Needham Girls HS Hazing

[Unregistered]

How about accepting the fact that her actions were wrong, the suspension warranted and deal with that. Far better than trying to go to court to seek an alternate punishment so your kid could play in a high school soccer game.

This was a great opportunity for a good life lesson. Too bad that at least some of the parents of those involved tried to circumvent that and get their kids on the field anyway.

I know this man and he is very honorable. I am sure that his daughter, if involved, is being taught a life lesson. Should he lock her in her room with only bread and water for dinner, is that punishment enough for you? Doing community service is a just punishment for the acts committed.

[Unregistered]

Unless you personlly know this man and his family,or were involved in this please be quiet. What should he have done? I am sure that you are such a fine example you can tell us the right way to have handeled this.

If this were my child, there wouldn't be a court date. Kids must understand for every action there is a consequence.

[Unregistered]

I am a college coach and the NCAA does identify any behavior (including making fresh carry equipment or having to shave their heads, which is often done in hockey and football) as hazing. While I don't agree with all of it, here is my 2 cents on the topic at least in the college setting:

1) People who accept it as a "rite of passage" are probably people, like myself, who were hazed. What happens is you get hazed and then can't wait to pay it forward to the next class of freshmen...the cycle continues with the "well, I had to go through it" mindset, and it usually gets worse year to year. As a player I agreed with that, but now as a coach and athletics administrator I totally get why that thinking is flawed.

2) People assume that the "hazers" will always use common sense. Most incidents in college involve alcohol, with people making worse decisions as the night goes on. The reason the NCAA jumped all over this subject a few years ago was due to the rash of injuries and deaths involving these incidents.

3) You never know what "hidden harm" hazing could cause. Let's say it's having a group of freshmen girls stand in their bikinis...maybe one has an eating disorder, maybe one was abused, maybe they are just terribly self-conscious. May seem harmless, but you really never know what could cause a lot of emotional pain for these kids.

4) The "voluntary" hazing argument is the same as "voluntary" workouts - you don't show up, it's held against you. Everyone knows it, everyone therefore shows up.

5) Lastly and most importantly, most of the teams involved in hazing say it's for "team bonding", and yet most of the activities do just the opposite. We don't have freshmen do anything that upperclassmen don't do, including carrying equipment. Why? Because we don't want them to act like freshmen, we want them to act like teammates. We can't treat them like they are freshmen off the field but then expect them to step up and play like upperclassmen on it. Here's a task for coaches: have your players write down what their goals for the team are on an index card prior to the season starting. Put them up on the board, and then ask them what hazing has to do with advancing those goals.

With all that said, I don't think the Needham case is criminal, but agree with the suspensions. And the kids who are committed to colleges will have some explaining to do, although I doubt any would now lose their opportunity to play.

[Unregistered]

Suspend the players for the remainder of the season and fire the coach. Also, the coach should not be able to have any contact with kids again -- anywhere -- club or school. If he condoned this by keeping his mouth shut, this gives great insight into his character and should prevent him from passing a background check. He's an adult and the punishment should be harsher, as he should have (and probably did) know better, but didn't hold up his professional and "adult" duties.

Pretty easy solution on both ends and fits the "crime".

I don't think a criminal case is warranted, but the penalty should be severe enough that it won't happen again, either with the players involved or the "coach".

[Unregistered]

I know this man and he is very honorable. I am sure that his daughter, if involved, is being taught a life lesson. Should he lock her in her room with only bread and water for dinner, is that punishment enough for you? Doing community service is a just punishment for the acts committed.

I think it's fair to assume she's involved given that his petition to the court was to permit the kids to play and do community service instead. Doubt anyone one would suggesting that if their kid weren't involved.

He may be honorable, but clearly something was lacking in the parenting department...further compounded by his request to circumvent the suspension.

I agree with you however. Once the suspension is served, community service is an excellent idea!

[dd2]

I think that the suspensions of the players and coaches was justified, and think the judge did the right thing in refusing to grant the injunction. From one of the stories (the Herald), it appears that the plaintiff made a particularly weak argument, asking for an order of reinstatement and substitution of community service and hazing education. In short, the player was not claiming she didn't do it, she was claiming that the principal chose the wrong penalty. I find it hard to believe that courts want to interfere with the substance of student discipline decisions.

The appropriateness of the suspensions depends on their length. I think it should be long - much longer than a game, and perhaps for an entire season (not the rest of this season, but whatever the "next" season is). Consider, for example, the normal MIAA suspension for drinking. That offense gets roughly the same treatment - suspension. Like hazing, underage drinking is a violation of rules and possibly a crime. Yet unlike hazing, drinking (though horribly careless) is not undertaken with the express purpose of causing harm or humiliation to a fellow student. To me, the deliberate and purposeful aspects of hazing make it worse than underage drinking. I therefore think that these students deserve more than a one game (or even playoff long) suspension. At the very least, they should receive suspensions longer than those for drinking (which I believe is 25% of a season for a first offense).

