http://gregoryparks.net/wordpress/?p=74
Who to Blame for the Continued BGLO Hazing – The Leaders
This week, just a few days ago, it came out in the media that
Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity has just been hit with another hazing lawsuit.
The reported facts seem peculiar and involve a police officer, a member
of Kappa Alpha Psi, hazing another grown man—leaving bruises on the
alleged victim and requiring him to rub the member down with lotion.
This latest case should add to the chorus of people who rightfully ask:
why can’t BGLOs stop the hazing? Routinely the finger is pointed at a
bunch of adolescents, BGLO members between the ages of 19-23 and some
alumni who help perpetuate the culture of hazing. While I don’t
subscribe to the notion that kids will be kids, I do think that solely,
or even largely, focusing on this age-group as the main culprits loses
sight of what these organizations stand for.
At the heart of BGLOs’ identity is
this notion of “leadership,” so it seems apropos to ask: where are the
leaders on this issue and why can’t or haven’t they solved it? In my
fraternity, whether electing chapter presidents, regional vice and
assistant vice presidents, national presidents and the like, I cast my
ballot for an odd reason. Beyond the rhetoric, all I’m interested in is
who has a vision for boldly advancing the aims of the fraternity and a
plan for execution. When it comes to the issue of hazing, I doubt most
leaders have, do, or will have a sound plan of attack for the issue.
That leaves me with the feeling that, in all honesty, across
organizations, the chief executive leaders—either nationally,
regionally, provincially, or at the district level—aren’t truly
interested in tackling the problem. Maybe they believe hazing isn’t an
issue and only speak to it, because a significant organizational
constituency does. Maybe they believe hazing is a problem, but they are
too lazy, lack any real vision, or lack the chops to work through the
organization’s political dynamics to solve the problem.
Think about this: In these
organizations, the leaders expect adolescents to do two things. Within
the organizations, they expect, largely, college members not only to not
haze but also to report hazing—to stop it when they see it or hear
about it. Also, and maybe to a lesser extent, they expect college
members across organizations to report hazing to prevent harm to victims
and the organizations themselves. However, the leaders—the
grown-ups—have often failed to do this in other contexts where there
have been breaches not only in ethics but also law.
As an aside, a few years ago, Dr.
Jelani Cobb—an Alpha Phi Alpha member and Professor at the University of
Connecticut—wrote an article in Essence magazine about black
men’s sex trips to Rio. He caught a lot of flak from black men for the
article, because he let the proverbial cat out of the bag. I suspect
I’ll similarly catch a lot of flak from BGLO members for what I’m about
to say. It should be no surprise that wherever you have large
congregations of men, prostitutes are likely to be. This point was
underscored by the federal court cases US v. Murphy (2013) and Murphy v. US
(2014), where a traveling prostitution ring made its way around to one
BGLO fraternity’s conventions. While one fraternity was implicated, it
would be naïve to think that this kind of activity doesn’t take place at
all BGLO fraternity conventions. Additionally, you have cases like Alpha Kappa Alpha v. McKinzie (2013); Daley et al. v. Alpha Kappa Alpha (2010); Mason v. Alpha Phi Alpha et al. (2012); McKinzie v. Alpha Kappa Alpha (2006); Purnell et al. v. Alpha Kappa Alpha (2010); Redden v. Alpha Kappa Alpha (2006); Shackelford v. Alpha Kappa Alpha (2011); and Stark v. Zeta Phi Beta
(2008). Each of these cases revolves around substantial allegations
that the national presidents of these organizations embezzled
organizational funds. Across each case, there were similar facts: (1)
people in positions of power engaged in unethical conduct and arguably
broke the law; (2) other people in positions of power were aware of the
conduct and turned a blind eye; (3) those in power engaged in a practice
of intra-organizational secrecy; and (4) whistleblowers were demonized,
attacked, and in some instances removed from the organization. And
while it’s specific leaders who were caught, it’s foolish to think that
this hasn’t been a pattern of practice among some national heads of
these groups, but that those other leaders entrusted with the future of
the organizations refused to speak up and speak out. Similarly, to my
knowledge—and I could be wrong—in each of the instances where the
national presidents were found to have, arguably, embezzled
organizational funds, I doubt that their co-heads (the national
presidents of the other NPHC organizations, those who sit on the Council
of Presidents) called them on the carpet.
BUT, the leaders, the adults, expect
adolescents to do the very thing that they themselves have long been
unwilling to do—to reign in, punish, and/or speak out against unlawful
conduct on the part of alumni, especially those in power, that threatens
to destroy our organizations.
