Editor, the Auburn Plainsman
I am a FH Alum (93) and, like many others, think that the sanctions against FH fraternity are excessive.
There were three hazing items listed in The Plainsman article: verbal harassment, requiring pledges to perform errands or chores and conducting interrogations.
If there was verbal harassment, it was, much like the "interrogations," isolated.
FH is about "Building Men," not tearing men down.
If FH was not serious about what it is doing on the campus of Auburn University, it would not have expelled three brothers who were involved in any hazing activity.
As far as the chores that a pledge does, they are no different from any chores a brother performs.
This is not a hazing violation (Ala. Statute 16-1-23).
I don't understand how the IFC could place a 36-month suspension on FH given that FH took steps immediately to solve a problem.
(This is much like the NCAA sanctions against Auburn even though Pat Dye stepped down).
If there is an issue with a hazing incident, a pledge should go to his big brother and the fraternity president and allow them the opportunity to handle the situation.
If that doesn't work, then, they can call the hotline.
WAR EAGLE!
Rob Etheridge
Auburn alumnus
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
![A. even my dog understands no[43].jpg](https://snworksceo.imgix.net/atp/78c431ef-af6f-4991-aed6-5a2c6136a291.sized-1000x1000.jpg?w=1500&ar=16%3A9&fit=crop&crop=faces&facepad=3&auto=format)
