Wow, this is truly frightening. I just sent the article to my chapter's EC. Hopefully they will really think about it.

That's certainly true, but I think it's safe to say that a fairly substantial majority of closed chapters are fraternities.

A sorority chapter at the University of Colorado at Boulder got into hazing trouble over the past year or so.

When sororities are closed for this or that it's usually by the national not by the school because the policies of the sorority HQ's are stricter. So, yes and no.

I'm not saying it's JUST fraternities that are hazing or breaking risk management policies . . . only that it's a lot more common for fraternities to haze than sororities. I can see this reflected not only on my own campus, but in the number of cases brought up in this forum (almost none of which mention sororities). Also, when sororities do haze, it's generally less likely to involve alcohol or physical punishments, and more likely to involve emotional-type hazing, therefore less likely to end up with someone dying, and less likely to cause a lawsuit.

I'm also not trying to say that there are more fraternity hazing cases than sorority cases because guys are worse than girls, either . . . :p . I'm just saying that it happens that way because the NPC sorority rules are generally much more restrictive than NIC fraternity rules. About five years ago, Tri Delta HQ kicked out several members from my chapter and put my sorority on social probation for a semester (absolutely no social, philanthropic, or all-Greek events). The offense? Part of the new member programming involved a (completely optional, no-illegal-activities-involved) scavenger hunt, which is against our sorority's bylaws. You would never see a fraternity enacting that kind of punishment for that minor of an offense. I'm not necessarily saying I like the way that the NPC organizations run things all of the time, and there are certainly times when I think they're too strict . . . but at the same time, I think that if the NIC doesn't get strict on risk management and hazing, we will end up losing the Greek system when it comes to cases like these.

sorority support
 

As DeltaBetaBaby stated, if you remember, we did support the fraternities when we enacted alcohol free housing resolutions in our groups. While NPC could not make a policy to govern all of us, each sorority had the responsibility of choosing what level of support they provided. Those in the top tier (AZD is one I remember), they passed a policy saying that their chapters could not hold functions with fraternities that were not alcohol free. Plain and simple. Those in the second tier (most of us, including D Phi E) said you know, that's a bit harsh, but we will not hold functions in fraternity housing that include alcohol. It was a whole functions vs. facilities vs. fraternity argument. Most sororities passed something in one of these two groups. The three sororities (SK, I know for sure) chose to say, we will support those groups who choose to follow the alcohol free housing policy, but we're not going to stop having functions in fraternity housing with those who aren't a part of this policy.

Now, there was a HUGE difference amongst the sororities in how the policies they chose were passed. Many had their international/national executive councils meet and pass something. D Phi E had an alcohol free task force that was made up of students and alums and met for a weekend to make its recommendation. Sigma Kappa took the issue to their entire collegiate delegation at their Convention, and they chose their policy.

No matter how much support we provide as sororities, fraternities have to want to follow these rules, and fraternities have to be willing to cut ties with their chapters who aren't going to comply. HQs needs to be a babysitter and be well aware of what's going on in their chapters, b/c if Sigma Phi's HQs KNEW this was happening (could be found in any reports the chapter sent in, meeting minutes, etc.) then they knew and didn't do anything, and they SHOULD be liable.

OK, now I'm going...I've rambled enough :)

TexasPrincess, there are lots of ways of proving that, but the classic way would be a "smoking gun" internal memo. Let's say that in summer 2000, the regional SPE chairman for Mississippi wrote an e-mail to the nationals VP and mentioned that he enjoyed a beer with a great group of guys that year and MSU summer rush is going great. The e-mail would be produced during the discovery phase of litigation, and it proves beyond a doubt that people at nationals knew what was going on.

FYI for the non-lawyers: Mississippi has become almost a running joke among litigators because it is known for having the most plaintiff-friendly jurors in the world. If you want to slip and fall, do it in Mississippi. Juries there will hand over millions like they're passing out candy at Halloween. If this case were being litigated in New York, I'd laugh and say the corporate death penalty is just a bargaining chip that would never, ever be used. (It's designed for much worse situations, like where a company's whole board of directors agreed to start dumping cyanide into a city's water supply.) But in Mississippi? I can't laugh at that. Maybe they're actually serious.

Ivy, J.D.

Re: sorority support
 

Kappa is also one of those in the top tier. The other two groups on my campus, DG and Theta, are in the tier below that-- they may have dry functions in "wet" facilities. We may have functions with "wet" fraternities, but the functions must be dry and may not be in their facilities. I'm not sure how this decision was made-- any other Kappas want to weigh in?

Additionally, our local panhellenic had to pass a similar resolution about panhellenic mixers in fraternity facilities, and we had to go with Kappa's policy because it's the strictest.

That's one of the things that really worries me. NPR did a story on Mississippi juries a few weeks ago. Totally out of control.

IvySpice, thanks for clearing that up for me.

ktsnake, I definately agree with you on the accountability thing. 33girl also made a good point by saying that many national sororities are more likely to get closed by their nationals than by the school because of stricter rules.

Higher degree of accountability? Maybe on paper but not in reality. Just look at all the national fraternities that have chapters operating underground even though the local governing body tried to shut the chapter down. You can't have it both ways.

Ivy. Since you are a lawyer I have a Q.

If a fraternity serves a guest and the guest drives to a bar and wrecks the fraterntiy gets sued. If the guest is at a bar and the bar serves the same person and he leaves the bar and drives to a fraternity house and wrecks, the fraternity still gets sued. What is the deal? Shouldn't the bar be responsible for the person they served and the fraternity responsible for the person they served?

"Higher degree of accountability? Maybe on paper but not in reality. Just look at all the national fraternities that have chapters operating underground even though the local governing body tried to shut the chapter down. You can't have it both ways.

Max,

Can you go a little deeper into that thought?

Not necessarily disagreeing yet, but it would seem to me that an active chapter of a national fraternity would be accountable to the national, the university and itself.

An underground chapter would be accountable only to itself.

A local would be accountable to itself, and probably the university, depending on how the Greek System works at that school.

What other factors would you see? I have no experience with undergroung chapters, and all of the sorority and fraternities were nationals on our campus when I was there. Still are, I think.

edit

I think you must have been typing your question above while I was typing this. My guess is that the fraternity could be held accountable if it was a fraternity function at the bar.

By the way, it's not only GLO's who are affected by this kind of thing. The past two places I've worked have prohibited alcohol of any kind in their facilities (even for parties), and won't reimburse alcohol expenses at business lunches and dinners due to the same kind of liability issues. In fact, one of them doesn't even have alcohol at parties held off site. Same reasons.

Not an attorney here, but a strategy often employed is to throw mud at everyone in these cases and see where it sticks. The bar AND the fraternity AND the bartender and anyone else you could conceive of would probably be named in a suit.

The answer to your question is that you sue both because there is joint and several tort liability. Black's Law Dictionary defines "joint and several liability" as the liability of joint tortfeasors (i.e., liability that an individual or business either shares with other tortfeasors or bears individually without the others). When you are a plaintiff's attorney you are going after the deep pockets and you bring the action against anyone you have evidence of having liability under your theories.

If the action is for negligence then the bar or fraternity will most likely have the standard defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of risk and comparitive negligence (based on state law). How successful those defenses will be varies based on state.

Ugh. Flashback to torts. I was going to answer this one, but I played lawyer enough today on the Holly/Megan's Law thread.
GO GC lawyers and lawyers in the making!:D