In addition, ponder this: These
organizations aren’t solely comprised of college members. If anything,
alumni members predominate. And when I say alumni members, I mean smart
and well-educated alumni, many of whom are deeply committed to these
organizations. They serve, or could serve, as an intellectual
reservoir—a primary source of intellectual capital—to solve the problems
of not only the black community but also of BGLOs themselves. The
leadership, however, squander this resource. The leaders claim that they
want to solve the scourge of BGLO hazing and suggest that they are at
their wits-end about how to do it. Either they lack and have long-lacked
vision on this issue or they are and have been disingenuous.
I’m a firm believer that there are
few problems that exist that don’t have a workable solution out there in
the world. The key is to finding it. There is a researcher, professor,
thesis, dissertation, article, book, study, practitioner, best
practice…out there waiting to be discovered. The question is whether the
person or people who purport to want a solution to a problem will go
out and find it. The leaders of BGLOs, for the most part, haven’t wanted
to find it, end of story. How do I know? I know because having studied
and written about BGLOs for 10 years and having served as an expert
witness and trial consultant in BGLO hazing cases (for plaintiffs and
defendants), I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people I know
who are the most knowledgeable about hazing, or who have expertise in
fields of study that could bear on real solutions to the issue, are
NEVER consulted by BGLO leadership. Their work is never reviewed. Their
best practices are never examined. And I’m not talking about some random
white person hidden in a lab in Siberia. I’m talking about financially
active BGLO members, who attend chapter meetings, do community service,
participate at conventions, and the like.
The moratoria, the revised
Membership Intake Processes, media blitzes, campaign speeches,
presidential addresses, and, yes, even Phi Beta Sigma’s Anti-hazing
Campaign, are shams. The efforts, if one could call them that, have
limited, if any, basis in facts, data, and actual support for the
speeches, admonishments, and initiatives. BGLO leaders are more
concerned with whether you’re a member of their specific organization,
financial, of a certain stature within their organization, black, and
whether you can say the right things to make them look good and keep
them happy. They cannot move beyond their own comfort zones to do the
most essential aspect of their jobs—ensure the viability, vitality, and
impact of their fraternity or sorority well-beyond their years. Rather,
they seek to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic, to tinker at the
margins, and establish their fleeting legacies.
BGLO undergrads may engage in the
lion’s share of hazing within these groups; it’s true. But the bulk of
the fault for the deaths, injuries, lawsuits, rising insurance costs,
and eventually end of one or more of these organizations was, is, and
always will be the men and women we put in high office. It is that class
of members, our leaders, who should and must be responsible for guiding
us out of the darkness and into the light. But too many (not all) of
them can’t see beyond their own narrow agendas, political posturing, or
lack of insight and vision. And this isn’t to demonize BGLO leaders;
some, maybe many, have good hearts and love their respective
organization. But maybe what some have had to offer is too little,
especially in the area of solving our most crucial issues, hazing being
chief among them.
One of the lingering critiques of my
research on BGLOs is that I don’t provide solutions to the problems
they face. This usually comes from those who don’t read my research but
rather my blog posts, tweets, and Facebook commentary. Even still,
assume I’m a physician, and a patient came to me for a check-up. I tell
them that they are likely to die prematurely, because they’re morbidly
obese from lack of exercise and excessive daily caloric intake. Some
such patients would ask: “What should I do to stop being morbidly
obese?” My answer: “Diet and exercise”; the answer is built into the
diagnosis I give. But some patients want more. They ask: “What kind of
diet should I use?” “What’s the best work-out regimen?” “What if I lack
will-power?” Maybe I should answer these questions, or maybe the patient
also needs a nutritionist, personal trainer, and psycho-therapist. With
that said, let me give some concrete advice on how BGLOs could and
should address hazing, in no particular order save the first one:
Each BGLO needs to come to grips with
what it’s or wants to be—its organizational identity. Each needs to do
some soul-searching. Dr. Stefan Bradley and I edited an entire book on
this topic with regard to Alpha Phi Alpha, which has implications for
the other members of the NPHC. Everything these BGLOs do should revolve
around their organizational identity. This includes, and is especially
the case for, how they identify, recruit (tacitly or explicitly), train,
initiate, and retrain members. Honestly, membership is the most
important issue within BGLOs; without them the work of the organization
cannot get done.
The critical question within BGLOs is
really about leadership. And I don’t mean the kind that can investigate
hazing allegations, host a good conference/convention, give a good
speech, whoop like a Baptist preacher, recite “If” and “Invictus”,
provide great hospitality suites at gatherings…but who can transform
these organizations. Leadership, especially at the national level have
to provide a clear roadmap and vision to addressing hazing by all
reasonable means; and membership have to elect that leadership into
position. To date, BGLOs have not had that. The proof is in the pudding.
