California Hazing Bill Goes to Governor

[exlurker]

An anti-hazing bill is being sent to the governor of California. If the governor signs it this ought to be of interest to fraternities and sororities with chapters in California, not to mention Greek life advisers, and attorneys for chapters and universities.

Brief article:

http://orovillemr.com/news/ci_4270105

The text of the bill (Senate bill 1454) and the legislative history (amendments, analysis, etc.) can be accessed through a portion of the California legislature’s web site:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pageq...ll+Information

(I leave any discussion of pros and cons about the bill to people with more legal knowledge than I have -- especially Californians, since it's a state bill.)

[Tom Earp]

I am sure this will be another far reaching bill that will enable States to dictate to Greek Organizations on how they may have to operate.

When of course many Law Suits include Officers, National HQ, and Advisors to be held Libel, who will want to be listed as members of House Corporations, Alum Associations, or Advisory Boards?

This was a rouge group that used Greek Letters and now, We all will suffer.

So, where was Chico State when all of this was going on? Hell, they were ingnoring the situation.

Look out Insurance Rates going up because of this!

Hopefully With Gov. Arnolds own law suit, he will think about it before He signs it!


Stupid is as Stupid does!

[EE-BO]

Actually, I think this is a good bill. Here is where hazing is defined,

SB 1454- Section 4- (b),

"'Hazing' means any method of initiation or preinitiation into a student organization or student body, whether or not the organization or body is officially recognized by an educational institution, which is likely to cause, serious bodily injury to any pupil or other person attending former, current, or prospective student of any school, community college, college, university, or other educational institution in this state." [emphasis added]

This is not restricting any reasonable activities required of associate members or pledges in their pre-initiation days. This addresses the serious stuff we should all be eradicating in Greek houses.

And it does not create any added legal liability for nationals or housing corporations as can be seen below from another portion of the bill,

SB 1454- Section 4- (d),(e),

" (d) Any person who personally engages in hazing that results in
death or serious bodily injury as defined in paragraph (4) of
subdivision (f) of Section 243 of the Penal Code, is guilty of either
a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in
county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state
prison.
(e) The person against whom the hazing is directed may commence a
civil action for injury or damages. The action may be brought against
any participants in the hazing, or any organization to which the
student is seeking membership whose agents, directors, trustees,
managers, or officers authorized, requested, commanded, participated
in, or ratified the hazing." [emphasis added]

I don't know of any housing corp or HQ that authorizes, requests, commands, participates in or ratifies hazing as defined by this law.

Just my take. I think this is good legislation and solid organizations who make guys earn their letters in a responsible way have nothing to fear.

[Kevin]

I'm not really sure what this law changes about anything?

What in the hell is conduct "which is likely to cause bodily injury"?

Does it have to be 51% likely? Such a strange standard. What are "reasonable" activities? Again, no standard.

As far as the civil liability, it was already there. This is a waste of paper.

[gphiangel624]

The most important thing to note about this bill is that it makes hazing a violation of the Penal Code as opposed to the Education Code, and it prescribes misdemeanor and felony charges which the Education Code did not clearly define.

A court/jury would have to define whether something is likely to cause bodily injury. The whole law basically exists to make the penalties for hazing more harsh, hoping to deter it from happening.

I'm hoping this law goes into effect.

Originally Posted by ktsnake

I'm not really sure what this law changes about anything?

What in the hell is conduct "which is likely to cause bodily injury"?

Does it have to be 51% likely? Such a strange standard. What are "reasonable" activities? Again, no standard.

As far as the civil liability, it was already there. This is a waste of paper.

[Kevin]

I realize what it's doing, but the standard seems extremely vague. That may get in the way of anything this bill is attempting to eradicate.

[EE-BO]

The Texas law is pretty vague too.

This is where it gets tricky, and why it is a good idea for Greek organizations to stay well away from the "grey area".

There is lots of room for prosecutorial discretion here, and in the end I think that will be a good thing for chapters who can demonstrate a borderline incident is isolated, and a bad thing for chapters whose reputation suggests a borderline incident is indicative of more serious issues.

One more reason I think a chapter is wise put heavy focus on grades and philanthropy- and tout it publicly (not to mention it is kind of a good thing for the members too.)

A good analogy might be the fact that most companies have in their employee handbook a policy on personal internet usage during working hours using company computers.

Provided an employee is not looking at inappropriate websites, I have rarely been aware of cases where a person was fired because they used a computer at work for personal reasons but were an otherwise outstanding employee.

