There is an interesting and tragic case out of Northern Illinois University in Dekalb where 22 members of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity have been criminally charged in the death of student David Bogenberger, 19, after a frat event with excessive drinking. It is one of the largest such prosecutions, if not the largest, that I have seen for a hazing or frat drinking death. The question is whether this is a matter that should be addressed on the criminal opposed to the civil docket as well as school proceedings for expulsion.
Five leaders of the fraternity have been charged with felony hazing: Alexander M. Jandick, 21, James P. Harvey, 21, Omar Salameh, 21, Patrick W. Merrill, 19, and Steven A. Libert, 20.
Arrest warrants were issued Monday for 22 members of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity for the death in November. Most are to be charged with misdemeanors.
Bogenberger died of cardiac arrest due to alcohol intoxication with a blood alcohol level was about five times the legal limit for driving. He had attended a fraternity hazing event called “Moms Night” or “Parents Night” where you have to run a gauntlet of girls and must basically drink five shots per girl. It appears that none of the girls were charged or the subject of warrants.
As a professor and a parent, my heart goes out to the family of Bogenberger. I can only imagine the terrible loss and pain that this family has had to endure for a senseless and reckless tradition at this frat. I also support both expulsion of students responsible for such hazing as well as removal of fraternities from campus. However, I am a bit uncomfortable with charging students criminally for their mere participation in such heavy drinking events. This has generally been handled as a civil matter with lawsuits against the students and fraternities.
The law states:
§ 720 ILCS 120/5. Hazing
Sec. 5. Hazing. A person commits hazing who knowingly requires the performance of any act by a student or other person in a school, college, university, or other educational institution of this State, for the purpose of induction or admission into any group, organization, or society associated or connected with that institution if:
(a) the act is not sanctioned or authorized by that educational institution; and
(b) the act results in bodily harm to any person.
§ 720 ILCS 120/10. Sentence
Sec. 10. Sentence. Hazing is a Class A misdemeanor, except hazing that results in death or great bodily harm is a Class 4 felony.
The law is rife with difficult ambiguities. What does it mean to “knowingly require” when you are dealing with a fraternity where a student can stop drinking and may or may not be denied entry in the fraternity. More importantly, the criteria of any act “not sanctioned or authorized by that educational institution” is remarkably broad. It also ties the applicability of a criminal charge to the varying rules of public and private institutions.
The problem is that we have consent of the victim and drinking may be lawful in some cases. It is an unfortunate reality that college students often use their newfound freedom to do things in excess. Drinking is one of the most common. One argument in favor of criminalization is that it is the only effective deterrent for such students — a criminal charge concentrates the mind of the most dimwitted college student. However, it also criminalizes another area of life in our country — part of a disturbing trend.
What do you think? Should this be handled as a criminal matter for all of these frat members?
Mike S.,
I agree with you. It’s not the best way to build team spirit/cohesiveness. It’s about sadism, exerting power over someone else, getting a perverse sense of pleasure from humiliating others. I think group initiation rites/ hazing practices may harken back to more primitive times. Maybe we aren’t as civilized as we think we are.
Chalk me up in the prosecution column. I, too, would be “a bit uncomfortable with charging students criminally for their mere participation in such heavy drinking events,” as JT states. However, it was more than mere participation – it was allegedly participation in extremely heavy drinking that was required for induction into the fraternity, which, IMO, is clearly prohibited by the criminal statute.
As far as whether this type of conduct should be criminalized, and to add to Barkin Dog’s comment above, college deans are obviously not up to the task (or capable) of handling the matter.
You can bet they knew the rules & knew it could possibly be a criminal act so yes, charge all of them criminally. Having that hanging around their neck for a long time just might teach a lesson.
Perhaps it’s time that high school teachers and principals teach these ‘immature’ minds that hazing is stupid, cruel and a threat to one’s life and well-being? I have been waiting for a long time for somebody to do something as bold as those who filed criminal charges. Sorry, I am not worried about the ‘legality’ of this at all. I add this however: I have a young daughter in college.