That’s not to say that the current and past leaders are incompetent;
they just haven’t solved the problem, and I doubt they gave their best
efforts. This is a chicken and egg problem: when will such individuals
offer themselves’ up for service, and can members recognize them for the
value they bring and elect them? I don’t know; I’m not confident on
these points.
From my observation, BGLOs are
organizations of “no.” They are conservative, and when new ideas and
modes of thinking come to the fore, membership and leadership resist
them. With regard to hazing within BGLOs, the old approaches clearly
have not worked. Therefore, a new type of leadership has to be receptive
to and able to find ways to cut through organizational politics, and
the like, in order to implement new and novel ideas around solving the
BGLO hazing problem.
The best place to start with bringing in
members who exemplify any of these organizations’ ideals is mentoring; I
mean from K-12. Being big brothers or big sisters is likely to create
the best possible pipeline to membership, because then boys and girls
get exposure to these organizations and their ideals early. Once these
kids hit college, much of the training about what it takes to be a BGLO
member could and should already be done.
Litigation-wise, BGLOs are at a
disadvantage. Litigation is largely run by insurance carriers who give
the insured a panel of lawyers in the state where litigation is pending.
The inured-BGLO then picks from among these lawyers, most of whom
probably know little about BGLOs. These organizations, under such
circumstances, should request that local counsel associate with some
other, outside of panel, attorney who is a BGLO member or firm with a
BGLO member on the litigation team. That isn’t to say that BGLO members
will have the ideal body of knowledge to litigate the case effectively,
but some knowledge is better than none. These organizations should
always use expert witnesses if they can. The narrative about BGLO hazing
is easily articulated in a language that would make a jury sympathetic
to a plaintiff. The only real balance that can come is if there is an
expert to better contextualize the issue. Depending on the law in the
jurisdiction, the facts of the case, and depending on whether a BGLO
litigating a case hires a competent expert, they should consider not
settling in order to build more favorable case law to their assertions.
Also, BGLOs lack any real perspective on the legal strategies used
against them, the law across jurisdictions, the strength and weakness in
claims, etc… This is because they don’t analyze prior litigation in any
systematic way. As such, they should confer—the 9 of them—about what
cases they have had over the past several decades. They should gather
all case names from their insurers and all case files from the relevant
courts and then create an analysis of these cases in the aggregate. Yes,
this will cost some money but less money than hazing settlements and
deductibles.
Also, in the context of litigation, when
BGLOs are sued, they have to pay their insurer a deductible—e.g., a
$25,000. How do these organizations recoup that money? They don’t, but
they should sue the members who caused the litigation in order to recoup
the deductible. Also, if a BGLO settles a case or loses it and has to
pay damages, they should sue the members whose conduct resulted in the
verdict and damages. That could help send a clear message to violators.
Leadership within BGLOs need a better
understanding of hazing issues and law. They should regularly attend the
handful of conferences on the topic. Also, there is a growing and
robust body of literature available on the topic; folks need to start
reading.
Leadership have to be held to a high
standard in BGLOs. Their behavior should be a model for rank-and-file
members. In recent years, at least half of BGLOs have had embezzlement
issues involving their national leadership. It’s unreasonable to expect a
19-22 year-old to obey the law when a 40, 50, 60 year-old man or woman
won’t. Leadership have to be held accountable. If they steal; they have
to be removed from office and the organization, and possibly prosecuted;
this is especially so if the same would be done to undergrads. It gives
leadership a higher moral ground when going after college chapter
hazing; it’s also an attack on an organizational culture that flouts
organizational rule sand the law of the land.
Two important data points: One is that a
good predictor of whether or not BGLO members will haze is the extent
to which they are actually aware of the consequences of hazing. These
organizations believe that they are making the case, but they’re not.
Think about this: if I tell you once a year, “smoking causes cancer and
can kill you,” would you stop smoking, especially if you’re addicted to
nicotine? If, on a weekly basis, I say the same thing to you but show
you images of people who died from lung cancer and what nicotine did to
their lungs, and I constantly bombard you with data about the harms of
smoking, would you stop or at least try to stop? Better question: which
approach is likely to cause smoking cessation, the former or the latter?
The problem is that BGLOs lack a command of the facts and therefore a
command of the narrative. They don’t chronicle the major hazing
incidents that result in personal harm and litigation. As such, they
have little to talk about other than abstracts about what hazing is
doing. What’s problematic is that this information is not hard to come
by. These organizations can get much of it via the means mentioned
above. They can also search legal and news databases. This could be
expensive; if only these organizations had members on college campuses
who could gather such information for free from university library
databases (yes, I’m being snarky). Once they have compiled the
information, they could disseminate the information to aspirants,
incorporate it into risk management training, etc… The other point is
that hazing is most violent in black fraternities. Part of this likely
has to do with how manhood and masculinity are defined among black men,
including black fraternity members. Part of this also shades into the
third rail of black fraternity life—homosexual membership. These
organizations’ ability to grapple with and discuss this issue is a must;
but it will take leadership at every level to tackle it.