However, this kind of rule is often used to terminate an employee whose internet usage at work is indicative of a pattern of unproductive behavior that, in and of itself, might not be easily documented for a clean and legitimate termination of the employee. So you have to have specific rules in place that are worded such that they can be enforced taking into account specific factors- but also leave some discretionary power to the employer so that the rule is not discriminatory, but just applied using judgment.

I suspect this is why hazing laws are so intentionally vague. In serious incidents, one would hope the law is applied to any organization. But in borderline cases where reasonable people could disagree over whether an incident met the burden of proof for a prosecution- I believe hazing laws are applied on a discretionary basis depending on the general character and reputation of the organization involved (and I believe that based on my own knowledge of reported incidents and the degree of punishment sanctioned by universities, HQs and local law enforcement.)

[Kevin]

The thing is -- in serious incidents of hazing, there are existing criminal charges which may be filed.

Outside of that, does this not just give an excuse to insurance companies to deny coverage due to the fact that activity was potentially illegal?

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by ktsnake

The thing is -- in serious incidents of hazing, there are existing criminal charges which may be filed.

Outside of that, does this not just give an excuse to insurance companies to deny coverage due to the fact that activity was potentially illegal?

While this may be true, I wonder legally how this will effect Insurance Companys who usually do what they want when it comes to policies?

While it may be vauge, it is still another Bill to be enacted into Law and how it may effect all of us.

[EE-BO]

On the insurance company side of things, I am willing to bet that the vast majority of policies have plenty of riders and exclusions such that any incident stemming from an illegal act (which would include underage drinking which I think is a common cause in far more serious incidents than hazing- though both are often present) will not be covered.

Otherwise the insurance would be prohibitive.

If a guy under the age of 25 buys a 600cc sportbike (Honda CBR, Yamaha R6 etc.), the full-coverage insurance on the bike will run about $2,500-3,000 per year.

This is based in the statistical reality that odds are the bike will be totalled or stolen within 2 years of purchase- more likely the former than the latter.

The actual number of fraternity incidents that would result in a major insurance claim (keeping in mind that even 1 is too many) is pretty small by comparison- but the potential financial liability is such that I think the sportbike comparison is a good one.

To put it another way, unless a large fraternity with its own non-University owned house is paying $50K+ a year in premiums, I have a feeling that the insurance policy will not automatically cover a significant number of the types of bad situations for which the insurance was purchased in the first place.

[L.O.C.K.]

So then what does the insurance actually cover?

I mean, if there is a hazing incident and it's an illegal act as defined by law, insurance won't cover the situation.

So what is the point of having insurance then?

(Sorry if this sounds stupid...I just hate how insurance companies can charge whatever the hell they want)

[EE-BO]

Insurance will typically be dictated by the bank holding the mortgage on the house- and/or by the Housing Corp of alumni who are involved in the purchase/ongoing financing of the house. Thus, quite a bit of coverage is required regardless of how well it covers specific incidents.

And it does cover some important things. It could cover an accident that resulted in a fire, a guest slipping and breaking an arm at a party etc.

However, I have yet to see the insurance policy that covers any damages resulting from an illegal act, or an act that is specifically precluded in the insurance policy.

And even if you do not have a copy of your chapter's policy to read, it is pretty easy to figure out which things might not be covered based on your HQ's and chapter's house rules.

For example, a big house rule these days is that noone is to ever go on the roof of the fraternity house- drunk or sober. This is because over the years there have been many falls from rooftops that led to serious injury or death. I have personal knowledge of one such incident where the insurance did not cover the civil damages.

I would expect insurance is also why most, if not all, GLOs ban on underage alcohol possession in chapter houses- some of them going a step further and declaring the chapter house will be substance-free at all times for all members.

Granted, I am sure many HQs have cracked down on alcohol in chapter houses out of a sense of concern for active brothers- but the degree of that crackdown (often including members of drinking age) is surely driven by insurance concerns.

Finally- and another big one- is closed parties with security. I have always felt parties at houses should be closed (meaning you can invite others, but they have to present an invitation or be on a list at the door), and during my undergraduate days there was a situation at one chapter house where an open party resulted in an alleged date rape. No charges were ever filed against the alleged rapist or the chapter- but it did get publicity and in the end it turned out that the alleged rapist and his alleged victim had no ties to that chapter.

And sure enough, many chapter insurance policies contain clauses about closed parties for a good reason.

PS- Don't worry, I don't think you sound stupid as you expressed in your post. It is very counter-intuitive to imagine that an expensive insurance policy will have riders that exclude coverage for many of the things you buy insurance for in the first place.

