University officials charged for hazing
 

Interesting article and the ramifications are huge.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_215123845.html

Thanks for alerting us to this, Nebraska Delt. The update to the GC discussion of the death is interesting. The "old" GC thread is at:

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...ad.php?t=85890

Today's Newsday online has a article about the new developments, similar to the one you mentioned. The Newsday article is at:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wi...0,911868.story

Brief excerpts are:

The five officials and students charged were:
_ Ada Badgley, 31, of Lawrenceville, the university's director of Greek Life.
_ Anthony Campbell, 51, of Lawrenceville, the dean of students.
_ Adriano DiDonato, 22, of Princeton, residence director and house master of the Phi Kappa Tau fraternity house.
_ Dominic Olsen, 21, of Kenilworth, pledge master of Spring 2007 Phi Kappa Tau pledge class.
_ Michael J. Tourney, 21, of Randolph, the fraternity chapter president.

. . . the Mercer County prosecutor, wouldn't disclose the exact evidence that resulted in a grand jury indicting the five. . . . he has said previously that the investigation revealed some of the pledges drank entire bottles of hard liquor in under an hour.

. . . Law enforcement's search of the Phi Kappa Tau fraternity house . . . also resulted in three students being charged with drug-related offenses. . . .

What is interesting is the typical Suing everyone in a situation like this!:rolleyes:

The thing is that upsets me most is that His Own Brothers did not take a positiion to care for him!:mad:

Now, golly gee whiz, they feel bad!:rolleyes:

It's kind of hard to "care" for someone who has alcohol poisoning--they took him to the hospital, but they should not have allowed/encouraged him to drink at all, or even that much, in the first place. Someone--his chapter president or even other pledge brothers--should have stepped in and said enough is enough. The fact of the matter is, they didn't. This is why chapters are supposed to have risk management--unfortunately, some people ignore this very important aspect of proper chapter operations.

This is awful. This could have huge effects on all campuses. Greek Advisors can not be at every party (especially the ones they don't know about) and they shouldn't have to try. They don't work for any particular organization, they are just there to help coordinate the greek life and lay down the law if necessary. They don't get told everything, they don't know everything that's going on. The students still do whatever they want. No one can save anyone from themselves. :( I really want to be a Greek Advisor or work in campus life, but this really makes me think twice...

So, I am still asking why these other People are being sued?

They are being sued because they were in leadership positions for either the university, or the fraternity. That's what happens when you take on responsibility--you agree to take the good with the bad, as well as legal ramifications for what occurs under your jurisdiction. Sure it sucks, but that's what happens in the real world.

Tom, from the several news reports I've seen, I think that technically they aren't being "sued." They have been indicted by a grand jury -- it's a criminal prosecution, not a civil lawsuit. But my terminology may be off somewhat.

As to your question: according to the news stories, which are all I have to go on, the county prosecutor has stated that the grand jury indicted the university officials due to the way they did (or didn't) do "oversight" of campus fraternity / sorority life.

Edited to add: Please remember that people charged with a crime, or indicted by a grand jury, etc., are presumed innocent until / unless found guilty.

You're not off at all. Being criminally charged is not the same as being sued.

True--I mispoke when I said "sue." They are being charged for these reasons, and they could also later be SUED for wrongful death if they lose in court.

Technically, they could be sued for wrongful death regardless of how they do on the criminal charges. The elements of a claim for wrongful death are different from the elements for aggravated hazing, the crime with which they are charged. The burden of proof is different as well -- in a criminal case, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Liability on a wrongful death claim only has to be shown by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). That means that the same evidence might not be enough for a criminal conviction but might be enough for a civil judgment.

True and true--so technically, I was correct in saying that they could be sued, in either case, but they have not been sued--YET.

Exactly!

Oh, once again, they are sued or criminaly charged for what ever for any reason, they are sued or brought up in a suit from their position only?

Well, if there is a definition of being Sued or Charged for a Criminal Act, I am still wondering why?

Hahhaa.

Tom you know I have no issue with you, but I explained above why they were being held accountable for the circumstance, and so have others... What do you need explained, exactly?

I was about to post an update in the original thread when I saw yours.
A few more links, which may have some update or different information but also show once again how wide and fast a "Greek problem" spreads:mad::(
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/a...kingdeath.html
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?se...cal&id=5537340
http://www.wnbc.com/news/13814443/detail.html

As a student of rider University I have had the pleasure of knowing both of the officials that were charged in the indictment that Dean is actually a member of the community service fraternity Alpha phi Omega. The second official that was charged is the director of Greek life I've also gotten to know her as well the fraternity in question Phi Kappa Tau has officially been disbanded from our university campus nothing like this has ever happened in the history of our university as far as I know I can only hope that they will not disband all Greek organizations from campus seeing as how this was an isolated incident and has never happened in the universities 142 years.

