• Noway says:

      +1. Head will roll big time. I cannot for the life of me understand why folks will do the things alleged in the complaint. No pissant frat or sorority or any other institution, for that matter, is worth that.

  1. George Chidi says:

    “At this meeting, Ms. Crapanzano directly challenged Cox’s comments regarding the evidence of a YHC staff member’s involvement. In response, Cox threatened Ms. Crapanzano, suggesting that she and Crapanzano should ‘step outside and fight,'” according to the complaint.
    Crapanzano claims she completed her article on hazing at YHC the next week, but “the Chair of the Communication Studies Department, Dr. Jennifer Hallett, in an email, informed Ms. Crapanzano, Mr. Terry and the Communication Studies faculty that the article would have to be sent to YHC’s attorney to be ‘screened’ before publication.
    “On information and belief, the intention behind this request was to censor the article and hide the details regarding the widespread and deeply institutional nature of hazing practices among YHC student organizations.”
    President Cox eventually refused to publish the article, and a week later, Crapanzano was fired, and “barred from attending graduation activities, denied access to her school email, and escorted to her office to retrieve her personal belongings by campus police nearly three months before the natural end of her one-year contract with no explanation,” the complaint states.

    If any part of that is true, I want to see Cathy Cox in jail. Not fired. Not fined. In jail, for facilitating physical abuse and hindering a criminal investigation. I have no patience for people in positions of power who suppress dissent.

  2. George Chidi says:

    Do you know the difference is between college kids kicking the crap out of one another in a hazing ritual and getting “jumped in” by some Blood set in Bankhead or the Brown Side Locos in Norcross? The enhanced penalties under Georgia § 16-15-3 probably won’t be applied to fraternity hazing. They probably should, assuming (a stretch, in my view) that they’re constitutional.

    From § 16-15-3

    (1) ‘Criminal street gang’ means any organization, association, or group of three or more persons associated in fact, whether formal or informal, which engages in a pattern of criminal gang activity as defined in paragraph (2) of this Code section. The existence of such organization, association, or group of individuals associated in fact may be established by evidence of a common name or common identifying signs, symbols, tattoos, graffiti, or attire or other distinguishing characteristics.

    (2) ‘Pattern of criminal gang activity’ means the commission, attempted commission, conspiracy to commit, or solicitation, coercion, or intimidation of another person to commit at least two of the following offenses, provided that at least one of these offenses occurred after July 1, 1998, and the last of such offenses occurred within three years, excluding any periods of imprisonment, of prior criminal gang activity:

    (A) Any offense defined as racketeering activity by Code Section 16-14-3;

    (B) Any offense defined in Article 7 of Chapter 5 of this title, relating to stalking;

    (C) Any offense defined in Code Section 16-6-1 as rape, 16-6-2 as aggravated sodomy, 16-6-3 as statutory rape, or 16-6-22.2 as aggravated sexual battery;

    (D) Any offense defined in Article 3 of Chapter 10 of this title, relating to escape and other offenses related to confinement;

    (E) Any offense defined in Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title, relating to dangerous instrumentalities and practices;

    (F) Any offense defined in Code Section 42-5-15, 42-5-16, 42-5-17, 42-5-18, or 42-5-19, relating to the security of state or county correctional facilities; and

    (G) Any offense defined in Code Section 49-4A-11, relating to aiding or encouraging a child to escape from custody.

    • George Chidi says:

      Oh … I missed these:

      (H) Any offense of criminal trespass or criminal damage to property resulting from any act of gang related painting on, tagging, marking on, writing on, or creating any form of graffiti on the property of another;

      (I) Any criminal offense committed in violation of the laws of the United States or its territories, dominions, or possessions, any of the several states, or any foreign nation which, if committed in this state, would be considered criminal gang activity under this Code section; and

      (J) Any criminal offense in the State of Georgia, any other state, or the United States that involves violence, possession of a weapon, or use of a weapon, whether designated as a felony or not, and regardless of the maximum sentence that could be imposed or actually was imposed.

      • gcp says:

        Why did Ms. Burch not file criminal charges under 16-5-61 hazing against the perpetrators? Curious why she went straight to the law suit.

        • John Vestal says:

          Per the Courthouse News Service article: “Further, Rogers discouraged Burch from filing a police report. Threatening that, if she did, the sorority members involved would sue her.” TIFWIW.

Comments are closed.