After a period of fifteen months since the last U.S. collegiate hazing death, wgrz.com reports that Bradley Doyley, a 21 year old member of the schools basketball team had died on Thursday, February 18th. The statement from the University’s president said, “Buffalo State College is aware of and continues to support the City of Buffalo Police Department’s investigation into an allegation of hazing involving Alpha Phi Alpha and Bradley Doyley at an off-campus location.” Doyley was scheduled to graduate in May.
By my count, this is the 58th U.S. collegiate hazing death since 2000. February is the second deadliest month with 10 during that time.
As of today, it has been 13 months since the last college student died due to hazing or pledging activities. It looks like 2015 could be a year without a hazing/pledging death.
Does that mean that we have solved the issue of death due to hazing? Of course not. 2014 had seven hazing/pledging deaths, several of which are currently working their way through the civil court process. The courts are also in the midst of processing criminal charges related to the death of Michael Deng (Pi Delta Psi/Baruch College CUNY) in 2013.
While it is encouraging to make it through 2015, we really need to see several years with no deaths to claim progress. I am confident that much of the work to address hazing has been impactful. However, it is also likely that the increased attention paid to fraternities, and the high-profile hazing cases may have an impact.
We also need to be aware that additional information can arise from civil lawsuits related to incidents we are not aware of at a later date. In the past couple of years we have seen cases added to the list two or more years after the fact.
It is also important to note that there are still several other issues that need our attention in the fraternity/sorority world. This year-end list of “worst bro moments” from The New York Daily News has some examples.
As we reach the end of the Spring Semester, it appears that there have been no hazing/pledging deaths among college students thus far in 2015. It looks like Spring 2010 was the last time we had a death-free semester.
However, there were two deaths, that I am aware of, that are worth tracking to see if additional information may connect them to hazing or pledging activities:
- On Wednesday, March 18th, Charlie Terrini, Jr. was found dead (The Daily Gamecock) at an off-campus house used by the Pi Kappa Alpha chapter at the University of South Carolina. Local police have said that the death is “suspicious” and the chapter has been suspended by the national organization and the school. Some reports have indicated that he was pledging the fraternity (Cosmopolitan), and the previous evening was a “big brother” activity. It was also St. Patrick’s Day. The Coroner’s report indicated that he died from “toxic” blood alcohol level (The State). I have seen very little follow-up in the news regarding this death, and the connection to a “big brother” activity is tenuous.
- In April, Damian Parks, a student at Bethune-Cookman University in Florida drowned in a late-night incident. The Daytona Beach News-Journal reported that the university was investigating to see if hazing was involved. He was caught in a current while swimming with a group of five at 3:00 in the morning. All five were members of a campus stepping team. Reports indicate that alcohol may be involved. Based on the article, it is unlikely that this was hazing, but more likely late night partying among friends.
Traditionally, the Fall Semester is deadlier when it comes to hazing/pledging. Hopefully the increased efforts to address serious hazing, and the increased awareness and publicity surrounding these activities, can keep 2015 clear of any hazing/pledging deaths for the first time, in a very long time.
The Times Union newspaper has an article with details surrounding the death of Trevor Duffy at SUNY-Albany in November. It indicates that the cause of death was alcohol poisoning, and that Duffy had consumed a 60 ounce bottle of Vodka the night he was found unconscious. He died two days later. The documents were filed is support of an appeal by two students who had been expelled from the University, and were seeking to be readmitted. A total of 24 students were sanctioned (not all expelled), and the University determined that hazing was the cause of death.
The article also covers the nature of the underground fraternity. It had evolved from an earlier chapter of Zeta Phi Beta that had been closed in 1997, yet continued to operate underground, and call themselves ZBT. A recognized chapter of Zeta Beta Tau was returned to the college in 2011, and some of the students indicated confusion with two groups operating with the same name. The recognized chapter has no connection to the underground group.
The article also covers other examples of hazing within the group. Duffy’s family has indicated that they will be bringing a civil lawsuit against the University, its board of trustees, the city, and others.
The family of Tucker Hipps has filed a lawsuit against Clemson University, Sigma Phi Epsilon National Fraternity, the South Carolina Beta Chapter and three members. The State newspaper has details of the suit, and links to the documents filed. The statements in the suit seem to match some of the rumors from around the time of Tucker’s death.
Disclaimer: The rest of this post is my personal opinion. I am not a lawyer, and the only legal education I have is two graduate-level courses in Higher Education Law.
