University officials charged for hazing

[kathykd2005]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

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?

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?

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by NebraskaDelt

Interesting article and the ramifications are huge.

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

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
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

[GreekGirl06]

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

[Kevin]

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.

[DeltAlum]

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.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by kathykd2005

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?

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!

[exlurker]

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

[UGAalum94]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

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?

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.

Originally Posted by AlphaGamUGAAlum

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.)

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by exlurker

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

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.

[dznat187]

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

[exlurker]

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.

[Tom Earp]

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

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