Beta Chi at Leigh Univ

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

This is a difficult situation. Technically, it is hazing, because the house had alcohol available to the pledges. That constitutes as hazing in and of itself. Don't know if that is how I would define it, but that is the way it is defined. I think it is because the pledges could feel obligated to drink if alcohol is provided, whether they are told to drink or not. And Some blame has to be put on the brothers. They need to monitor actions, if someone has a .5 BAC then you can definitely tell, and the brothers should have cut him off long before that.

However, I am on the fence whether the chapter should of got the axe. I know that the school and the national office first priority needs to be safety, so action needs to be conducted, but I don't think there was clear evidence that the chapter is disruptive or wouldn't prevent this in the future.

[Oldest_Pledge]

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

Technically, it is hazing, because the house had alcohol available to the pledges. That constitutes as hazing in and of itself. Don't know if that is how I would define it, but that is the way it is defined.

According to my ACLU "friends", if this is the definition, Beta National has to go after every state, county, store, bar and store that sells alcohol because it "is available" for consumption. My local ACLU would settle for two options:
remove all liquor within 300 miles of a chapater or close all chapters within 300 miles of liquor.

Be advised that I am not part of the ACLU, but I have good lawyer friends who are good lawyer friends who are not.

Personally, I say punish each violator under the civil/criminal code. Pledges are booted, actives are made alumni and out of the house, those actives that acted by doing nothing pay $1000.00 each to the Beta fund of choice,
and the house is under dialy scrutiny by a Beta Alum who lives in the house. I am unemployed, I'll do it.

[Coramoor]

Technically, it is hazing, because the house had alcohol available to the pledges.

That doesn't sound quite right. Was I being hazed every time my family got together for a BBQ and had a keg there? It was available, I was underage, I saw all the adults drinking...was I coerced into drinking also?

If they pledges were made to drink, yes-clear violation and they need to be punished. On the other hand, if a legal adult choose to break the law by drinking and further by drinking himself in to a stupor, that is no ones fault but his own. When does personal responsibility come into play?

Again, clear RM violation, but not one that should end an otherwise good chapter.

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

Originally Posted by Coramoor

That doesn't sound quite right. Was I being hazed every time my family got together for a BBQ and had a keg there? It was available, I was underage, I saw all the adults drinking...was I coerced into drinking also?

If they pledges were made to drink, yes-clear violation and they need to be punished. On the other hand, if a legal adult choose to break the law by drinking and further by drinking himself in to a stupor, that is no ones fault but his own. When does personal responsibility come into play?

Again, clear RM violation, but not one that should end an otherwise good chapter.

It is technically hazing, and basically the hazing laws are so broad that most likely we have all been hazed unintentionally during out time. I mean, TECHNICALLY any kind of test is hazing. I don't agree with it all, but if they wanted to say it was hazing they could.

Also legally, the host of the event is responsible. Someone bought the alcohol, and "let" the minors drink it, whether they told them they could or they just didn't stop them.

The law works to trap people pretty much when the law wants to.

Again, I still don't agree with the chapter being diminished. However, they are fighting an up hill battle.

[ECUJacob]

But there is no worse sign you can send to the world about the ability to self-govern than to let 2 pledges get to near fatal levels of intoxication on their first night as a part of our organization.

I am inclined to agree. It's one thing to celebrate and enjoy each other's company. It is quite another to drink in excess to the point of hospitalizing two new members.

Technically, it is hazing, because the house had alcohol available to the pledges. That constitutes as hazing in and of itself.

The only way this would be true is if the brother's or their representatives made it appear mandatory to drink or that some negative consequence would occur if they didn't. This situation is clearly against Beta's Risk Management Policy. However, I feel the chapter could likely be educated and changed with some involvement from the University and others. However, it's not up to us (alumni). The President's will likely be asked to vote in August.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by Oldest_Pledge

According to my ACLU "friends", if this is the definition, Beta National has to go after every state, county, store, bar and store that sells alcohol because it "is available" for consumption. My local ACLU would settle for two options:
remove all liquor within 300 miles of a chapater or close all chapters within 300 miles of liquor.

Just to clear up this and the issue about whether provision of alcohol is hazing,

The reason the logic about chapters providing alcohol does not apply to bars or liquor stores is that there are laws in place to limit access in the latter establishments. You have to be 21 and show proof of ID on demand. A bar or liquor store does have alcohol available, but "access"- let's call it "open access" to be more precise- is not there for anyone under 21.

I think it is important to point this out because it demonstrates just what an enormous risk/liberty anyone over 21 is taking when they personally make alcohol available to those who are not yet 21. By doing so, one is violating some pretty tough laws that are very strictly enforced compared to many other laws which are commonly broken- such as speeding.