But we as a college campus community have all bonded together Greeks and non-Greeks alike if to inshore that this never happens again

Seeing as how Rider is a private school, I guess this could result in the closing of the entire greek system. No university official is going to want to risk being criminally prosecuted for something they would have had no way of knowing about.

It seems to be a ludicrous result that this could result in criminal prosecutions for the campus' officials. Fraternity officers, etc., I can see.. beyond that? No.

Unfortunately, I'm not at all surprized.

Well, maybe by the criminal charges, but I've seen this kind of thing coming and have commented here numerous times that a major reason for more universities cracking down on Greek Systems (and other campus organizations as well) is the (somewhat) recent tendency to sue anyone from a house president to a university president. This could include Chapter Advisors or House Corporation members as well.

Our undergraduates, for the most part, either don't understand or don't care -- or figure it couldn't happen to them.

If I were invited to serve as a division officer, chapter advisor or house corporation member again, and I've been all of the above, I would think long and hard.

Even with the liability insurance the fraternity provides, the hassle just isn't worth it. Especially if criminal charges are involved, which opens a whole new can of worms.

Nothing actually, I am just saying they are in the line of fire in a sue happy society or being charged because they work at this School, but were not involved!


True?

As D A said, if this progresses much further, will Colleges close as no one wants to work there for fear of being accused of a crime or sued? Well, kind of my interpretation! LOL!

A recent article from the Times of Trenton NJ includes statements by -- among others -- some lawyers about the indictment of administrators:

http://blog.nj.com/timesupdates/2007...istrators.html

I hope that the administrators are cleared and that they are able to seek some redress from being improperly charged and maybe tried.

(Of course, I'm assuming that they had no knowledge or participation in the fraternities unregistered event.)

Unless we want to go back to the days of college students being viewed as minors in the complete care of their universities despite in most cases these same students being over the legal age of majority (with of course alcohol purchase and/or consumption being the exception), its very difficult to see how in the world the administrators who supervise organizations can actually be considered guilty of committing crimes based on behavior they didn't engage in themselves and had no knowledge of.

It just seems crazy that they were indicted when there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the hazing would have been tolerated had they known of it or that they did know about it.

Do you really think we're better off treating college students like high school students in terms of university oversight of social events?

Doesn't this seem nuts?

I've got no problem with the charges against the people in the organization who were involved. But the administrator being held responsible isn't going to be a move in the right direction.

I have no idea, and neither do you.

They were not sued by some sue-happy litigant, Tom. They were indicted by a grand jury, which presumably heard sufficient evidence to believe that these two school officials should be charged with hazing.

New Jersey criminal law (N.J.S.A. 2C: 40-3a) says: "A person is guilty of hazing . . . if, in connection with initiation of applicants or members of student or fraternal organizations, he knowingly or recklessly organizes, promotes, facilitates, or engages in any conduct, other than competitive athletic events, which places or may place another person in danger of bodily injury." (My emphasis) It is "aggravated hazing" -- what these two officials have been charged with -- if death results.

I must assume, though it is only an assumption, that sufficient evidence was presented to the grand jury that these two officials had been criminally negligent, perhaps turning blind eyes, to the point where their negligence facilitated hazing.

I recognize as well as anyone that grand juries make mistakes and that DAs may not present cases based in fact to grand juries, although I continue to believe that the Duke lacrosse incidents of the world are the exception rather than the rule. Most DAs I know value their integrity enough to make that the case.

With the caveat given above that grand juries can be misled and can err, I am assuming that they would not have been indicted unless there was at least some evidence that they did have knowledge or but for their negligence should have had knowledge.

The negligence standard would require that the administrators have a duty to know about this sort of hazing... or at least to investigate. I think the prosecution has an uphill battle with this one, but it all depends on the facts.

I would agree it's likely to be an uphill battle.

Along with the facts, though, it will depend on whatever the law in New Jersey may be. Many states have been moving toward imposing duties that would not have been considered even a few decades ago, especially with regard to alcohol and safety (such as duties imposed on the host of a party).

I have no idea what the standards in New Jersey might be. I take it from the article linked above that there is no precedent for this kind of case there -- maybe prosecutors are hoping that the court's will enunciate some kind of duty.