Can they be charged based on “conspiracy” statutes? What liability does the frat have as an entity or would that only be a civil case? NIU should ban the fraternity based on what’s already known. The Pikes are famous nationwide for behavior that gets them involved with the justice system.
I say charge them. It’s the law. They appear to have violated it. There are motions and procedures for sorting these issues out. I say let the process take its course. Empathy seems sorely lacking here. As a result, it is time for the duly passed statute to be enforced.
Obviously this is a terrible case and some sense of societal disapproval is required. The choice of whether to handle that disapproval criminally or civilly rests within the discretion of those who know the most about the case. Here, that looks the police and the prosecutor’s office. I can think of numerous factual permutations where one or the other or both would be appropriate.
Hazing is a problem not just limited to fraternal organizations. We see it with sororities, bands, athletic teams, etc. I have been involved in fraternal organizations for many years and generally despise any form of physical or mental intimidation as a prerequisite to admission. However it is in the DNA to require some sort of trial prior to admission into any group. It is common in country clubs where sponsors and recommendations are required; the military where “boot camp” is required; and even in other private clubs and businesses where some form of “starting from the bottom” is de rigueur. There is something to the notion of shared adversity bringing a group together.
However, the trend now is to punish most any unpleasant act as hazing. For instance, I was involved with a national fraternity that considered asking pledges to drive 35 miles and write fraternity letters IN CHALK on a sidewalk as hazing. The pledges were not drunk and they rode in a cab happily to perform the task. Still the act was deemed hazing and the fraternity was disciplined over my objection. The pendulum has swung so far the other way that we’re approaching zero tolerance for young people.
How about we take a middle ground approach.
“However it is in the DNA to require some sort of trial prior to admission into any group. It is common in country clubs where sponsors and recommendations are required; the military where “boot camp” is required; and even in other private clubs and businesses where some form of “starting from the bottom” is de rigueur. There is something to the notion of shared adversity bringing a group together.”
Mespo,
you may be right, it could be in the DA of humans. From my perspective though it is merely the pleasure of sadism that drives it. I have repeatedly rejected being hazed in my life and I seem to have gotten away with it. when I was a manager of many people I would not hear of it being done to new workers and would step in when I became aware of the situation. There are a couple of ways to build a team. To me the most effective way to build and maintain a team was by warmly welcoming “newbies”.
That hazing law seems incredibly broad to me. For example, suppose a fraternity required any prospective members to put in X hours of public service at a particular charity and a pledge was killed in a car accident on the way to or from the charity. Unless the required act is “sanctioned or authorized by that educational institution” (I have no clue what that means), everyone in charge of pledging at the fraternity has just committed a felony.
I don’t belive the statute would survive a good challenge to its constitutionality based on the vagueness as JT has revealed. It could be broken by requiring plebes to donate their time as volunteers at a soup kitchen feeding the homeless since the school does not specifically authorize it. In this respect it might even violate first amendment rights of the association as they may certainly require any reasonable admission requirement without interference or approval of a government agency, which many colleges are.
This is just a “tool law” crafted to punish whenever it suits the will of the authorities and hence why it is vague. If the plebes were required to write an essay on raising taxes to give the football coach a 400k raise, the school would not enforce the law but if the initiation embarassed the school administration, the campus police would issue summonses.
I never was a frat boy and personally I didn’t see any reason to be one when I was in college. I thought fraternities were a waste of time. The only time it was present was when I entered high school. I refused to let any senior “initiate me” so I avoided the men’s rooms and was prepared to use whatever means I had to prevent it. Two years later, when we were now seniors, our class dedicded on its own that there would be no “initiations” of the new students. That broke the tradition and from what I understood, at least in the several years thereafter it stopped completely.
Someone needs to break the cycle.
nick spinelli 1, December 19, 2012 at 11:11 am
Robert Bork just died. I remember when Walter O’Malley died hardcore Brooklyn Dodger fans were happy. Any happiness here?
=========================================
I am not happy that he exercised his right to die.
We all do that sooner or later.