The ironic thing about BGLOs is that
given the nature of alumni membership, these organizations have
considerable intellectual capital to solve their own problems. I
personally know experts in a variety of disciplines who are active BGLO
members who have pieces to the puzzle for solving the problem of hazing.
These members go to chapter meeting, sell tickets to their chapters’
annual balls, do service projects, but they don’t offer up solutions to
major issues their respective organizations face, because their
organizations are not interested. And I don’t mean that leadership
should say, basically, come help if you want. Leaders have to urge,
nudge, beg if needed, these people to lend their insights. Heck, if need
be, pay them. For instance, most of the experts I know are professors,
but they probably cannot put ample time toward drafting a white paper on
hazing, especially if they are pre-tenured, but they might be able to
do so if they had a research assistant or two or three. These
organizations should invest in such.
Black Greek-letter organizations need
alternative revenue streams. This is largely so that they can halt
Intake when needed to make adjustments and not worry about the financial
hit they will take. This is so because most of these organizations live
and die on Intake fees. The problem is that as 501(c)(7) organizations,
they must rely substantially on membership dues/fees. And with the high
attrition of members once they graduate from college—ie., the lack of
financially active members—these organizations are in a bind. They
should consult with an organizational behavior (“OB”) expert about what
it takes to get organizational members to be committed to their,
respective, organization.
These organizations need an alternative
process that members can buy into and that helps gather and prepare the
kind of members they need. To reduce liability, they could have a
protracted on-line course, at the beginning of the process. Part of what
should be taught is the history and culture of BGLOs, generally, and
the history of the specific BGLO they’re joining. Aspiring members
should also be taught about the contemporary issues BGLOs face,
especially a robust education on hazing. They should have to earn some
minimal score to advance to the next stage or to various iterations of
the tests. Some, maybe many, aspirants will not be motivated to read and
do the best they can. As such, incentivize the learning. Give them a
certain rebate for not simply getting the minimum score but for getting
much better scores. So, if a 90 out of a score of 100 is needed to pass,
a 91-95 gets them a rebate of $50. A score of better than 95 gets them a
rebate of $100. Once they finish the series of exam, they are basically
knowledgeable about BGLOs. Then the bonding activities and additional
activities can take place over the next several weeks and even after
Intake.
These are my quick thoughts, the ones I
could get down in 45 minutes before I leave the office. There is more to
come in forthcoming scholarly journal articles and books.
Gregory Parks
Gregory
Parks is an Assistant Professor of Law at Wake Forest University School
of Law, where he has taught since the Fall of 2011. Professor Parks
holds an M.A., an M.S., and a Ph.D. (all in Psychology) and a J.D. He
served as a law clerk on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to
The Honorable Anna Blackburne-Rigsby and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to The Honorable Andre M. Davis. After
clerking, Professor Parks took a Visiting Fellowship at Cornell Law
School and then worked as a Litigation Associate at McDermott, Will
& Emery LLP in their Washington, D.C. office where he worked on
trial and appellate matters.
Professor
Parks' research interests lie in a number of domains: (1) how social
and cognitive psychology explain legal phenomena; (2) the application of
empirical methods to legal questions; (3) race and law issues; and (4)
the ways in which black fraternal networks intersect with the law. He
teaches in the areas of civil procedure, social science and law, as well
as race and law.
Professor
Parks’ scholarly books have been published with Oxford University
Press, The New Press, the University Press of Kentucky, the University
Press of Mississippi, and Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. He
recently completed two books - one entitled The Wrongs of the Right: Race and the GOP in the Age of Obama
with Matthew Hughey (NYU Press) and another on implicit/subconscious
race bias and the law (Oxford University Press). In 2013, he will turn
his attention to writing two books - one on hazing within black
Greek-letter organizations through the lens of law and other
disciplines; another on the myriad challenges that face black
Greek-letter organizations and how to solve those problems.
His scholarly articles have appeared in such journals as: Florida State University Law Review; Howard Law Journal; University of California-Irvine Law Review; University of Pennsylvania Law Review (PENNumbra); Cardozo Law Review de novo; Wake Forest Law Review Common Law; Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy; Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology; Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender & Class; Rutgers Race & Law Review; William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law; Hastings Women's Law Journal; and Psychology, Public Policy & Law.
Professor Parks
is member of a number of professional (i.e., law- and social
science-related) and fraternal organizations. His hobbies include
martial arts (Karate (black belt), Tae Kwon Do (red belt), Gracie
Brazilian Jujitsu (blue belt), Small Circle Jujitsu, kickboxing, Judo,
and wrestling) and travel.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
