“Your worst fraternity nightmare come true”, seems like a understatement after reading the details of the events that involve Alpha Kappa Lambda Fraternity v. Washington State University.
1.Use your knowledge of due process and examine Washington State’s University’s process for dealing with the major student conduct violations by members of Alpha Kappa Lambda (AKL) Fraternity. More information can be found here: http://conduct.wsu.edu/default.asp?PageID=109 What could the university have done better in conducting the hearing? Do you feel that the university was adhering to their established policies? Did you find any possible due process errors that were committed by the university?
2.In the appeal, AKL argues that the Conduct Board’s decision to revoke recognition for five years was arbitrary and capricious. What is your opinion about the decision of the Conduct Board? Do you feel that the university could have provided other options?
3.What is your reaction to the statement by AKL Fraternity that the sanctions were intended to send a message to the entire Greek community and not a focus on individual student behavior?
First of all, "worst nightmare" is definitely an understatement!
I think that the decision of the Conduct Board was more lenient than I’d expected. The evidence against AKL, particularly from Detective Patrick’s testimony and individual arrests, indicated to me that their organization’s recognition should have been suspended indefinitely. I was surprised that the group actually sought grounds for an appeal as if AKL’s behavior was right in any way; I honestly think they should have been grateful for the five-year sanction. Selling and/ or using drugs (especially the substances such as cocaine) are very serious offenses and are not to be taken lightly. As such, I can’t think of any other options that could have been offered to AKL other than the organization to be permanently suspended from campus with each of their members who lived in the house to be subject to individual sanctions.
As for the AKL statement with regard to the Greek Community, if their assertion was true, the Conduct Board did not send a strong enough message. I think that if the Conduct Board were trying to send “a message”, the sanctions would have been a bit harsher. However, I think they used their best judgment to do what was in the best interest of the future of the organization. By revoking registration for five years, their intent to help give the organization a fresh start was a good attempt to communicate social responsibility without rendering perpetual penalty to the future of AKL.
1. I really cannot find any due process errors on the part of the Conduct Board. Their procedures are written to allow for the type of evidence and testimony that were utilized to make their findings. And I think it is important to note the reason. Criminal courts use a very strict and difficult standard of process because the stakes are so high. If we are going to deprive a person of their personal liberty and possibly lock them up or even have them put to death, then the highest level of scrutiny and defference to the accused's rights is warranted. It is also appropriate because there are attorneys, detectives, scientests, etc. involved who know how to work within those stringent standards of evidence and procedure. But in a university hearing for conduct, the worst possible sanctions are no where close to loss of liberty or life. And the Conduct Board does not have usual access to refined legal knowledge, forensic testing and other tools to make a higher due process standard feasible. So it makes sense that things like hearsay are allowed.
In this case, there was credible testimony from Detectives, and corroborating witnesses. Reasonably prudent people can take the culmination of evidence and deduce the facts with a certain degree of confidence. It seems that the Conduct Board followed their own due process rules, so their decision should stand.
2. As for the arbitrary and capricious nature of the sanction, I also agree with the appellate court. The Conduct Board was within their designated sanction to remove recognition of the group for the acts of several of their members. The presence of alcohol and drugs seems pervasive and the University has a strong interest in curtailing that behavior. Membership in a university-recognized organization is a privilege with benefits which also requires a great deal of responsibility, which this Fraternity was not living up to.
The only thing I cannot see in the description was whether the University ever provided warnings to the Fraternity - was intervention attempted? I'm not saying that it is required by their policy, but the facts do read as if the Police were organizing a sting to take down the group. It worked and the group should not keep recognition after all that has transpired, but as an educator, I do wish to see intervention attempted. We have the opportunity to step in and help the group help themselves.
I think Edna was on target in regards to the punishment being too lenient. It was apparent to me that AKL was out of control. Some of the senior members of the fraternity were directly involved with the drug problem and I find it hard to believe that M.W. (the chapter prez) didn’t know what was going on. It seems to me that “due process” was followed during the entire hearing. First, the accused received advance notice of the hearing that listed the violations. Secondly, the fraternity had adequate representation from the chapter president and one of the national directors. Third, everyone had an opportunity to speak at the hearing. In addition, I believe the hearing followed the university policy in regards to allowing hearsay. Lastly, I believe the punishment was in line with the university guidelines. Overall, I think the university was trying to send a message to the Greek community and it just so happened that the crime was serve enough to warrant a strict penalty (however it should have been more strict in my opinion).
