One of the articles seems to imply that there were concerns about the criminality of the acts that were alleged to have occurred.


Quotes below are from the WFAA news article - http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dalla...wsuit/98523039


This is where I think we're hitting the crux of the issue. How bad was the actual behavior? Regardless of if they were in underwear or topless or whatever, "forcing" or pressuring members to perform in a compromising situation is hazing. I think it would be especially bad if the one young woman indeed had her top ripped off as described. Someone could bring the ripping off of the vest up as a sexual battery (Kevin, opinions?). Also, I'm not sure if forcing new members to watch a sexualized/naked dance number could be some kind of crime. I think that might be what Ms. Rangitsch was alluding to.


Welllllll......this makes it sound like the Kappa House Mom intentionally set out a video camera in order to specifically tape this event. Or.....was it a previously installed and known security camera that has the video feed to a monitor in the house mom's suite?

Also, I wonder if the house mom is the "Kappa national agent" mentioned in the lawsuit. You know, because she's been hired by the house corporation board, therefore, she's an "agent" of the sorority. (?)


The chapter adviser was there and approved of this event????



Wellllllllll....again.......I cannot personally speak to the rituals of Kappa Kappa Gamma; but, I have a hard time believing that national Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity has official naked dance "rituals" or that it endorses hazing traditions. Let's not play with words here. Your chapter maybe had a secret tradition of having the seniors do a questionable performance for new members....but that doesn't mean it was ok or endorsed by the national organization. Good grief.

^^^ I'm wondering if the taping was intentional, in an effort to document and put a stop to this tradition. The advisor is also named in the lawsuit, so it doesn't sound like she approved.

Even if the taping was intentional, what are the grounds for a lawsuit here? "You taped me doing something criminal and/or stupid when I thought the cameras were all put away"?

:confused:

State laws vary, and that could possibly be a criminal matter.

What is described in the article is hazing, and I find it obviously doubtful that anyone on a local or national level endorsed this as a ritual.

However, I would be very curious to see what their housing contract states regarding the use of secret video monitoring and security equipment.

IF the camera was placed with the specific purpose of catching people in the act, that just makes their nationals look really bad because there are other ways to address this activity. I don't have enough information to assume either way that it was placed there specifically for this event. But if it hypothetically was, I'd be moving out once my contract was over even if I knew that I never had done anything illegal/shameful or
embarrassing. There are things I assume are private in a sorority, such as bathroom stalls and bedrooms, and IF a sorority is going to take steps to secretly tape my sisters for the purposes of addressing hazing, I'm going to assume they would be willing to film me in other venues where I have a reasonable right to privacy.

I don't think that not seeing the value in this type of activity is an "old person" thing...it's a common sense thing! It's absurd that this was something anyone decided to do in the first place.

Here's my take on this. (Not intended as legal opinion or advice) I looked at two of the news stories and reading between the lines:

First, the behavior in the article was not "ritual" but likely some local tradition. How do I know? There is no way that Baylor (a Baptist university just down the road from SMU) would let the same organization on campus if it was a nationwide "ritual."

Second, the 18 seniors who got "expelled from the chapter", were likely the undergraduate officers that let this go on. The ones receiving lesser punishment from the national organization were likely just senior "indians" not the "chiefs."

Third, a big purpose of the lawsuit is likely an attempt to gain bargaining leverage to get the kids that were thrown out reinstated by the national organization which, if this happens, will likely occur sometime after the seniors' graduation. But I do not really know what "expelled from the chapter" means. Does it mean that they were thrown out of the sorority? Or does it mean that they were deactivated but still members?

Lastly, the national organization (like most) is probably just cracking down on undergraduate behavior that is inconsistent with their organization's "values" and policy. The lawsuit's weakness is lack of certain money damages. Since those on the video likely did not sign a model release and because the video may be embarrassing and may have invaded privacy, they may be successful in getting an order preventing any distribution, showing or copying of the video.

Of course, all this is just my opinion and I could be entirely wrong.