wouldn't simply transfer to the general school population should, for example, fraternities be close on a campus.
It just seems to make sense to me that, if folks are going to come together and socialize with inhibition-inhibiting substances, some people with bad intentions are going to act on them, whether at a fraternity house party or a non-fraternity house party.