Beta Chi at Leigh Univ

[a.e.B.O.T.]

It is that literal. I am going to graduate school for higher education, and I am currently taking Law in Higher Education. So, I asked my professor to elaborate about whether alcohol present in front of pledges constitutes under the legal definition and he said yes, because the pledges could feel obligated due to their status within the situation, and therefor be 'discomforted.' He said hazing laws all are vague and usually whatever would cause discomfort, but certain state have specifics and degrees of hazing outline in their state laws.

I think hazing laws are ridiculous in regards to its broadness, but its there. It all depends on what a school wants to take action on. At my school, we were told that if a pledge is at a party, leave, because you can't drink with them or be around alcohol with them. Of course, we nor anybody followed this. It was one of those things you say when certain people are around.

[ZZ-kai-]

The line is gray, thats the issue. If it's the Beta House or a brothers house, and there's a function going on where alcohol is present (especially if it's being used), then there are issues. If a pledge is at home and his dad has alcohol, there is obviously not an issue.

Each situation is unique and is addressed as a such.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

ZZKai is right... the law is up for interpretation, and how far the enforcers want to take it. Alcohol present at a pledge event, or brothers drinking around pledges is what I presented to my professor, to which is what he said was hazing.

[Oldest_Pledge]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

... brothers drinking around pledges ...

So how far away do these brother have to be away from any pledges to NOT be committing an act of hazing?

Two 21 year old actives are legally sitting in bar off campus having a malt beverage, a group of pledges from another chapter is coming into town to visit the chapter...they drive by the bar.

Did the actives just commit an act of hazing? I have three lawyers who say yes and two that say no based on aeBOT's professor view.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by Oldest_Pledge

So how far away do these brother have to be away from any pledges to NOT be committing an act of hazing?

Two 21 year old actives are legally sitting in bar off campus having a malt beverage, a group of pledges from another chapter is coming into town to visit the chapter...they drive by the bar.

Did the actives just commit an act of hazing? I have three lawyers who say yes and two that say no based on aeBOT's professor view.

'Pledge;
Just what are you trying to get at with all of these "hypotheticals"?
You could do the same argument as about with three 50 year old greek alumni at a lounge and a group of pledges drive over it while on an over pass.

Is there any kind of direct connection?
Are they even close to being in the same place?
Are they being served?
Do they even know that the others are in the area?
NO

And your "hypothetical" do not seem to have much bearing on the matter that started this thread.
None of us seem to be litigators directly involved in it.

So we are all just going to have to wait to see just how this matter gets worked out.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by Oldest_Pledge

So how far away do these brother have to be away from any pledges to NOT be committing an act of hazing?

Two 21 year old actives are legally sitting in bar off campus having a malt beverage, a group of pledges from another chapter is coming into town to visit the chapter...they drive by the bar.

Did the actives just commit an act of hazing? I have three lawyers who say yes and two that say no based on aeBOT's professor view.

Lol, ok, well, I don't think any school or law enforcement would press that. I don't think pledges would feel obligated to drink if another fraternity was drinking... I don't think pledges would feel obligated to drink if their own fraternity bros were drinking, I just know how it was at my school, and was my professor told me.

[EE-BO]

Jon- I think the point of the hypotheticals is to get right down to the specific points of law to consider. We do this here often- trying to get very specific on RM issues and the applicable rules.

And thank you MysticCat for your input- your comments are much in line with what I was thinking to be the case based on my reading of our state laws and consideration of the kinds of scenarios OldestPledge has put forth.

The real law to be worried about here is provision of alcohol to a minor- not hazing. In this type of situation I see a hazing charge coming into play perhaps from the standpoint that on the facts presented it is reasonable to conclude that pledges were coerced into committing an illegal act (the extremity of this situation I think justifies playing armchair lawyer since the outcome is going to make it hard for facts to present otherwise), but I don't see where the mere presence of alcohol creates hazing.

And in the grand scheme of reality, providing alcohol to minors is going to be a far easier charge to prosecute in the end- so the hazing discussion is interesting and useful for the purposes of discussion and getting to the heart of what laws chapters should think about- but ultimately on the facts known to date I think this could be a slam dunk for a prosecutor without having to touch hazing laws.

Back to the detailed discussion- aeBOT, how does what your professor told you change- if at all- if the encounter between pledges not drinking and actives drinking takes place in the house versus in a public venue- like a bar- where the owner of that public venue has the overriding legal obligation to ensure underage people don't drink? The answer to that question I think could resolve OPs reasonable concerns and also really nail down where the liability rests in a variety of scenarios from the viewpoint you present.

[Oldest_Pledge]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Just what are you trying to get at with all of these "hypotheticals"?

See below.

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Back to the detailed discussion- aeBOT, how does what your professor told you change- if at all- if the encounter between pledges not drinking and actives drinking takes place in the house versus in a public venue- like a bar-

This is getting to it. I took the specific words of aeBOT's post to my lawyer friends to get their opinion. IF the point of law holds that the mere presence of alcohol is hazing, then the distance of alcohol, regardless of other laws pursuant to it's consumption, from the pledges is now the only question for the court to determine.

