Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity Sdsu Suspended For Hazing
 

SAN DIEGO, Friday, April 30, 2004 San Diego State University has suspended Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity for three years after a campus investigation determined the organization engaged in hazing during the fall 2003 semester. Four members also are undergoing disciplinary procedures and may face sanctions ranging from probation to expulsion.
“The university has zero tolerance for hazing, and we’re particularly concerned with activities that may injure students or put their health at risk,” said Dr. James Kitchen, vice president for Student Affairs. “We will hold organizations and individuals accountable for their actions, and this case merits a strong response.”
The fraternity’s suspension means it will lose all on-campus status privileges until the end of the spring 2007 semester, including participation in university or Associated Students-sponsored events; applying for Associated Students funding or conducting its own fund-raising activities on campus; free or discounted use of university or Associated Students facilities; participation in Greek Week or other social, recreational or recruiting events sponsored by the National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC); the right to vote or hold office in the NPHC; and chapter participation in intramural sports leagues.
In addition, the chapter must meet a number of other conditions prior to reinstatement, such as not allowing members initiated in spring 2003 or before to participate in chapter-related activities while suspended (suspended chapters are still permitted to participate in leadership workshops, community service, and other activities approved by the SDSU Center for Fraternity and Sorority Life); sponsoring a hazing workshop during the 2004-05 year for all NPHC organizations at SDSU, and this workshop must be attended by all Kappa Alpha Psi active and prospective members, plus 60 percent of the total undergraduate membership of SDSU’s other NPHC organizations; and having all Kappa Alpha Psi chapter members sign an affidavit indicating they have read, understood and will comply with SDSU’s Greek Guidelines policy on hazing.
The investigation, by the university’s Center for Student Rights & Responsibilities, concluded the fraternity violated the campus’ hazing policies between September 28, 2003 and October 7, 2003 by subjecting prospective members to several forms of physical abuse.
The university will review the suspension’s length and terms at the end of the spring 2006 semester.
The fraternity has the right to appeal this decision to Vice President Kitchen in writing by May 13 if it believes the investigation’s findings or subsequent sanctions are unreasonable. There is no further level of appeal.
The Kappa Alpha Psi chapter was established in 1951, making it the oldest historically African-American fraternity at SDSU.

Re: Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity Sdsu Suspended For Hazing
 

...waiting for the university's reasoning for only including the NPHC chapters in an anti-hazing workshop...

wondering the same thing...
 

This is a concern that affects more than just the NPHC, so why haven't any provisions been made to ensure that ALL SDSU Greek Life is educated in regards to hazing? On top of that (I know this may be considered "bogus" to say) BUT if it was specifically the campus's chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity problem, then why must ALL of the Divine Nine (or whichever fraternity/sorority represented on the campus) attend this workshop? If they(the other HBGLO's) didn't have any reported incidents of hazing, then why must they be subject to a problem that isn't specifically theirs? The historical relationship of hazing and HBGLO's doesn't seem to fit in this context, because it is not JUST a HBGLO issue, it's THAT above named chapter!

Just wondering...Seems a bit biased.

enigma_AKA

Question (because I wrote a paper about hazing differences this semester):

Do you think anti-hazing education programs should be different between NPHC Fraternities, NPHC Sororities, IFC and NPC? Granted, some of the information presented could be the same, but do you think that those different groups define/see hazing differently?

PsychTau

not bogus soror... my sentiments exactly, i was just too lazy to type all that. but i knew *somebody* would "feel" me!

Unless this is a sanction that the NPHC specifially put on them (which I seriously doubt, if they are suspended under the university) it seems as if the university is taking advantage of the "historical" perception of hazing in HBGLOs-- this in itself is bogus, because the ridiculous amount of hazing and people dying left and right in non-HBGLOS simply isn't NEARLY as publicized in the media.

I'll be suprised if the NPHC at SDSU doesn't put up a fight over this, and the university has really dug it's own hole-- all the rest of the sanctions are eventually going to be called into question as well, if they've pulled a whack move on this point.

I honestly don't know... I've never really looked at the differences between how members in different systems think about hazing. And also, it's such an individual matter, that one person in an org isn't necessarily going to think at all the way the next person is. That would be an interesting dialogue, though... I'm interested in what you discovered in your research.

Cosign soror, on the whole NPHC "putting up a fight" (they'd betta!:eek: ) ! Without the adminstration directly coming out and saying so, we can only imagine "who" (all) the target group is/directed at. The university is taking license to address something that has been a problem with HBGLO's (hell, ALL GLO's), but is going about it in the WRONG manner.