I agree with both Edna and Jennifer's comments regarding this case. I believe the Conduct Board's decision to revoke AKL’s recognition for five years was correct. Giving the organization time to clear out some current members before receiving recognition was appropriate. With the number of documented police procedures having taken place at the AKL house, I find it difficult to understand why the National Executive Director of AKL attempted to initially deny some allegations and why AKL fought the Board's decision so passionately. While reading this case, I had to stop myself from wondering what kind of leadership AKL had at the national level. Maybe the apple didn’t fall far from the tree, with national leaders not holding the their young men accountable for their actions.
All other possible sanctions, except expulsion, might have been interpreted as a slap on the wrist. The decision was an appropriate attempt to allow AKL to sort out leadership and member matters, while limiting AKL’s current influence on campus. The sanctions placed on AKL were not intended to solely send a message to the Greek community, but to clearly hold all organizations by the same standards. The university also had an obligation to protect the well-being of students involved in AKL. Not to mention, current AKL members appeared to have lost their way and not living up to AKL’s standards for educational and social maturity.
The University followed their procedures; the conduct board based their decision on the available evidence and therefore based on the preponderence of the evidence (including heresay) the group was found responsible. I think they were lucky to only lose recognition for five years (a sanction they have authority to impose) and should be immediately working with the adminstration towards that goal while dealing with involved individuals on a National level.
I agree with Jennifer that it would have been nice if some mention were made as to whether or not there was a warning issued to the fraternity before all of this spiraled. However, it may be that the university found out too late and the situation was too far advanced to issue a warning. Considering there had been charges against individual members for selling & possession, I would like to assume this was the issue.
I think that the university was very well within their means with only granting 5 years suspension, and am shocked that AKL would have the audacity to think they could appeal this several times. I was also thinking along the same lines as Ken, and hoping that they are following the proper procedures at the National level. The punishment there could be much more severe than it was at the University level. I would be willing to bet that some members would be completely kicked out of the fraternity for life.
Even is WSU was using this case to send a message to the entire Greek community, they are justified in doing so. They did not take any extreme measure to portray this as an example to the community. I think the members and officers did a great job of making their own bed and they have no one to blame but themselves. I also wonder if the school took further action for academic discipline for each of the members. The university’s code of conduct is not limited to only Greek’s who use drugs & alcohol, I’m sure. I wonder if there was individual suspensions that flowed down later.
Granted there's nothing exciting to do in Pullman, WA but....this goes completely overboard.
I'm learning from the Pavela report examples that apparently in a legal case you can make almost any "claim" against a party you want to, even if there's evidence proving the claim is false.
In this situation, it appears that the university did follow its due process procedures. Furthermore, the fraternity broke its recognition agreement with repeated drug activity. How or why WSU allowed the fraternity to continue to operate after this knowledge is beyond me. They mentioned prior incidents of members being kicked out for drug use.
If you grow it, weigh it, use it, and sell it through your fraternity, I *think* the reasonable man would know you are deep in the drug business.
I agree that the penalty was not strong enough and would like to know what the fraternity's sponsor organization did as a result. They are lucky the parents are suing...
Thanks for your comments on this pretty clear case from the stand point of the university. I continue to question the national organization staff at Alpha Kappa Lambda and their ability to see the extreme issues in the Washington State Chapter. I feel they are missing the true issues of the law in this case and the extreme problems that are occurring. I am challenged in believing that they don't agree that the penalty should have been much stronger for this AKL chapter, which in my opinion should have included a permanent ban from the WSU campus.
2. I believe that the decision was certainly warranted. The fact that officers and an advisor were participating in the purchasing and selling of the drugs clearly shows that the organization was well aware of what was happening within the confines of the house and were not doing anything to stop the activity (despite holding some pledges accountable for actions). Additionally, ample evidence was presented to sustain the charge regarding alcohol.
3. I disagree with AKL - while I understand why they would feel that they are being made an example to the entire community, the organization needs to be held accountable and the university has a duty to provide a safe environment for students. By allowing the fraternity to come back earlier or to remain on the campus, the university sends a message that this activity is permissible. In order for all organizations to understand that this behavior is not acceptable, the university has to take a strong stance against the behavior - even if to the national organization the stance is "severe".
I think the due process grievance from AKL was that WSU used "confidential informants" to come to their conclusion and levy sanctions. This type of evidence wouldn't be permissible in a court of law, so why was the university able to use it? Informants used by government agents and the police are one thing, but doesn't this strike anyone as being a little loose?
“Your worst fraternity nightmare come true”, seems like a understatement after reading the details of the events that involve Alpha Kappa Lambda Fraternity v. Washington State University.
