<p>
Ayn Rand wouldn’t agree with you on that part. It is her condemnation of altruism that really disgusts me; the stuff about the independent superman is just a fantasy, like something from a comic book.
Plus, her prose style is abominable.</p>
<p>From what I have read on her, her views make economic sense. She seems incredibly moral and ethical, far more than most ive read on before.</p>
<p>You’re right that this is a civil case which will be decided by a jury. Which implies the laws really dont matter anymore and it is up to the emotional feelings of the jury at time of the trial.</p>
<p>I don’t know who Ayn Rand is but how did she get brought into the discussion? Anyway, personally I think hazing shouldn’t be a crime b/c I believe those over 18 should be allowed to make their own decisions and deal with the consequences b/c I don’t consider peer pressure as someone being forced to do anything against their will. However the law says hazing is a crime and thus the father should be allowed to sue anyone involved whether it’s the fraternity brothers for hazing his kid or even the school for negligence or something.</p>
<p>But then again, hazing is quite common and there are lots of lawsuits and incidents of hazing every year so this will continue to occur regardless of how many people die I think.</p>
<p>Garland:</p>
<p>Hazing is illegal as per Laws of NY State So other kids who made a wrong choice have to pay a price for going against the law. I can not be resposnible for action what others do. However, I can only be responsible for my own actions. </p>
<p>The father can sue try to sue these kids. But a lawyer will take a civil case as long as the lawyers sees proifts in doing so. If none of the defendent is rich or the organization does not have enough money, very few lawayers will be takers. </p>
<p>A victim can have a very strong ethical case but if the opposite party does not have enough money that can be taken away, there will be very few lawyers who will be willing to take the case. Such is the real life capitalism. </p>
<p>If the defendent has lot of money, you will see a lot of lawyers willing to take a civil case. If the defendent is poor, you will find no takers for the civil case at all even if one has a solid case.</p>
<p>So if the organization where hazing occured or the one of the accused student is loaded with money, case will go to trail, in absence of money father will hardly find any lawyers to take the case.</p>
<p>
Well, sure. If the purpose of suing is to collect damages–generally the whole point of a civil case–it’s not worth pursuing if there are no damages to collect. In a case like this, there may be another purpose–to destroy the offending fraternity–and some people may be willing to invest the money to do this.</p>
<p>Hunt:</p>
<p>In a meeting at one of the private chambers in the Supreme Court, where I was one of the 10 or so guests, one of the liberal US Supreme Court justices told the audience few things that were pretty darn good. I agree with his interpretation of law. However, fiscally, I am very conservative. Yet my liberal views on social issues are in line with the Jusdtice. I am thankful to the dean of one of the top law school in the USA on whose invitation I was there in the meeting.</p>
<p>I am for personal reposnibility, making money with ethically based decision but want to make sure that as a human being we help poors beacuse I was one of the poor people. In my life time, enough people helped a poor kids on the way where my familiy is toady. Yet most of them told me that I am alone responible for my actions. I agree with it. I told my kid that each decision they make, they alone are responsible for it. I can guide them but I can not make their decsion for them. They have to live with the consequences with their decsions.</p>
<p>BY the way I am over 50 and still make plenty of mistakes and live with the consequences of my decisions. Such is life. BUt I try to learn from my mistakes.</p>
<p>Interesting articles in NYT Magazine this week about malnutrition. The point of the article was that an authoritarian government like China actually had an easier time reducing malnutrition rates than India has.</p>
<p>As to the OP, while not a great fan of the nanny state, I think we sometimes have to legislate in order to prevent people from doing dangerous and stupid things. If I were that Dad I’d be happy to sue the fraternity and see them shut down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The “fraternity” was not a national Greek organization, it was an “underground” group unaffilated with either a national organization or SUNY, so I don’t think the dad can sue the “fraternity” because it’s just some loose group of kids, who I doubt have deep pockets. </p>
<p>I don’t know what a university can do to shut down these types of groups. They are basically independent drinking clubs with no regulation or supervision.</p>
<p>If this fraternity was affiliated with a national organization and the university, it would have its charter pulled and be kicked off campus, so there is some oversight and regulation. And, in the case of a civil suit, the dad could sue the national organization, which has $ and insurance coverage, which clearly this group doesn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>collegeinusa, you cant be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The two are mutually exclusive and at ends with each other. Your classically liberal(fiscally conservative side) would not want to fund social programs, and your socially liberal side would prevent you from being fiscally conservative. You can be centrist, but you need to lean one way or another, being in the exact middle is not really possible because nothing would ever get done. You will have to give up one side to benefit the other.</p>
<p>So, these kids on purpose joined a group which calls itself “The Pigs?” Interesting. </p>
<p>This really sounds more like a law enforcement issue than an issue having to do with the college. If the group is unaffiliated but in the practice of underage serving and whatnot, the police are probably going to have to get involved to change things. Still, no matter what you do, some kids are going to want to join up with the Pigs and drink themselves to death. They probably all need to go to rehab.</p>
<p>Member:</p>
<p>I will fund all the social programs that focus on how to catch a fish to a poor kid who can become productive taxpayers as they grow. We need to teach them that despite being poor they are born with equal intelligence; and despite race can compete with any other race person. </p>
<p>However, I will close a government funding to a social program that give a poor adult who consistently failed on each step in his life while he was a young person. The only alternative for this person is to go to work and feed himself or herself. A kid who was busy goofing around in school, not focusing on educating himself or herself chooses to ignore the consequences of their decisions. </p>
<p>For a poor person, one can have fun in school and not focus on educating himself or herself now and pain latter or one can have pain as a kid and focus on education and live a comfortable life as an adult. </p>
<p>A rich kid could have their own problems but they are not due to money. And may be due to poor decision making process.</p>
<p>I may be wrong but I only know that for a poor kid out of poverty, education is a one way ticket out of misery. There may be other methods which I am not 100% sure may work like playing sport for major leagues. This is not a gurantted way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, it is weird. I don’t know what either the university or law enforcement can do other than bust the parties. It’s not a group with any kind of organization behind it. If they “close it down”, chances are the group will just change the name and keep on with their practices.</p>
<p>I don’t like to see this called a “fraternity” because it’s really not, it’s just a group of stupid college kids with a drinking problem who joined up together.</p>
<p>These are not my words ( I booroed it from NY times article) but I agree with these words and call my self a fiscal conservative but social liberal:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We must try to make sure these kids become taxpaying adults and not adult who recive benefits while they are grown up.</p>
<p>
This fact makes me a bit less sympathetic to the father who wants to sue. I find it most outrageous when a school-sanctioned organization does something like this, because I think an innocent freshman could reasonably expect such an organization to look out for his wellbeing. This is much less true for a group like this one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. When a student joins a sanctioned (both by the university and by a national organization) fraternity, there is an expectation of oversight, in this case there is no such expectation. Did the dad know what type of group his son was joining? </p>
<p>It’s also kind of strange because there is no “organization” to sue, so he’ll be suing the students who were involved, who presumably don’t have any money *unless they are trust funders, and suing won’t close the “fraternity” because it really isn’t one.</p>
<p>What lawyer would take on this case? There doesn’t seem to be any real “award”.</p>
<p>Whether the father will win the case, whether there will be any award or punishments, whether the case will settled is to be determined. The father feels he should sue, and he can try to do this. Whether he can even find an attorney and proceed with the case is part of this process.</p>
<p>Thread is from October 2009! Wonder what happened with the case?</p>