Thanks for the link:

Three quotes from the article strike me:

"Bocchini (the County Attorney) said the indictment by the grand jury sends a "clear message that there is culpability involved in the ingestion of alcoholic beverages on college campuses. Rider University is involved in this today, but it could have been any college or university across the United States."

"Campbell's inclusion in the indictments could reverberate nationwide as colleges struggle to cope with underage drinking and on-campus fraternities. Fierberg said the indictment of an administration official sends a huge message to both fraternities and the campuses that house them.

"I am not aware of a similar circumstance and I think it speaks to the seriousness of the prosecution, the tremendous tragedy this family has unnecessarily experienced, and how young people on campuses must be protected by schools and school officials," he said.

The final underlined comment would seem to ask for a return to the In Loco Parentis situation that we lived with in the sixties.

The question is whether this message is being received by local chapters -- and whether anyone is taking this seriously.

You can be sure that the people in the administration buildings are.

Whether there is a conviction here, or a judgement against the uniersity in whatever lawsuit will probably follow, the outcome could have huge implications.

From what I remember from the news coverage of this story, wasnt the fraternity 'shut down'. I think the fraternity was in trouble for other issues and were repremanded by the university. Wouldnt that mean the university did their job to prevent hazing.

It is ridiculous to expect university officials to know everything that is going on on campus and be able to control all students. Only brainwashing or mind control could do that. There will always be students who make bad decisions. Some will be more dangerous than others, but to blame university officials for the actions of students is very scary.

I work as a live-in fraternity advisor and this case has really frightened many of us who work in the field. As much as I can keep an eye on what is going on in my house, I can't be there at every moment of every day nor can I make good decisions for my fraternity men. I can educate them and be there for them but ultimately decisions are their's. Granted officials and advisors should be able to spot trouble issues.

I think this whole case will bring to the forefront the whole live-in/housemanager job. Many schools are beginning to require professional live-in advisors, like myself (with a masters) and are moving away from having members of the fraternity serve as the house manager/advisor. I think Rider is making good strides in changing these positions and hopefully other schools will see the benfit of this change and see how it is worth the added expenses.

I really am interested to see how this all pans out and what effect it has on those working in higher ed administration and specifically those working in greek advisor positions. In general greek life is entry level and does not pay that well. If you add in the possibility of being charged or sued because of a chapter's actions, there may be even fewer people willing to work in Greek life and the retention of greek advisors will continue to decline.

Natalie

Another recent article on the charges:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/06/rider

The article mentions activities besides the drinking, including push-ups and sit-ups and a scavenger hunt. The article indicates that those activities weren't required of the pledges, but the older members wanted the pledges to participate in them. It wouldn't surprise me if there was moderate to strong pressure for pledges to take part.

Reader comments following the article seem to run the gamut of likely responses.

Sorry, the latest I received that they were sued=Indictited for this.

They are sued for intictment by the Grand Jury Judge for trial!:mad:

One more try, Tom. "Sued" means a civil action has been brought. They haven't been "sued for indictment," because there's no such thing. They've simply been indicted or charged.

Indict = criminal charge.
Sue = civil claim.

And there is no such thing as a grand jury judge.

The fraternity after the party face severe penalties from the school's administration however no real official action was taken by the University because we were waiting to see is criminal charges were going to be brought up against the university. They were not allowed to wear their Greek letters they could not participate in Greek week however many of the brothers shaved their Greek letters in their hair. And they had other restrictions as well but I know for a fact on the finished book that over half of our campus is supporting both of the officials that have been charged I personally think that neither of them should be charged because they weren't there it was the fraternity's fault because they didn't go through the right channels that is required from the Greek councils.

FYI/General information on Grand Juries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-476es.html

In NJ:
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r3-6.htm

More than a passing interest for me as my girl-friend has been on a Federal Grand Jury for over 6 months now.

What about that old adage that a DA can get an indictment on a ham sandwich?

Okay, but I asked a judge about the difference and he said pretty much the same thing you did.

Suit is civil
Indictment is criminal

He basically said that an indictment is a suit of criminal intent of a crime. A grand jury is a panel where rights are thrown out. There must be a jury leader. Is this a judge?

Natalie,

Very well stated. It hard enough to find alumni and outsiders willing to do the work to help care for a fraternal chapter- and if these prosecutions are successful, then it will become even harder. In fact, the more coverage this situation gets- the more reluctance it will create no matter what the outcome.

Reading through the articles I get the sense of a prosecutor who cares more about sending a message and setting precedent than in dealing with the facts at hand. Mike Nifong reincarnated?