ReplyDelete1.Use your knowledge of due process and examine Washington State’s University’s process for dealing with the major student conduct violations by members of Alpha Kappa Lambda (AKL) Fraternity.
More information can be found here:
http://conduct.wsu.edu/default.asp?PageID=109
What could the university have done better in conducting the hearing? Do you feel that the university was adhering to their established policies? Did you find any possible due process errors that were committed by the university?
2.In the appeal, AKL argues that the Conduct Board’s decision to revoke recognition for five years was arbitrary and capricious. What is your opinion about the decision of the Conduct Board? Do you feel that the university could have provided other options?
3.What is your reaction to the statement by AKL Fraternity that the sanctions were intended to send a message to the entire Greek community and not a focus on individual student behavior?
First of all, "worst nightmare" is definitely an understatement!
ReplyDeleteI think that the decision of the Conduct Board was more lenient than I’d expected. The evidence against AKL, particularly from Detective Patrick’s testimony and individual arrests, indicated to me that their organization’s recognition should have been suspended indefinitely. I was surprised that the group actually sought grounds for an appeal as if AKL’s behavior was right in any way; I honestly think they should have been grateful for the five-year sanction. Selling and/ or using drugs (especially the substances such as cocaine) are very serious offenses and are not to be taken lightly. As such, I can’t think of any other options that could have been offered to AKL other than the organization to be permanently suspended from campus with each of their members who lived in the house to be subject to individual sanctions.
As for the AKL statement with regard to the Greek Community, if their assertion was true, the Conduct Board did not send a strong enough message. I think that if the Conduct Board were trying to send “a message”, the sanctions would have been a bit harsher. However, I think they used their best judgment to do what was in the best interest of the future of the organization. By revoking registration for five years, their intent to help give the organization a fresh start was a good attempt to communicate social responsibility without rendering perpetual penalty to the future of AKL.
1. I really cannot find any due process errors on the part of the Conduct Board. Their procedures are written to allow for the type of evidence and testimony that were utilized to make their findings. And I think it is important to note the reason. Criminal courts use a very strict and difficult standard of process because the stakes are so high. If we are going to deprive a person of their personal liberty and possibly lock them up or even have them put to death, then the highest level of scrutiny and defference to the accused's rights is warranted. It is also appropriate because there are attorneys, detectives, scientests, etc. involved who know how to work within those stringent standards of evidence and procedure. But in a university hearing for conduct, the worst possible sanctions are no where close to loss of liberty or life. And the Conduct Board does not have usual access to refined legal knowledge, forensic testing and other tools to make a higher due process standard feasible. So it makes sense that things like hearsay are allowed.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, there was credible testimony from Detectives, and corroborating witnesses. Reasonably prudent people can take the culmination of evidence and deduce the facts with a certain degree of confidence. It seems that the Conduct Board followed their own due process rules, so their decision should stand.
2. As for the arbitrary and capricious nature of the sanction, I also agree with the appellate court. The Conduct Board was within their designated sanction to remove recognition of the group for the acts of several of their members. The presence of alcohol and drugs seems pervasive and the University has a strong interest in curtailing that behavior. Membership in a university-recognized organization is a privilege with benefits which also requires a great deal of responsibility, which this Fraternity was not living up to.
The only thing I cannot see in the description was whether the University ever provided warnings to the Fraternity - was intervention attempted? I'm not saying that it is required by their policy, but the facts do read as if the Police were organizing a sting to take down the group. It worked and the group should not keep recognition after all that has transpired, but as an educator, I do wish to see intervention attempted. We have the opportunity to step in and help the group help themselves.
I think Edna was on target in regards to the punishment being too lenient. It was apparent to me that AKL was out of control. Some of the senior members of the fraternity were directly involved with the drug problem and I find it hard to believe that M.W. (the chapter prez) didn’t know what was going on. It seems to me that “due process” was followed during the entire hearing. First, the accused received advance notice of the hearing that listed the violations. Secondly, the fraternity had adequate representation from the chapter president and one of the national directors. Third, everyone had an opportunity to speak at the hearing. In addition, I believe the hearing followed the university policy in regards to allowing hearsay. Lastly, I believe the punishment was in line with the university guidelines. Overall, I think the university was trying to send a message to the Greek community and it just so happened that the crime was serve enough to warrant a strict penalty (however it should have been more strict in my opinion).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Edna and Jennifer's comments regarding this case.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Conduct Board's decision to revoke AKL’s recognition for five years was correct. Giving the organization time to clear out some current members before receiving recognition was appropriate. With the number of documented police procedures having taken place at the AKL house, I find it difficult to understand why the National Executive Director of AKL attempted to initially deny some allegations and why AKL fought the Board's decision so passionately. While reading this case, I had to stop myself from wondering what kind of leadership AKL had at the national level. Maybe the apple didn’t fall far from the tree, with national leaders not holding the their young men accountable for their actions.