While it is not explicitly spelled out in the suit, there appear to be entry points in the situation that could increase the exposure of both Clemson and Sig Ep National. The suit indicates that Clemson had decided two days prior to the death to temporarily suspend all fraternity new member activities due to drinking and hazing concerns. That suspension was to go into effect at 5:30 pm on the day that Tucker died on a run that began at 5:30 am. The question will be on why there was a delay in implementing the suspension when the concerns were so dire.
The entry point for increased liability for Sig Ep National is that the Clemson chapter was a “pledging” chapter, and had not accepted and implemented the fraternity’s “Balanced Man Program (BMP).” Sig Ep has had the BMP at the majority of its chapters for several years, and their data shows that it makes a notable difference in addressing risky behavior, and cuts down on insurance claims. During that time, Sig Ep has allowed several chapters to continue as “pledging” chapters, and not utilize the new program. The question that will need to be answered here is how can they allow chapters to operate in a risky manner when they have a solution to the problem already implemented at other chapters. This may raise the “duty of care” doctrine of negligence.
Unless the attorney for Hipps can overcome the inevitable petition to be removed from the case by Clemson and Sig Ep national, this is another case that is unlikely to see a courtroom.
As we look to the future of the fraternity/sorority world, it would actually be beneficial for the questions related to Sig Ep National and Clemson reached a court decision, and review upon appeal. This case will be closely watched.
While I haven’t been posting much lately, I do want to continue to use this site to track deaths that could potentially be connected to pledging.
On Wednesday, March 18th, Charlie Terrini, Jr. was found dead (The Daily Gamecock) at an off-campus house used by the Pi Kappa Alpha chapter at the University of South Carolina. Local police have said that the death is “suspicious” and the chapter has been suspended by the national organization and the school. Some reports have indicated that he was pledging the fraternity (Cosmopolitan), and the previous evening was a “big brother” activity. It was also St. Patrick’s Day.
There is not enough information available yet, but it is looking like we may have the first hazing/pledging death of 2015.
Earlier today, the University of Virginia released their Fraternal Organization Agreement Addendum of Inter_fraternity Council (IFC) Fraternities. You can find links to the Fraternal Organization Agreement, and new addenda covering the other three councils at this link, but this blog will focus on the IFC addendum. The Washington Post, along with many others (The Daily Cavalier, Huffington Post), has an article with some thoughts and comments.
As a couple of my colleagues have noted, this new agreement brings UVA fraternities to a level of policy consistent with FIPG from about 20 years ago. It also explicitly encourages behavior that violates virtually every national fraternity risk management policy, and thus supports behavior that would invalidate insurance coverage should an incident occur. It may also increase liability exposure to the University.
As some of the articles have noted, there is no mention of underage drinking in this agreement. In my opinion, it would be very smart of the University in particular, and the fraternities as well, to explicitly state that underage drinking is prohibited in these organizations. National fraternities already state in their policies that underage drinking is prohibited, and it is usually specifically stated as an activity that will revoke organizational insurance coverage.
Among my other questions:
- It appears that the addendum only covers fraternity house parties, and does not apply to third-party, off-site, events. What policies apply for those events? Are they required to be registered?
- Why are their two tiers of parties? Why does it matter if their are an equal number of guests, or more guests than members?
- It appears that the tiers are actually intended to differentiate between events with a hired bartender and BYOB events? If so, those types of events have very different expectations for hosts, and are covered by most fraternity policies.
- Although I have inferred that Tier II parties re BYOB, there is no indication that BYOB policies and procedures are expected. If not, who is purchasing the alcohol and funding the party? It states that at Tier II parties, individuals are allowed to bring their own hard alcohol to be left at a central bar and distributed by a sober brother. That is also a direct violation of most (probably all) national fraternity policies. (By the way, what training do these sober brothers have to oversee this designated central bar?)
- The policy also requires “sober brother monitors” for these house parties. How are these individuals trained? Who provides oversight for them? Why would anyone accept the personal liability of serving in this role?
- The policy explicitly prohibits common containers, pre-mixed drinks, kegs, etc. Has any national fraternity policy allowed these in the past twenty years?
I guess it is good to see UVA make a move toward implementing proven alcohol parties for fraternity house parties. On the other hand, it would probably make more sense to go all the way and fully implement policies that are consistent with existing policies of the national fraternities. What they appear to have with this implementation is a set of policies that are less strict than the national organizations. This results in the local chapters likely operating outside of their national policies (and thus not covered by insurance), and the university enforcing policies that are outdated.
Oh, and by the way, none of this appears to address the concerns raised by the Rolling Stone article, nor do they appear to be connected to the reasoning behind the shut down of fraternity activities since November.