Just look at homeowners and flood insurance. Flooding has long been excluded from insurance policies and there has been a raging fight with insurance companies along the Gulf Coast as to whether homes destroyed by Katrina and Rita were damaged by hurricane (covered) or by flooding (not covered.) The political reality is that the insurance companies are going to have to cover these damages, but it is kind of frightening that there is a fight about it in the first place.

[Tom Earp]

I think one of the key points as far as insurance and what it covers is a major concern.

If it comes to Risk Managemnt, there in comes the rub.

If a R M situation happens, there is where law suits come into play.
Suites usualy include the following:

Chapter and Officers, Active and sometimes Alums.
The National Greek Organizations of offending groups.

I cannot give the % of increases over the many years, but I am sure they have escalated.

[EE-BO]

The book "Wrongs of Passage" chronicles a number of the serious injuries and deaths in Greek Houses, and the book (which I think is well-researched and presented, if a bit biased at times) indicates an escalation in the publicity of incidents in Greek Houses in the early 1970s, and an escalation of reported incidents and lawsuits starting in the mid to late 1980s.

I know when I was at Texas in the mid-1990s, we were coming off of a long stretch of some pretty bad things. Not all were publicized, but there had been about a death a year attributed to a GLO member (not usually hazing- but certainly alcohol related), plus some incredibly bizarre incidents including one where a pledge was tied to a tree and whipped- losing a testicle in the process.

And in the years since, several once strong chapters are either struggling to come back or are gone- one of them indefinitely banned. Most of the chapters that remain have been put on probation or cited (slap on the wrist) for repeated alcohol violations.

The legitimate beef Greeks have with this kind of special attention is the fact that many of these types of incidents- falls, underage drinking, DWI and even hazing- take place with great frequency outside of the traditional Greek system. And yet when it happens to a Greek, it seems to merit special attention.

The book "Wrongs of Passage" is not blameless in this. In fact, very few of the incidents reported in that book are true hazing incidents (which could include forced alcohol consumption.) Most of them are sad things that happen to some of us when we push the envelope as we venture away from home for the first time. We all tested the limits in college- the majority of us who are here to tell the tale just happen to have been fortunate to make it through one more stage in life.

However, I think a legitimate case can be made for strengthening and enforcing Risk Management policies in Greek Houses because often times accidents that happen everywhere will happen in Greek Houses and could have been reasonably prevented.

Example- falling off a roof.

College Dorm- Roof access will be restricted- locked door with alarms and all. Plus, residents will sign a lease and list of policies- one of which is going to state roof access is forbidden.

Some Greek Houses- Roof access may or may not be restricted- but the House Manager routinely lets people go out there to drink. Everyone signed a lease stating roof access is forbidden, but in actuality access is regularly granted and is not discouraged by chapter officers.

In both settings, at some point somebody is going to get on the roof and maybe fall and end up in the hospital or the morgue.

However- from a legal standpoint, the Greek House in this example will incur liability because even though this kind of thing does happen all over the place- the chapter did not adhere to a Risk Management policy to reasonably protect against death or injury.

Add in the possibility that the injured or dead kid was a pledge or rushee who drank too much- and it is going to be very hard to go into court and convince a jury that the chapter did not have a responsibility to care for a driunk underage kid (especially if he was drinking at the house!) who- as a pledge or rushee- was in a position of social "submission" within the house (i.e. would have an incentive to follow an order to get on the roof.)

Once you get into a court setting and you are dealing with the death of an 18 year old kid who got drunk at the house where he died- there is no sense in even trying to put on a defense saying he was responsible for his own actions.

He may well have been, but the realities of life are not always fair. And I will note that good Risk Managers always keep close watch on pledges to ensure they do not push boundaries that could hurt themselves and the chapter. It is not just about protecting pledges from actives, it is sometimes about protecting people from themselves.

And protecting people from themselves is where you get back to the need to keep roof access restricted to the greatest extent reasonably possible. Whatever the lease and house rules might say, if people go on the roof anyway then it is just a matter of substance over form- and that is not a valid legal defense.

[Tom Earp]

Thank You for the wording "protecting people from themsleves".

This is so true when it comes to Greek Dom.

What are We as Greeks there for?

Recruiting new pnms who are felt to be the type of person that is wanted in our organizations.

If this is the case, then why HAZE them?

Why not protect not only them but our fellow Brothers and Sisters when in need?

EE-BO, it seems there are to many books about Greeks and most are not in a posotive regards to Greeks.

One that I have is "Then Goat", very unlatering about a Greek Organization.

If you want to check it out, PM me.