WSU has revoked the Alpha Kappa chapter of Phi Kappa Tau’s recognition following hazing and conduct violation allegations that surfaced after bid day this year.

Six violations of WSU’s Standards of Conduct for Students were brought against the fraternity after an investigation and appeals process held by the Office of Student Standards and Accountability (OSSA) . The fraternity appealed to the highest university level, The Office of the President, before the loss of recognition was announced.

The violations included abuse of the student conduct system, failure to comply with university officials or law enforcement officers, alcohol, hazing, and violation of university policy, rules, or regulations.

The original sanctions mandated that Phi Kappa Tau’s could not be recognized until Aug. 1, 2018. However, when the fraternity appealed to the Office of the President, this time frame was reduced by one year, according to a letter from the Office of the President. The loss of recognition will now last until Aug. 1, 2017.

Other sanctions include the withholding of university services, privileges or administrative approval from the organization.

The fraternity appealed the decision to the Student Conduct Board and to President Elson S. Floyd, both of which upheld the sanctions, although Floyd did reduce the time without recognition.

The fraternity’s attorney, Roger Sandberg of Esser & Sandberg Attorneys at Law in Pullman, said the fraternity will continue to appeal through the Whitman County Court, which has the ability to reinstate Phi Kappa Tau after reviewing the case.

Sandberg said the appeal will focus on potential conflicts of interest in the university’s system which leveled the initial sanctions. In addition, Sandberg said the facts of the case did not support the sanctions, and said he was disappointed with “WSU’s policy of arbitrary enforcement.”

“It’s our position that the process is rife with conflicts of interests and has too much authority for the Conduct Board Officer,” Sandberg said.

 

The “Backpack Protocol”

 

The initial incident occurred on Aug. 24, 2014, also known as “Bid Day” for the Greek community.

On Bid Day potential members of fraternities and sororities discover which chapters will offer them membership. These new members make a choice based on the offers.

According to a Student Conduct Board letter detailing the allegations against Phi Kappa Tau, both new and existing members gathered in the chapter house’s living room at around noon on Bid Day. The furniture had been removed and alcohol had been placed in the corners of the room.

Thirty of 32 new members chose to drink and no attempt was made to discourage any underage drinking, the letter states.

A new member, whose name was redacted from public records, testified that he was given his first serving of alcohol on Bid Day by an existing member.

Another member who testified and also had his name redacted stated that no one was forced to drink at the event.

However, the letter states that any person who chose not to drink was barred from further activities associated with Bid Day within Phi Kappa Tau. The new member, which the hazing allegations focus on, continued to drink for several hours and became extremely intoxicated. Several other members of the fraternity carried him to a couch in an upstairs room, the letter states.

These men went on to participate in what the letter refers to as “backpack protocol” by putting a full backpack on the intoxicated member’s back. The OSSA alleges this was done to ensure that the individual would not roll over onto his back and then aspirate on his own vomit.

According to other testimonies, some of the men assisting were not convinced the backpack was enough to ensure the new member’s safety. Therefore, in order for the new member to remain upright, his arm was duct-taped to a broom behind the couch.

According to testimonies, the possibility of taking the new member to the hospital was considered but the fraternity had to “balance the safety of the member and the risk of being investigated or charged by the university.”

Waking up the following morning with his arm numb, the new member was taken to WSU’s Health and Wellness Center by another member. Shortly after arriving, he was then taxied to Pullman Regional Hospital.

The new member was dangerously dehydrated, had reached a blood alcohol level of .48 the night before, and suffered nerve damage in his arm, the letter states. He was moved to the intensive care unit and remained at the hospital for three days.

Sandberg noted the process by which the member’s blood alcohol content was obtained, called retrograde extrapolation, is a highly debated procedure that Sandberg said cannot accurately determine the member’s blood alcohol content.

A woman who was aware of the new member’s admittance at the hospital notified the OSSA, the letter states. An investigation began soon after.

During the investigation, the new member said that his own poor decisions were responsible for what happened to him. Despite this, the letter states that WSU policy declares the use of alcohol during new member activities a part of hazing’s definition.

Even without the five other violations, hazing itself mandates a minimum of loss of recognition under both the Standards of Conduct for Students and the Washington Administrative Code 504-26-206, providing the organization is found responsible.

The Conduct Board recorded pleas of ‘responsible’ by the fraternity to failure to comply, violation of university policy, and alcohol.

Phi Kappa Tau denies responsibility of the other accusations which include retaliation, abuse of conduct system, abuse of self or others, and reckless endangerment.

The latter two are part of the same hazing violation and the former two were charged after the investigation was already in progress.

A member of Phi Kappa Tau had a conversation with OSSA’s Director Adam Jussel on Sept. 15, another letter released by the Conduct Board states.