Also, if I were the District Attorney I would probably conduct an investigation that forced the players to ponder the possibility of criminal prosecution and the consequence that it might have on their lives, even though I don't think I would charge them with a crime. I am not anxious to put a permanent mark on their records beyond the suspension, but I am also not at all forgiving of their behavior. This was done because they were popular and important enough in the high school pecking order to consider those below them objects of amusement. They deserve more than suspension, even if not criminal prosecution.

As for the coach, I think he deserves much more than a suspension. I would consider a leave without pay or possibly criminal prosecution appropriate, depending on what he knew about the situation and how he treated it. I think the legal system and school should come down very hard on the coach to send a message that coaching behavior needs to change - not just in high school but in college too.

Coaches know darned well that hazing happens. It often involves drinking and other hazardous behavior. I know of kids in college who have been forced to drink. It is simply not enough for coaches to tell players not to haze. That is mere lip service. The code of silence among teammates ensures social repercussions against those who refuse to be hazed or report hazing. The culture of hazing can be broken only by those from outside the circle of players, and that starts with coaches who put the control of hazing above competitive success.

Because hazing is often led by team leaders, sanctions against hazing generally mean a coach will lose his best players. That encourages coaches to look the other way and create plausible deniability. Sometimes it leads coaches to actively protect players. When combined with the code of silence, it leaves the vast majority of hazing victims with no effective recourse.

Coaches therefore need to understand that the penalties for condoning hazing are immediate and severe. That was obviously the intent behind the law about reporting hazing. Thus, if I were the principal of Needham High, I'd think about a month's leave without pay (assuming the union contract permits this kind of action). And if I were the DA, I'd seriously consider filing criminal charges. Even if these charges are ultimately bargained down to something more innocuous, an important message will have been sent. Coaches had better stand firmly on the side of protecting students, and not won-loss records. If they don't, their jobs and freedom are in jeopardy.

[Unregistered]

If this were my child, there wouldn't be a court date. Kids must understand for every action there is a consequence.

Never my kid, huh? It must be nice to know without a doubt your teenager would never do
something wrong. Good kids sometimes make stupid and costly mistakes, but to say yours never would is absurd.

[Unregistered]

I know this man and he is very honorable. I am sure that his daughter, if involved, is being taught a life lesson. Should he lock her in her room with only bread and water for dinner, is that punishment enough for you? Doing community service is a just punishment for the acts committed.

An honorable man would not try to circumvent the rules and the law for the sake of A GAME. Short of being brought up on charges or expelled from school, these parents should have allowed their daughters to accept the suspension and just moved on.

[Unregistered]

Never my kid, huh? It must be nice to know without a doubt your teenager would never do
something wrong. Good kids sometimes make stupid and costly mistakes, but to say yours never would is absurd.

The poster was saying that kids (good or otherwise) should pay the consequences for their actions. Where did he/she say their kid never would??

If my kid did something stupid & costly, then I would HOPE that they paid for that action. Going to court to try and weasel out of the punishment is not something we would ever contemplate.

[Unregistered]

An honorable man would not try to circumvent the rules and the law for the sake of A GAME. Short of being brought up on charges or expelled from school, these parents should have allowed their daughters to accept the suspension and just moved on.

Agreed!

[Unregistered]

Never my kid, huh? It must be nice to know without a doubt your teenager would never do
something wrong. Good kids sometimes make stupid and costly mistakes, but to say yours never would is absurd.

I never said my child has done nothing wrong. I said that my child would have to live with the consequence , and not have a court date to change the penalty and be allowed to play.

[Unregistered]

The court room is full of deals being made, so no one should be shocked or upset that deals will be made in this case. I think community service for the players is a great idea. However, I still think they should sit out this game as well. This would make the lesson ever-lasting to them and to others who are considering this kind of behavior. They will always look back and remember how they blew there playoff chances (more so for the seniors) and regret it. Perhaps they may even pass the lesson on to their kids, nephews, and nieces etc etc.
These are kids and so a harsher punishment is not necessary.
However, if the coach knew anything about it and did nothing to punish those involved or to stop it, then he should be fired.

The court didn't impost the sentence. They should have plea bargained with the principal, AD and MIAA.

[Unregistered]

I know this man and he is very honorable. I am sure that his daughter, if involved, is being taught a life lesson. Should he lock her in her room with only bread and water for dinner, is that punishment enough for you? Doing community service is a just punishment for the acts committed.

If it was my daughter that pulled this stunt, I can guarantee you that she would be grounded indefinitely. No going to watch the game, no practices, nothing. School, right home afterwards and homework. No IPod, no TV, no phone, nothing.

Whatever was mandated for community service I would double -- soup kitchen volunteering, battered women's shelter volunteering, etc.

An "honorable man" doesn't run to the courts. An honorable man would have made sure his daughter wasn't involved in something like this in the first place.

Some people, jeesh!

