There’s a non sequitir in here somewhere, I think.
The coach was not present at the welcome weekend. Nor was anyone from the athletic department that I am aware of. If we are talking about whether the plaintiff could have “walked away” from welcome weekend, that is not the same as saying he would have to quit the team in order not to attend. Could he have walked away? This is unclear, since we don’t know if he was prevented from doing so somehow. Was he required to attend the weekend in order to retain his swimming contract? I think it is pretty clear that the answer is no.
Bay the quote in my post #197 from the University specifically refers to investigating “hazing”, providing support to the affected students and imposing discipline for violations. Could alcohol been involved as part of the hazing? Absolutely and it likely played a central role.
My criticism is not leveled at the University - they did what they were supposed to do by responding swiftly and addressing the matter. I am just really sick and tired of hearing about this sort of behavior that tarnishes the reputations of some of our best universities and intrudes on the rights of others. You don’t have to look too far to see that left unchecked this sort of thing can cost people their lives.
They are similar in that they are both initiation rituals intended to promote bonding with the group. The difficulty is in drawing the line.
If I were king of a college, then my line (or at least, part of it) would be that no initiation rituals are allowed unless they are clearly described for the public to read on the group’s website. No secret stuff at all.
Except no one died, and you don’t know what happened at the event. If you want to believe the plaintiff’s allegations at face value, he says was required to chew goldfish, drink liquids including alcohol, tell stories about himself, let others touch his genitals, and he was berated and humiliated. Unless I missed something, I’m not seeing anything in that description that indicates someone is likely to die. Yes, people can and do die from alcohol poisoning, but was he forced to drink copious amounts? Not that we know of, and most college students drink alcohol. That by itself, is not an indication of impending death.
Bay my point is that people have died from hazing rituals - most recent example I can think of is the drum major in Florida. The law in Virginia says the universities and colleges have certain obligations to keep these things in check. These laws are there for a reason, are obviously necessary and personally I agree with them.
UVA’s hazing policy is much stricter than the state statute and prohibits actions:
That’s what the policy prohibits and that’s the standard against which UVA investigated. Some might think it is too strict or “mamby pamby” but it is what it is.
I do think the serving of alcohol to minors, if that is what happened, is going to be problematic for the defendants, in terms of the VA hazing law. It is the one allegation in the complaint that could be construed to “endanger the health and safety” of the plaintiff. Maybe the false imprisonment, too, if it can be proved. It is interesting that no charges for either of those allegations was brought by the DA, though. I have not researched the VA law on alcohol. I know it is different in each state. If the plaintiff brought his own, or took it from a shelf in the private home, I don’t think that constitutes an unlawful “serve” in every state.
So UVA could have disciplined the five for reasons that constitute hazing per policy but are not unlawful. A UVA “haze” is not the same as a statutory “haze.” Just like singing is not the same as binge drinking.
"Except no one died, and you don’t know what happened at the event. If you want to believe the plaintiff’s allegations at face value, he says was required to chew goldfish, drink liquids including alcohol, tell stories about himself, let others touch his genitals, and he was berated and humiliated. Unless I missed something, I’m not seeing anything in that description that indicates someone is likely to die. "
Oh come on now. There is quite a difference between the truly-harmless-stuff (you have to wear a tie to class on Tuesdays, you have to get a signature from each of the actives in your notebook, yo have to memorize where all the upperclassmen are from, you have to learn certain songs, etc.) and having to drink alcohol, let other people touch your private areas, and importantly be berated and humiliated.
I guess the line about humiliation is a personal one. We had to do something where we were expected to dress in preppy style (which wasn’t that hard of a stretch in the early 80’s), go to the fraternities and read aloud passages from the Preppy Handbook that dealt with sex (things like leaving a tie on the door). It would fall under mild, very mild humiliation and if you really didn’t want to do it, no one would force you. It’s possible someone would have felt uncomfortable and called that humiliation / hazing.
Yes that is correct @Bay. But Marcantonio’s suit is a civil one. I do not believe he is looking to pursue criminal prosecution. His causes of action were outlined in a post upthread. The possible criminality of the alleged actions I think are really irrelevant to his suit.
And I do not think you are saying that there has to be a criminal act for behavior to constitute hazing.
