Was it good, clean fun — or hazing?
February 23, 2010 by Claire KnightPosted in: Campus Safety, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Student Life
Frat members thought it would be a great idea to use a soapy floor as a slip-and-slide – then a pledge broke his back.
In 2006, 23-year-old frat pledge Bradley Swearingen was at the Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity house at the University of North Texas.
The linoleum floor was covered with soapy water, and Swearingen slid into a door frame, fracturing three vertibrae in his back.
His injury required surgery. After the initial procedure, Swearingen developed a staph infection — and required two more operations.
Swearingen wound up spending about a month in the hospital and missed nearly two semesters of school. He suffered permanent damage — a loss of range of motion in his neck, and he can’t play contact sports anymore.
He sued the fraternity and its officers, claiming his injuries were caused by hazing.
The fraternity settled, but its officers fought the charges in court. They claimed that frat members weren’t hazing — they were just having fun. They pointed out two key factors:
- active members — not just pledges — participated in the activity, and
- no one was forced to participate.
The jury rejected Swearingen’s claim and found no damages.
Did the jury make the right call? Tell us what you think in the comments section.
HigherEdMorning delivers the latest HigherEd news once a week to the inboxes of over 200,000 HigherEd professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to HigherEdMorning!
Loading ...
February 24th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
I would say that the Jury made exactly the right call. Mr. Swearingen must have understood the risk he was taking at some point – and he needs to take responsibility for his actions. I am absolutely sure that he thought it looked like harmless fun, until the injury occurred – and it is so much easier to blame someone else for your own stupidity.
February 24th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
In this particular case, with what is presented to the readers, I believe the jury made the correct decision.
February 24th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
If a student (any student) is considered an adult at the age of 21 and can choose to drink and risk lives, including his own he can also be expected to choose carefully about other risky behavior that affect life and limb. These may include other activities like driving, skiing, contact sports, playing with knives, having sex, and more drinking. Our jury system would never deny the rights of our youth. “Remember kids if you go fast on the ice you may fall down.” Of course the jury did the right thing! Its the people asking the question that baffled all reason.
February 24th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Finally – a smart decision. He was 23 years old for crying out loud – he needs to take responsibility for the terribly unfortunate consequences of goofy behavior….sometimes sillieness can get someone hurt – it’s ashame, but it’s true. Trying to blame it on others is truly sad.
February 24th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
I don’t really think we have enough information to make an informed decision on this. It was a foolish thing to do but if other kids were hassled into doing it then it changes my perspective. Hazing is just another form of bullying that so frequently is tolerated by school officials and other students rather than being dealt with.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
It was poor judgment on the part of the leaders of the fraterity to create an environment that could do such damage. The student would not have engaged in that behavior if not encouraged and provided the opportunity to do so. He should have been awarded damages for being put in a high risk environment. Even if the others were participating and he was not required (hazed) to take part, likely he felt if he didn’t participate he would be thought of as a chicken or at least as NOT a part of the guys. There is nonverbal but equally felt, hazing in these types of situations.
February 25th, 2010 at 11:26 am
I work at a small University where there is a Lambda Chi chapter. I am also a Lambda Chi alum who stays in very close touch with our chapter. For decades hazing has been outlawed by the national, general fraternity and the consequences for a local chapter for such activities are very serious. We have not even called our new members “pledges” in over 40 years. They are “Associate Members” until they are initiated, with voting privileges, etc. It is unfortunate that the young man experienced these injuries and perhaps even it was a foolish idea for the fraternity to conduct such an activity. But HAZING——–NOOOOOO!!
April 7th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Right call.
Sad for Swearingen…but he needs to take responsibility for his actions.