> They can't even organize around a common interest unless it passes some bureaucrat's standard of diversity? It depends upon how the members behave, rather th

> They can't even organize around a common interest unless it passes some bureaucrat's standard of diversity? It depends upon how the members behave, rather than the common interest they are supposedly organized around. I remember student organizations from my days on campus that sensible students wouldn't associate themselves with. The stated interest may have been some form of outdoor activity, but they were better known for their hard partying. Hard partying being an euphemism in this case. They would fall short of diversity, equity, and inclusion since their riskier activities (activities that had nothing to do with their stated purpose) would drive away those who weren't interested, couldn't afford to take the risk, or were the target of the risk. For those who think it is worse today than it was 25 years ago, I somehow doubt it. Though, perhaps, that doubt is borne from a hope that it isn't any worse. Crimes as extreme as sexual assault were real, and that was at a time when something that should be taken seriously was taken less seriously. Then there was the common stuff such as vandalism and other property crimes. It happened then and it happens now. The article makes it sound like the university is being far too heavy handed in its treatment of these student organizations. Perhaps they are. On the other hand, the author is ignoring some of the darker aspects of student life. (I also cringe at the use of student life in this discussion since a good portion of students, if not the vast majority, avoided it because they knew it was wrong.)