The member was reviewing conduct files in preparation of their Sept. 24 hearing. After reviewing the file, the letter states the individual sent text messages to the student who notified the OSSA.

The letter states that the text messages included questions to the student about why they had not talked with the fraternity before coming forward. Since Phi Kappa Tau’s misconduct is the reason the fraternity was investigated, not the fact that an individual discussed it with investigators, the behavior resulted in being charged with retaliation and abuse of the system. The violating person had been warned against such action, according to the same letter.

The first letter states that Phi Kappa Tau’s defense included the idea of tradition, the concept of abuse being vague, and a lack of a clear definition of new member activity, among others.

“The fraternity position is that abuse of alcohol was not expected,” Sandberg said.

Sandberg said due to the relatively small amount of alcohol available per person, he believes that heavy drinking was actually discouraged by the fraternity.

The conduct board also reviewed a report from Sept. 2013 in which a 19-year-old female was hospitalized after being found unconscious inside the fraternity. Members attempted to stop emergency personnel from entering the house after the initial 911 call was made. The conduct board sanctioned Phi Kappa Tau with abuse of self or others, reckless endangerment, violation of university policy, and violation of law. The result of these sanctions was an education course for members of the fraternity on how to respond to emergency situations.

 

Processing concerns

 

Sandberg said he believes Jussel’s multiple roles in the OSSA process, the conduct hearing contained multiple conflicts of interest. Sandberg noted that Jussel’s position as student conducts officer, having judicial authority in this case while also maintaining positions as prosecutor and the investigator, raises questions.

Jussel however said his role is not one of a judicial body, simply as an investigator.

“In the course of the investigation, I took a lot of notes verbatim then condensed those, turned those over to the conduct board and deferred to their decision,” Jussel said.

The process itself has many procedural safeguards that make sure organizations charged have a fair and complete process, he said.

“This includes a right to an administrative hearing, to review the investigation file, to call witnesses, to question witnesses through the conduct board chair, to have an adviser present during any meeting or hearing, the right to appeal to the appeals board, and the right to have the President review the matter if needed,” he said.

The process is designed to educate students, and does not follow the same regulations a criminal or civil court would, Jussel said.

“I primarily identify as an educator, not a lawyer,” he said.

Sandberg also raised concerns over WSU’s Good Samaritan rule, which states students who seek medical aid for alcohol or drug related incidences will not be disciplined by the university.

However, the regulation goes on to state, “students and student organizations are expected to summon immediate emergency care for students, members, or guests who are in need of such care and failure to do so may, in certain cases, results in discipline under reckless endangerment.”

Sandberg said that in this particular case, when it appeared someone needed medical attention, it was given. Then the students were punished for it.

“The spirit of the law was violated,” he said.

Jussel countered this and said that the students did not act on the Good Samaritan rule because they did not act that night, but instead waited until the following morning. Because of this, Jussel chose to defer the case to the Conduct Board and disregard the Good Samaritan rule.

However, according to the Good Samaritan guidelines hazing is not protected under the rule. “This guideline provides no relief from disciplinary action for hazing, sexual assault, physical abuse, theft, arson, malicious mischief, disorderly conduct, firearms or dangerous weapons, drug manufacture or distribution (dealing), acts of hate or bias, or any conduct violation other than drug or alcohol use,” the policy on the OSSA website states.

Sandberg said his ideal outcome would have been WSU using this opportunity to educate the Greek community and the university as a whole, Sandberg said.

“This should be a learning experience,” he said. “Instead the university lets loose a fraternity that now has no oversight.”

Sandberg said he would prefer that the university provide alcohol education to the fraternity members and make leadership changes within the fraternity.

Each Greek organization signs a Hazing Compliance Agreement that informs them that the entire organization, and individuals involved, will be held accountable in circumstances of hazing.

 

Effects on the Council

 

Sandberg said he also still feels it is unjust that some IFC members have lost recognition for something they had no part in.

One of these members is Adam Crouch, 2014’s IFC President, a member of Phi Kappa Tau who resigned from his IFC positions on Monday.

With permission from Crouch, Jussel said that his investigation revealed Crouch had not been present during the incident which resulted in hazing allegations.

IFC bylaws dictate that executive council members must be members of a recognized fraternity on campus to be eligible to serve. Following loss of Phi Kappa Tau’s recognition, Crouch no longer fulfilled the requirements.

In additional accordance with IFC bylaws, the current executive vice president Tesfaye Murrell will replace Crouch as president for the remainder of the semester, said Evan Englander, the associate director of the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Life.

Because there are only four weeks left before the semester ends, IFC will not re-elect a new president but will continue transitioning Zak Cherif into the position.

“Even if Adam hadn’t stepped down this would still be done,” Englander said.

President Floyd said in a statement released by his office, “As a matter of practice I do not comment on disciplinary matters.”