Hazing Prevention Education & Risk Management for Fraternities, sororities, sports & Club organizations

Leslie Albeit is certified in Hazing Prevention Education and has served as advisor to multiple student organizations, executive boards, alumni boards, and housing corporations. Combined with the criminal defense eye of Morgan Masters, we are able to provide comprehensive education, advice, and a defense to organizations facing accusations from a college conduct office or university community standards department. 

We handle a university conduct process against a responding organization with two lenses: first, to properly uphold the rights a student and student organization has when facing an accusation and secondly, to use the conduct process as an opportunity to analyze past behavior and address future best practices or culture change within the organization. No matter the substance of the allegation levied or the validity, relationship building is key.

I.               Protecting Rights of College Students and College Organizations

Certain due process or accused student/student organization rights are triggered when the university opens an investigation into behavior or an incident. While these student rights are enumerated in the college code of conduct or student handbook, asserting these rights on behalf of a student organization must be done delicately and strategically. On one hand we want to curb the “guilty until proven innocent” mindset that many institutions possess. That involves strategically assessing evidence, investigation tactics, and providing necessary information while stopping any fishing expedition for irrelevant information that could lead to serious consequences.

At the same time, however, we want to develop a rapport with the university conduct office by displaying organizational maturity, compliance, and cooperation. Strategically cooperating in an investigation, while holding the college accountable to uphold best investigatory practices and respect accused student rights, develops credibility and trust between the university and student organization. Credibility often makes the difference in a university’s decision to close an investigation or issue charges. Additionally, when sanctions are being considered for behavior, credibility and the ability to trust an organization’s leadership moving forward makes the difference between probation or removal considerations when implementing sanctions.  

The relationship building focus is key to both respectfully asserting student rights and developing credibility and trust with the university conduct office. Usually the involved parties in an investigation are the student leadership, the university conduct office, and the school appointed advisor or liaison. Specifically for Greek organizations, occasionally it can be beneficial to bring in, or connect with, a member of the Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic Conference, a housing corporation, an alumni board, or a national organization’s representative. Getting everyone on the same page and sitting at the same table can also add to a student organization’s credibility by building legitimacy regarding the morals and the accomplishments that a student organization possesses.

II.             Using the Conduct Process as an Opportunity

Viewing a university conduct investigation as a vehicle to effect change within the culture of a student organization is where we believe the most impactful education can occur. The education piece of identifying risky behaviors and problem solving ideas has more meaning during a time sensitive and stressful investigation than when we are just simply educating to educate. Timeliness is key for change and immediate impact.

During the investigation phase, we can internally with attorney/client privilege collect data, discuss history and past practices, and identify shortcomings or areas that require more or better risk management. Most times, we are working with a small group of responsible students who volunteered to serve in the leadership capacity because they actually do want to step up and better their student organization. These students are receptive to change, hard conversations, and can offer solutions that an outsider, such as ourselves, would not be able to develop.

If a student organization does not have the proper support from alumni groups, housing corps, or nationals, a 19, 20, 21 year old college student is often left flailing and tasked with policing other 19, 20, 21 year old college students. We cannot expect these student leaders alone to make a culture shift in a conversation that has decades of roots. The bridge building we can do between those that have real authority (the universities and outside, related organizations), those that have resources (the universities and outside, related organizations), and those that are influencers (the student leadership) must be brought to the same table in safe, productive conversations in order to plan for the future of that student organization.

One large step backward that has occurred is when all of the groups mentioned above are unwilling or missing at the discussion and planning table. We have seen organizations continue risky behavior, conducting more and more activity in secrecy, leading to eventual formal disbandment and going underground. Universities along with national chapters should have a vested interest in curbing the inability to have a real understanding of behaviors, traditions, and incidents that then move to be uncharted, unseen, and unaccountable for actions.

A large, public university recently wrote, “Leslie is an excellent resource with extensive experience in presentations on safety and risk management measures for students and organizations especially considering liability or conduct concerns with alcohol.” That case involved a large student organization facing a false accusation of hazing and alcohol violations, which we were able to successfully and respectfully navigate to a close with no charges brought forth.