As far as answering PsychTau's question regarding anti-hazing education (*please keep in mind this is solely my own observation and opinion...my .08 cents, not to be taken for the WORD of the NPHC and it's respective orgs*), the NPHC has instituted measures towards the prevention, education, reporting AND reprimanding for said incidents. With this in mind, every NPHC frat./sor. on campus is well aware of what hazing is defined as (and in some cases, more specifically financial, mental, physical, emotional, etc. types of hazing), so this is not to be taken as a situation where they "didn't know" or miscontrued their actions (which is why I said before that the administration/powers that be needed to get on the chapter's case, NOT the entire local governing body!). And though I am not entirely educated regarding the IFC and NPC policies on hazing, observing the NPC groups on my campus, they too have dealt with incidents of hazing in their sister chapters/national governing councils and are well aware of how it's defined, dealty with, etc. So, no, I do not think there needs to be a seperate workshop. This is basically because outside of the University's control, there are things instituted for consideration of hazing. It's the respective schools obligation to educate ALL Greeks, regardless of historical affiliation to reinforce the education they've recieved/been taught by their governing councils, NOT to target any one group for the sake of "defining/seeing" hazing. Hazing is wrong, no matter how you try to cut it. And both sides are well aware and have been told/warned/reprimanded/whatever. They are adults (usually) and can fully comprehend someone telling them what they willl and will not stand for.

I know this is long, but I felt I needed to say it...:p

enigma_AKA

ETA: I, too, am interested in what your findings were, and also to ask "What would you suggest, from a scholarly standpoint"?

I think there might be some veeeeeery subtle differences between what defines hazing officially, considering the "order of operations" that different governing bodies have. For example, on my way back to my dorm, I see one of my friends standing outside in the DARK next to a dumpster with six boxes of Krispy Kreme douhgnuts, and I'm like what in the WORLD are you doing? He says he's pledging a frat, and that they have to sell these doughnuts before the end of the night... all the pledges are scattered around campus in CRAZY locations, begging people to buy doughnuts so they can go back home. This was a pretty open and public thing, everyone saw them, so I'm guessing that isn't defined as hazing for that frat. Having pledge classes "public and out in the open" leaves a lot of things open to interpretation as far as what a chapter can be called to account on. For the most part, hazing is a cut and dry matter, but I think there *are* a lot of subtleties between what's acceptable and not officially or even locally.

not quite sure I said what I really meant to say there.. it's been a long day and i'm not thinking all that clearly :p

hell naw....that dude admitted he was pledging? discretion is NOT the word of the day..

clarify: he was pledging a non-BGLO... that in and of itself is a difference, he could do that, because i've seen chapters with their lists of pledges on their chapter websites. It's just a different way of doing things. :cool:

That is definitely hazing.

I don't think the problem was that it was an issue of hazing, but more of the fact that because he was trying to gain entry in a GLO, which meant he fell under the jurisdiction of some National Governing Body (or if he were local, the school's governing structure for Greek Life), and at any rate, was doing something out of line.
Hmmmm, wouldn't that be considered financial hazing or some type? But I suppose, now that I think about it, on the other side of the argument, that one could say that these pledges weren't being hazed, that they were showing their commitment to service, etc, etc. You know there are loopholes to everything! :rolleyes:

What to do when someone's physical, emotional or mental health is NOT at stake, but he/she are still subject to tasks by force for entry??

enigma_AKA

I found it odd that they only required the NPHC orgs to attend, BUT, I also found it strange that they would base this fraternities ability to return to campus on OTHER orgs attending this educational event. They don't have control of whether 60% of other organizations attend the seminar that they sponsor.

The selling the Krispy Kreme story would definitely count as hazing in my book.

Dee

I know for a fact that NPC and NIC groups have entirely different definitions of what hazing is. I can only assume that NPHC orgs in general have a very different idea about the definition of the word as well.

I see a dialogue here, but I think we're all talking about different things.

DaisyKLP, when you said:

Originally posted by DaisyKLP For you it is hazing. NPC would be pretty clear on the fact that for them, this is indeed hazing. NIC would be right there with you on it. Sometimes state laws may agree with you, sometimes, they won't.

In hazing dialogues between different groups, it's important to pay attention to what the other parties believe hazing is before we go and accuse them of it using an entirely different definition.

Who in the Hell Cares if it is a certain Greek Organization!:mad:

Geeze, HPC, NHPC, NIC, MCHP or what ever!:mad:

It still reflects upon All of us who have Greek Letters.

Why dont some of you get your heads out of the sand?:confused:

We All are becoming distinct at many Schools! Does it bode for us no matter what?