All other possible sanctions, except expulsion, might have been interpreted as a slap on the wrist. The decision was an appropriate attempt to allow AKL to sort out leadership and member matters, while limiting AKL’s current influence on campus. The sanctions placed on AKL were not intended to solely send a message to the Greek community, but to clearly hold all organizations by the same standards. The university also had an obligation to protect the well-being of students involved in AKL. Not to mention, current AKL members appeared to have lost their way and not living up to AKL’s standards for educational and social maturity.
The University followed their procedures; the conduct board based their decision on the available evidence and therefore based on the preponderence of the evidence (including heresay) the group was found responsible. I think they were lucky to only lose recognition for five years (a sanction they have authority to impose) and should be immediately working with the adminstration towards that goal while dealing with involved individuals on a National level.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jennifer that it would have been nice if some mention were made as to whether or not there was a warning issued to the fraternity before all of this spiraled. However, it may be that the university found out too late and the situation was too far advanced to issue a warning. Considering there had been charges against individual members for selling & possession, I would like to assume this was the issue.
ReplyDeleteI think that the university was very well within their means with only granting 5 years suspension, and am shocked that AKL would have the audacity to think they could appeal this several times. I was also thinking along the same lines as Ken, and hoping that they are following the proper procedures at the National level. The punishment there could be much more severe than it was at the University level. I would be willing to bet that some members would be completely kicked out of the fraternity for life.
Even is WSU was using this case to send a message to the entire Greek community, they are justified in doing so. They did not take any extreme measure to portray this as an example to the community. I think the members and officers did a great job of making their own bed and they have no one to blame but themselves.
I also wonder if the school took further action for academic discipline for each of the members. The university’s code of conduct is not limited to only Greek’s who use drugs & alcohol, I’m sure. I wonder if there was individual suspensions that flowed down later.
Granted there's nothing exciting to do in Pullman, WA but....this goes completely overboard.
ReplyDeleteI'm learning from the Pavela report examples that apparently in a legal case you can make almost any "claim" against a party you want to, even if there's evidence proving the claim is false.
In this situation, it appears that the university did follow its due process procedures. Furthermore, the fraternity broke its recognition agreement with repeated drug activity. How or why WSU allowed the fraternity to continue to operate after this knowledge is beyond me. They mentioned prior incidents of members being kicked out for drug use.
If you grow it, weigh it, use it, and sell it through your fraternity, I *think* the reasonable man would know you are deep in the drug business.
I agree that the penalty was not strong enough and would like to know what the fraternity's sponsor organization did as a result. They are lucky the parents are suing...
-Michelle Bell-
oops last line of my post is "aren't suing"
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments on this pretty clear case from the stand point of the university. I continue to question the national organization staff at Alpha Kappa Lambda and their ability to see the extreme issues in the Washington State Chapter. I feel they are missing the true issues of the law in this case and the extreme problems that are occurring. I am challenged in believing that they don't agree that the penalty should have been much stronger for this AKL chapter, which in my opinion should have included a permanent ban from the WSU campus.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that the decision was certainly warranted. The fact that officers and an advisor were participating in the purchasing and selling of the drugs clearly shows that the organization was well aware of what was happening within the confines of the house and were not doing anything to stop the activity (despite holding some pledges accountable for actions). Additionally, ample evidence was presented to sustain the charge regarding alcohol.
ReplyDelete3. I disagree with AKL - while I understand why they would feel that they are being made an example to the entire community, the organization needs to be held accountable and the university has a duty to provide a safe environment for students. By allowing the fraternity to come back earlier or to remain on the campus, the university sends a message that this activity is permissible. In order for all organizations to understand that this behavior is not acceptable, the university has to take a strong stance against the behavior - even if to the national organization the stance is "severe".
I think the due process grievance from AKL was that WSU used "confidential informants" to come to their conclusion and levy sanctions. This type of evidence wouldn't be permissible in a court of law, so why was the university able to use it? Informants used by government agents and the police are one thing, but doesn't this strike anyone as being a little loose?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.higheredmorning.com/was-sanction-on-fraternity-too-harsh