We do not know the facts at hand, but I think any reasonable person can agree that University officials could not have the direct ability to forsee the imminent danger of a specific occurrence of this kind of event and effectively prevent it except in extremely unusual circumstances of insight. An example of that might be a University official who was an alumnus of a chapter where such an event took place and had been present- and no evidence of any such circumstances has been presented to date.

This is going to sound very hard and cruel, but it is right time to say it.

Looking back at my chapter- I cannot remember a single pledge class where there was not at least one person who did not drink alcohol at all. And I cannot remember any events where pledges were physically forced to drink, or nagged into excess drinking.

I am sure it happens- but I have never seen any evidence to suggest it is an epidemic problem. I am still waiting for anyone to produce substantive evidence that drinking-related deaths among college students are convincingly disproportionately associated with membership in a Greek organization.

Now, houses where that kind of thing happens on a routine basis are going to naturally attract the kind of kids who want to drink heavily in the first place.

This is still a bad thing, but not in the sense that totally innocent youths are being corrupted- rather people with bad habits tend to congregrate.

Going back to my example about non-drinkers or infrequent drinkers, there were voluntarily sober people at every Greek party I ever attended. It is not that hard to say no if you really don't want to drink, or if you don't want to drink irresponsibly.

And so I find it hard to believe that a fraternity can systematically corrupt youths so quickly. That assumes that at 18, the average young man is weak-minded and not much of a man.

Perhaps this young man's parents should reflect on what example they might have set and how their childrearing choices might have contributed to this.

Maybe they are not to blame at all. Maybe this was an isolated incident.

But just think for a second about the fact this young man made a very bad choice.

Does it make more sense the conditioning for that bad choice came from a few months of fraternity membership or nearly 18 years of parenting?

Consider also how many of us have imbibed incredible amounts of liquor a time or two in college. I sure did- I remember those 2 incidents well (or rather the 2 day hangover that followed.)

In the grand scheme of things, this unfortunate young man paid the hardest price for something a great many of us have done a time or two.

That is a tragedy- but it is no excuse for this kind of criminal prosecution.

I do not see a search for justice here. I see a deliberate attempt to wipe out Greek Life by making it impossible for it to exist.

Natalie, it is a worthwhile concept to have well compensated individuals living in and running Greek houses- but it is not financially practical.

And as many fraternities have learned the hard way, when you have a dry or strictly managed house that is populated with members who are not prone to making good choices about conducting themselves- a few guys/girls in the chapter renting a house nearby will soon be host to a completely unsupervised environment where the drinking and other things will take place anyway.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds, but unless some extraordinary circumstances emerge regarding the University officials and direct knowledge of events in this particular chapter- I don't see this prosecution succeeding in the long run (meaning in the appeals process if there is a conviction.)

Tom;
Please take the time to read the links in my earlier posting.

As I said, "I recognize as well as anyone that grand juries make mistakes and that DAs may not present cases based in fact to grand juries." Most DAs I have run across, however, would never try to get an indictment on a ham sandwich.

Of course, I've never practiced law in New York, where the ham sandwich quip, first uttered by a subsequently disbarred judge, originated. ;)

I really have no clue what you mean when you say "a grand jury is a panel where rights are thrown out." It is not a grand jury's role to hear all of the evidence in a case or to decide guilt -- that responsibility belongs to the petit jury (the jury that actually hears a trial). The grand jury's role is simply to decide if the prosecutor has enough evidence to proceed with an indictment. If it determines that he does, then the purpose of the trial is to see how that evidence stacks up against other evidence and holds up to challenge.

Judges do not sit with grand juries, although they may occasionally be called in to rule on certain questions of things like privilege. As with petit juries, grand juries have foremen. In my jurisdiction, at least, the foreman is appointed by a judge.

I know it is against all "net" protocal to quote oneself but it ready seems as if the person(s) who should read these just are not.:(

While we all can do IMHO or IIRC, might be nice to see something a bit more based on fact.

But of course, that is just MVHO:D;):)

While doing an unrelated search, found this news update:
AP NewsBreak: Rider administrators warned about hazing?

By CHRIS NEWMARKER,
AP
Posted: 2008-06-04 14:42:50
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - The parents of a dead Rider University student are now claiming that school administrators were personally warned about dangerous hazing at a fraternity chapter blamed for their son's death last year.

Lawyers for Gary DeVercelly Jr.'s parents filed a motion last week to expand their lawsuit against the university to include two school administrators, Ada Badgley and Cassie Iacovelli.

The lawyers say the administrators were told of excessive drinking during pledge season but did nothing to stop it at the on-campus Phi Kappa Tau house........
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/ap-news...04144209990042