This is what I want to know from aeBOT's professor. Remember, in court, one can keep the laws of legal alcohol possession, distribution and consumption completely separate from the laws of hazing.

I just want to know where the legal line is right now. Do I think it was stupid to provide alcohol or make it available to the pledges, You Bet. Do I think it was stupid for the chapter to have alcohol in the house at the time, maybe. Do I think there is room in chapter RM policies for the legal posession and consumption of alcohol by members of legal age in a chapter house, Yes.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by jon1856

'Pledge;
Just what are you trying to get at with all of these "hypotheticals"?

Welcome to how the law is taught, discussed and learned -- hypotheticals.

Originally Posted by EE-BO

The real law to be worried about here is provision of alcohol to a minor- not hazing.

I think that, absent other facts indicating pressure to drink, you're exactly right.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Welcome to how the law is taught, discussed and learned -- hypothetical.

I think that, absent other facts indicating pressure to drink, you're exactly right.

For hazing is whatever the laws, rules, the policies of the National GLO, the campus, and locality and state of every chapter say it is. Or try to say what it is or is not.

As well as when and how they are enforced.

Just look at the RM section for how many chapters are in trouble just in the past two weeks. And those are just the one's that hit the news.

I have seen comments along the line of "how can I/we know what it is since the rules are unclear". Read your National policy, your school's Code of conduct et al.
I still think that these comments makes the most sense of a very messed up situation:
"
"1. If you have to ask if it's hazing, it is.
2. If in doubt, call your advisor/coach/national office. If you won't pick up the phone, you have your answer. Don't B.S. yourself.
3. If you haze, you have low self-esteem.
4. If you allow hazing to occur, you are a 'hazing enabler.'
5. Failure to stop hazing will result in death..."


Myth: The definition is so vague that anything can be considered hazing - it's really open to interpretation.
Reality: Read the definition and then ask yourself the following questions:

• Does the activity involve mental distress such as humiliation or intimidation?
• Does it involve physical abuse (e.g., sleep deprivation)?
• Is there a significant risk of injury or a question of safety?
• Would you have any reservations describing the activity to your parents or a university official?
• Is alcohol involved?
• Would you be worried if the activity was shown on the evening news?

If the answer to any of the above questions is "Yes," the activity is probably hazing.


Hazing is - Any action taken or situation created intentionally:

• that causes embarrassment, harassment or ridicule
  <LI class=style4>
  risks emotional and/or physical harm
  <LI class=style5>
  to members of an organization or team
  <LI class=style6>
  whether new or not
• regardless of the person's willingness to participate

Still confused? Ask yourself these questions:

• Would I feel comfortable participating in this activity if my parents were watching?
  <LI class=style4>
  Would we get in trouble if the Dean of Students walked by?
  <LI class=style5>
  Am I being asked to keep these activities a secret?
  Am I doing anything illegal?
  <LI class=style6>
  Does participation violate my values or those of my organization?
• Is it causing emotional distress or stress of any kind to myself or others?

HOW TO RECOGNIZE HAZING

HAZING is any action or situation, with or without the consent of the participants, which recklessly, intentionally, or unintentionally endangers the mental, physical, or academic heath or safety of a student.
This includes, but is not limited to any situation which:
• Creates a risk of injury to any individual or group
• Causes discomfort to any individual or group
• Causes embarrassment to any individual or group
• Involves harassment of any individual or group
• Involves degradation of any individual or group
• Involves humiliation of an individual or group
• Involves ridicule of an individual or group
• Involves or includes the willful destruction or removal of public or private property for the purpose of initiation or admission into, affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership in an organization
It includes physical injury, assault or battery, kidnapping or imprisonment, intentionally placing at risk of mental or emotional harm (putting “over the edge”), degradation, humiliation, the compromising of moral or religious values, forced consumption of any liquid or solid, placing an individual in physical danger (at risk) which includes abandonment, and impairment of physical liberties which include curfews or other interference with academic endeavors.

Line for the shark feeding starts at the right....
Line for in before lock down starts at the left....

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by jon1856

For it is what ever the laws, rules, the policies of the National GLO, the campus, and locality and state of every chapter say it is. Or try to say what it is or is not.

As well as when and how they are enforced.

I'm really not sure what the above, or most of what followed, means. Reminds me of someone else's posts.

I think what you're trying to say is look to the laws of the state where you are, your GLO's policies and your sheltering institution's policies (as well as whatever it was you seemed to be quoting from), and it should be rather clear what constitutes hazing. I think that often that it is the case (although the "if you have to ask if it's hazing, it probably is" test is a really bad test to apply to criminal law). I know my fraternity's hazing policies shouldn't leave much doubt in anyone's mind as to what would and wouldn't constitute hazing.
That's a different discussion, however, from what got started here -- aeBOt's simple, broad assertion that "[t]echnically, it is hazing, because the house had alcohol available to the pledges. That constitutes as hazing in and of itself." As already noted, whether merely having alcohol available to pledges constitutes hazing would depend on local laws and the specific policies of the applicable GLO and sheltering institution. Such broad statements simply cannot be made with any real accuracy or helpfulness.