I’m reading these posts and, coming from the perspective of someone who holds executive positions in her student organizations, I find it weird and questionable that some don’t have a problem with coercing others to eat live goldfish. If word got out that my organization was doing that, not that we would, I’d be embarrassed. Like…I’d honestly feel embarrassed and appalled for the image and values my organization is upholding. We don’t need to be touching each other for funzies and we definitely don’t need to make people hike in a desert without water to make our members feel bonded.
I think there are some cultural implications. Pressure to eat live animals and drink alcohol will keep observant Baptists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and Mormons (at least) out of a program. The tradition may have emerged in a decade when that was not seen as a bad thing.
I don’t think that’s the intent today, but it is an effect.
That is correct, I am not saying criminal activity is required, it was a side note. But as I read the VA statue, the activity must endanger the health or safety of the participant in order for it to be actionable under the law.
As the parent of a kid who is a swimmer, I would be mad as hell if my son had to endure humiliation, inappropriate touching, underage drinking, and goldfish eating, just to be in good standing with the other swimmers on the team and have the opportunity to pursue his sport at this school.
I do not know what the remedy for this behavior is, but it seems as if the events that are unfolding in the UVA case are appropriate. Some of the accused will be swimming on other teams after having been punished for their behaviors, be they hazing or simply dishonorable. Will the lawsuit bring about justice? Will the alleged perpetrators end up with the proper punishment? Will the victim be properly compensated for his suffering? Will conventional standards of acceptable group behaviors be changed for the better? Certainly interesting to follow.
Unfortunately for us, a parent being mad as hell isnt the standard for recovering millions of dollars. One has to prove that a tort occurred and that there are damages that must be compensated.
I bet a simple web search will find a bunch of settlements/cases for people who claimed to have been touched nonconsnsuously in an inappropriate place.
If we learned nothing else in the 80’s and 90’s, someone in a position of authority is not able to determine what is consensual. Every couple of years we get refresher training on that.
Just think it’s a good idea to inculcate actual professional values into our students rather than whatever this is.
@Bay, I think that’s why the parents hired lawyers with experience in this area of the law. This process will play out and we can see what the results are and if any changes occur as a result of the conclusion of the case. I would say fortunately for us ‘mad as hell’ is not the standard, just my thoughts as a mom who wants a safe environment for my kid to pursue his interests.
I suspect that ultimately this case will be about retaliation for having “tattled” than it will be about the original hazing. As others have noted, this particular variety of hazing (if accurately reported) is far from the worst we’ve heard about–but the idea that this kid was ostracized for having told the coach the truth about it is, in my view, completely unacceptable.
If there was a hazing, I doubt the accuser was the only one hazed. So… If the case goes to trial…I think it is likely there will testimony from others. Before the trial, there will be depositions taken and both sides will have a good idea where they stand.
I decided to change my mind. I speculated for a living. I know a little about speculation. So I might speculate. I am going to do what I want, write what I want.
I had friends that liked to choose low probability outcomes. Stuff like betting on 00 on roulette.
It’s possible that 00 will come up. 00 comes up 1 out of 37 times? The payoff is 35 to 1?
Those guys who bet on low probabilty events are in their 40’s and 50’s. They are broke.
I think the higher probabilty is there was hazing. The fact there hasn’t been criminal charges is irrelevant.
A guy I barely know wrote a book telling his stories as s fund manager. He saw illegal behavior so he reported the behavior to the SEC. And the Sec said and I am paraphrasing, Yeah… But… We aren’t going to pursue that.
I like logic and I prefer choosing higher probabilty events as more likely. I may change my mind as facts are publicized. Probabilities change.
It is surely true that there have been plenty of damage awards for inappropriate touching, but I’m not sure it is clear-cut in this case.
It sounds like the touching in this case was first-year to first-year, not defendants to plaintiff, and the plaintiff is not suing other first-years. But there could be other touching by the defendants we don’t know about, or he is going to argue that the defendants forced the other first-year to touch him, but he’s got some work to do to prove that.
Also, consent is a defense to touching, which the defendants would likely raise. They may say the plaintiff didn’t resist, or say anything, and participated as well in the whole fiasco. So there is that to deal with as well. In my mind, at least, it is not a simple case.