I would rather see the divisiveness he experienced, whether his fault or not, diminish.
Robert Bork just died. I remember when Walter O’Malley died hardcore Brooklyn Dodger fans were happy. Any happiness here?
That state is a sovereign, so unless their criminal law violates federal law it is up to the people of the state, and their government, to determine their own techniques of social engineering.
I would like to see statistics and other factors that can determine whether the traditional expulsion and civil liability methodology had improved the situation by diminishing the frequency of hazing catastrophes.
Since absolutely eradicating loonies of bad behavior is not generally an attainable goal, if the non-criminal liabilities have made progress, it would seem that criminalization is unwise.
However, if those non-criminal techniques were not working, i.e. were not diminishing the incidents of hazing catastrophes, then a further experiment of using criminal law is not ipso facto unwise for a sovereign.
However, it might be wise to put a sunset clause in the law so that if it can be shown that it is not working either, then let it go and try something else.
Agree with Tony Sidaway.
( http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/05/05/frat-guys-gone-wild-whats-the-solution )
It is a Newtowne kind of moment for colleges nationawide. If you have a law such as Illinois has which prevents Hazing, then each school Dean must walk up to the door of each Frat House, and if no Frat House then to each dorm, and Post the statute on the door. Thence, have a heart to heart converstion with each went in dumb frat member and tell them if they want to come out dumb too that there is no hazing. If there is one incident of hazing then abolish the Frat. Dont suspend the Frat for a period of time. Abolish the Frat. Thence lower the upper case F to a lower case f.
This apCray was going on 40 years ago in Illinois when I was a humanoid and a Frat member.
End Frats as we know them.
Chimne in you dumb deans, we know that you are listening and reading this blog.
While I agree with Mike’s comments about the stupid insipid nature of frats in general, regarding criminal prosecution I must side with Tony Sidaway. To not criminally prosecute only feeds in to the cultures of entitlement and exclusion that makes fraternities so repugnant in the first place.
While the drafting of the law may be problematic, there is clearly a need to stamp out these damaging and abusive practices. I don’t see a problem in the principle of using the criminal law to send that message to potential participants and to colleges.
A stupid, avoidable tragedy that occurs infrequently. The entire Fraternity tradition is ridiculous, but then again hazing is ridiculous and really a means of teaching people to conform to the norms of particular groups. When I started college in the early 60’s there was something called “Freshmen Hazing” requiring all Freshmen to wear “beanies” and perform random humiliating acts for bands of roaming upper class-men. I laughed at those requiring it and refused to wear a “beanie”.
They gave me thousands of demerits, but I never went to the student tribunals held to punish for demerits. Nothing happened. Then again I was never asked to “rush” for a Fraternity and would not have been interested if asked. It all seemed so damned stupid.
The problem here is that most who begin college are still immature and many who are immature feel pressure to conform to what seem like norms. The tradition of hazing is problem a very old and very human one. Having not been hazed myself, my knowledge only comes from what I read, or what I’ve heard.
It seems that beyond the sadism of hazing in this country there is a closely tied in tradition of adding excessive drinking to the point of and beyond nausea. Thus another form of humiliation. What these Fraternity Brothers did was exceedingly stupid, but in a broad social sense winked at unless something bad happens. University Administrations know damned well what is going on and prefer to ignore it giving it license. This is then the result of failure on the part of Academia.
These young men should be expelled and open to lawsuit. Jailing them is excessive given the permissive aura surrounding this practice, which after all young people allow themselves as willing volunteers.
I would say that it is a clearly identifiable law, of the sort which may emerge from the Newtown massacre.
It is surrounded by peripheral requirements which will in all likelihood disable any implementation and thus have no effect.
The lawmakers must come up with a better case if it is to be criminalized.
The basic problem is the lack of identification with other people. Spew parties should be supervised by hired guards and faculty members.
Until `frats act like adults, why should they be treated as such
Sometimes one needs take responsibility for one’s own actions and there should not be any criminal prosecution….
the ‘blind eye’ comes home to roost….