Here in Texas, if a clerk at a liquor store does not check ID and sells to someone under 21, the fine can be five figures. I am personally aware of multiple situations where stores were fined $10,000 for a single violation and the clerk was arrested on the spot in sting operations. That is how serious the laws are about providing alcohol to those under the age of 21.

Underage kids drinking alcohol at a chapter house is not hazing. It is only hazing if alcohol consumption is forced- and that derives from the typical hazing law reference to forcing someone to commit an illegal act. Unlike other areas of hazing laws, like line ups or tests, which require that a certain degree of discomfort or inappropriateness (often left to interpretation by prosecutors) accompany the act for charges to be filed- there is no ambiguity about the fact that forcing someone to commit an illegal act in a pledge-active situation is hazing.

But there is still the difficulty of appearances with this. Even if a pledge brought his own alcohol and that can be proven, it is going to be very difficult to convince a jury- or the general public- that someone reached near lethal levels of consumption without being at the very least encouraged to do so.

And that is when the inherent assumption about actives versus pledges kicks in. The average person will reasonably assume that an active will have some degree of influence over a pledge, and the dumber the act in question, the easier it is to assume that there was outside influence by a person in a position of power (ie hazing) involved.

Think of it like the sexual harassment laws. One reason many companies have policies against in-office relationships between people of different ranks is that no matter what the real circumstances- there is an automatic and reasonable presumption that the person in higher authority exerts a certain degree of control over the other person.

And so if a relationship goes bad, the party in a lesser role in the company has pretty solid grounds for a harassment complaint by default if that person ever feels that future promotions etc. are being denied because of how that previous relationship ended.

I think this is exactly why no more kegs or community alcohol in chapter houses was really the first rule to be heavily enforced in recent decades and has become an even bigger deal in the past few years as more comprehensive hazing legislation comes into effect.

That rule gets right to the heart of where fraternities in general have had a serious issue for a long time.

Simply put, the privacy of a chapter house and the age range in active members creates a perfect environment in which to circumvent laws about open access to alcohol by underage persons- laws which society at large have decided are very important. And with good reason. Drinking incidents in and of themselves are problematic, but alcohol is also a very common factor in serious hazing incidents, fires and other major risk management events.

PS- kddani, geekypenguin or any other legal experts- do please chime in here if you see this. I am not an attorney by trade and I hope I am getting this all right.

[Oldest_Pledge]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Just to clear up this and the issue about whether provision of alcohol is hazing,

The reason the logic about chapters providing alcohol does not apply to bars or liquor stores is that there are laws in place to limit access in the latter establishments.

Understood. I was merely pointing out the statment made by AEBOTT.

If the legal definition of hazing was that literal then we have problems regardless of the other laws in place.

[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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by 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.

My late chapter was hit, along with other charges, with hazing charges when firemen found drunk under age pledges in the house.

[Oldest_Pledge]

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

It is that literal. ...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.'

So ask him if alcohol present within 300 miles of the chapter house is also cause for "discomfort" (from you post above) as my ACLU lawyer friends state based on your very first post concerning the definition of hazing.

What about a pledge who lives at home? If Dad has beer in the fridge, is it now hazing because the son is pledge of any GLO because there is beer at home?

[ZZ-kai-]

Wow, what did the AO do that makes you hate them so much? Laws are in place for a reason....

[MysticCat]

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

This is a difficult situation. Technically, it is hazing, because the house had alcohol available to the pledges. That constitutes as hazing in and of itself. Don't know if that is how I would define it, but that is the way it is defined.

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Just to clear up this and the issue about whether provision of alcohol is hazing, . . .

PS- kddani, geekypenguin or any other legal experts- do please chime in here if you see this. I am not an attorney by trade and I hope I am getting this all right.

It is unquestionably illegal to provide someone underage with alcohol, and, depending on the laws of the state, the person (organization) providing the alcohol could be held liable/responsible for any harm that might come to the underage person (say, by alcohol poisoning) or to another (say, in a drunk-driving accident). So, it is clearly a risk management issue.

But I know of no definition of hazing, legal or institutional, where simply making alcohol available to pledges could be considered hazing. Forcing them to drink or encouraging them to drink excessive amounts (or failing to stop them from drinking excessive amounts), yes; nothing more than having it available, no.

Originally Posted by 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.

There are 44 states with hazing laws. (You can check them out here). I haven't done a complete inventory, but I think it's safe to say that there are some substantial differences among the various laws. In my state, it doesn't meet the statutory definition unless physical injury results.

Many states include something along the lines of reckless conduct that could endanger the physical or emotional health of the pledge; depending on the circumstances, having alcohol available and encouraging pledges to drink might fit such a definition. But I would be very hesitant to say that it is hazing without more to go on, such as explicit or implicit pressure to drink too much.

In any event, the great variety in hazing laws makes it nearly impossible to say that "X = hazing." Some places it might, some places it might not.