What I'm missing is how this article is HM-relevant. The fraternity house is generally scapegoated in the article as the locust of bad deeds because they tend

What I'm missing is how this article is HM-relevant. 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.