<p>Recently a fraternity at my alma mater was forced to close for at least 4 years following a hazing incident. While I support the decision, based on the conduct involved, an issue as to the meaning of “medical amnesty” has come up. The fraternity members called 911, and this was good, as it may have saved lives. However, the fraternity, as an organization, was punished. I do not believe that the individual students received punishment, but I am not sure.</p>
<p>Should “amnesty” have been extended to the organization? If amnesty is not extended to organizations in the future, will it result in fewer calls for help?</p>
<p>I would not have expected that the “amnesty” policy would apply to organizations responsible for conduct that constitutes hazing. Also, I would think University amnesty would not be a bar to discovery in a civil suit against individuals (which I suppose already has a dampening effect on calls to 911.) </p>
<p>I think frats are for insecure weak minded people, who would benefit from going off to school and meeting all kinds of people and not join a gang that humiliates and degrades you so you can wear a shirt with greek letters on it. the fact that frats often endanger peoples lives is of no surprise.
that said group punishment is never acceptable. I wish frats would go away…not because they get shut down by the school, but because less people see the need to join these groups and they fade away.</p>
<p>It’s my impression that medical amnesty applies only to alcohol and drug-related violations – which are basically offenses where the only victim is the person who consumed the substances. </p>
<p>The idea is that if someone becomes ill because of alcohol or drugs, you shouldn’t be afraid to get medical help for that person even if the person was breaking the law by consuming the alcohol or drugs or if you have obviously been using the same sorts of substances and breaking the law by doing so.</p>
<p>But hazing is a different matter. In instances of hazing, one person victimizes another. I’m not sure that it makes sense to have a medical amnesty for hazing or any other crime where one person is the perpetrator and another person is the victim.</p>
<p>Wow. I don’t care for what I know about fraternities, I never joined a fraternity, and I can’t think of a circumstance in which I would have chosen to join one. But I find almost every word of zobroward’s post outrageously stereotyped and closed-minded.</p>
<p>I know nothing about this incident other than what you’ve described, anothermom, but here’s what I think. Hazing should be punished. The fact that this hazing resulted in a medical emergency that required the fraternity brothers to call 911 is not mitigated by the fact that they called 911. Rather, it would merely have been compounded had they not called 911. There were two actions here: hazing, which was clearly wrong (and apparently seriously so), and calling 911, which was right, but doesn’t eclipse the other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously, nobody can know the future. But consider the other side of this coin: If amnesty had been extended to the fraternity in question, would that not just send the message that it’s OK to behave in a way that’s dangerously abusive as long as you call the rescue squad when you’re done? IMO, based on what you’ve said, the appropriate institutional response is either to sever all ties with the fraternity permanently, or at least to suspend the fraternity for 4 years, so that its current members will presumably have left the university by the time it’s allowed to resume operation, and also to make it clear to all students on campus that if the students involved had not called 911, they would have been dismissed from the university and referred to local authorities for criminal prosecution.</p>
<p>I also disagree with zobroward’s assertion that “group punishment is never acceptable.” When an organization behaves badly, as happened in this case, the organization deserves punishment. Individuals within the organization may deserve punishment, too. On occasion, punishing an group for its bad behavior may have harsh consequences for members of the organization who didn’t behave badly, or who didn’t behave as badly as most of the group. That’s too bad. But it’s not a perfect world, and I think it would usually be a worse outcome not to punish a group for its bad behavior because there would be fallout for some less culpable members of the group. In such a case, there will be an unjust outcome: either punishable conduct will go unpunished, or some people will suffer consequences because of the conduct of their associates. You have to choose the less-bad outcome.</p>
<p>Medical amnesty is typically a state law. Not all states have this law (it was recently vetoed in NJ by the governor.) Colleges can also have amnesty rules, but ultimately the kids can still get into trouble with the law, even if the college overlooks the offense and does not impose any disciplinary action on the students. </p>
<p>Hazing should not be tolerated anywhere, it seems right that the frat was punished. They most likely violated rules set by the college for their frats and call to 911 or not deserve their punishment.</p>
<p>The students who called the police were not charged by the police - so they got their medical amnesty. I say the whole thing was handled properly.</p>
<p>Sikorsky-minus the rest of how you feel about what i said…
just look to Duke University and what it did to it’s lacrosse team, over a hoax. I feel the same way about jocks as I do about frats, that said never would I want every one in a group held accountable for the actions of a few. it is just wrong. and from duke’s shameful handling of the lacrosse travesty (hoax) other schools should learn to slow down and think things threw… now, many cases may turn out to be legit like in hazing and frats , but all those directly involved need to be held responsible not all those who are part of the same frat.</p>
<p>If amnesty was granted then the frat would know they can continue to do what they want with the hazing as long as they call 911 if someone gets in trouble (as long as the person doesn’t die - would the amnesty apply then?).</p>
<p>I don’t think the frat breaking the (assumed) rules of no hazing, likely with alcohol given to a minor but I don’t know the details, should go unpunished simply because they dialed 911. The consciences of the individuals should be somewhat relieved by the fact that they dialed 911 and the injured person assisted which is benefit enough. Now just let’s hope it’s enough of a lesson for them.</p>
<p>My own opinion is basically like that of Marian and Sikorsky - that the best way to stop the group from doing this (and send a message to at least some others) is to stop the group. As to the idea of not punishing a group - here individuals are not facing personal sanctions in a totalitarian way, so it is not really a “group” punishment. The organization itself is being closed (for a time). The members other rights to go to school etc. do not appear to be jeopardized (at least from what I know.)</p>
<p>It really saddens me whenever I read about this kind of stuff. Worse still is when someone is permanently injured or dies as a result of alcohol and/or hazing. </p>
<p>Where I am still confused is in defining what the amnesty really means. Forcing someone to drink too much, as in some of the drinking “games” involved in some fraternities’ pledging/initiation activities, would seem to be hazing in and of itself. If so any time they call 911, which they should do, they risk having the organization closed for hazing, so maybe they don’t call, and a terrible thing may happen (and has happened). Of course they leave themselves open to criminal and civil charges in such a case.</p>