[Unregistered]

I think that the suspensions of the players and coaches was justified, and think the judge did the right thing in refusing to grant the injunction. From one of the stories (the Herald), it appears that the plaintiff made a particularly weak argument, asking for an order of reinstatement and substitution of community service and hazing education. In short, the player was not claiming she didn't do it, she was claiming that the principal chose the wrong penalty. I find it hard to believe that courts want to interfere with the substance of student discipline decisions.

The appropriateness of the suspensions depends on their length. I think it should be long - much longer than a game, and perhaps for an entire season (not the rest of this season, but whatever the "next" season is). Consider, for example, the normal MIAA suspension for drinking. That offense gets roughly the same treatment - suspension. Like hazing, underage drinking is a violation of rules and possibly a crime. Yet unlike hazing, drinking (though horribly careless) is not undertaken with the express purpose of causing harm or humiliation to a fellow student. To me, the deliberate and purposeful aspects of hazing make it worse than underage drinking. I therefore think that these students deserve more than a one game (or even playoff long) suspension. At the very least, they should receive suspensions longer than those for drinking (which I believe is 25% of a season for a first offense).

Also, if I were the District Attorney I would probably conduct an investigation that forced the players to ponder the possibility of criminal prosecution and the consequence that it might have on their lives, even though I don't think I would charge them with a crime. I am not anxious to put a permanent mark on their records beyond the suspension, but I am also not at all forgiving of their behavior. This was done because they were popular and important enough in the high school pecking order to consider those below them objects of amusement. They deserve more than suspension, even if not criminal prosecution.

As for the coach, I think he deserves much more than a suspension. I would consider a leave without pay or possibly criminal prosecution appropriate, depending on what he knew about the situation and how he treated it. I think the legal system and school should come down very hard on the coach to send a message that coaching behavior needs to change - not just in high school but in college too.

Coaches know darned well that hazing happens. It often involves drinking and other hazardous behavior. I know of kids in college who have been forced to drink. It is simply not enough for coaches to tell players not to haze. That is mere lip service. The code of silence among teammates ensures social repercussions against those who refuse to be hazed or report hazing. The culture of hazing can be broken only by those from outside the circle of players, and that starts with coaches who put the control of hazing above competitive success.

Because hazing is often led by team leaders, sanctions against hazing generally mean a coach will lose his best players. That encourages coaches to look the other way and create plausible deniability. Sometimes it leads coaches to actively protect players. When combined with the code of silence, it leaves the vast majority of hazing victims with no effective recourse.

Coaches therefore need to understand that the penalties for condoning hazing are immediate and severe. That was obviously the intent behind the law about reporting hazing. Thus, if I were the principal of Needham High, I'd think about a month's leave without pay (assuming the union contract permits this kind of action). And if I were the DA, I'd seriously consider filing criminal charges. Even if these charges are ultimately bargained down to something more innocuous, an important message will have been sent. Coaches had better stand firmly on the side of protecting students, and not won-loss records. If they don't, their jobs and freedom are in jeopardy.

The coaching position is a paid stipend. The only thing you can do is fire him. His concern should be what happens with his outside business ventures (Forekicks and Soccer Dynamics). The facility sould be fine but his camp business will take a hit.

[Unregistered]

I am a college coach and the NCAA does identify any behavior (including making fresh carry equipment or having to shave their heads, which is often done in hockey and football) as hazing. While I don't agree with all of it, here is my 2 cents on the topic at least in the college setting:

1) People who accept it as a "rite of passage" are probably people, like myself, who were hazed. What happens is you get hazed and then can't wait to pay it forward to the next class of freshmen...the cycle continues with the "well, I had to go through it" mindset, and it usually gets worse year to year. As a player I agreed with that, but now as a coach and athletics administrator I totally get why that thinking is flawed.

2) People assume that the "hazers" will always use common sense. Most incidents in college involve alcohol, with people making worse decisions as the night goes on. The reason the NCAA jumped all over this subject a few years ago was due to the rash of injuries and deaths involving these incidents.

3) You never know what "hidden harm" hazing could cause. Let's say it's having a group of freshmen girls stand in their bikinis...maybe one has an eating disorder, maybe one was abused, maybe they are just terribly self-conscious. May seem harmless, but you really never know what could cause a lot of emotional pain for these kids.

4) The "voluntary" hazing argument is the same as "voluntary" workouts - you don't show up, it's held against you. Everyone knows it, everyone therefore shows up.

5) Lastly and most importantly, most of the teams involved in hazing say it's for "team bonding", and yet most of the activities do just the opposite. We don't have freshmen do anything that upperclassmen don't do, including carrying equipment. Why? Because we don't want them to act like freshmen, we want them to act like teammates. We can't treat them like they are freshmen off the field but then expect them to step up and play like upperclassmen on it. Here's a task for coaches: have your players write down what their goals for the team are on an index card prior to the season starting. Put them up on the board, and then ask them what hazing has to do with advancing those goals.

With all that said, I don't think the Needham case is criminal, but agree with the suspensions. And the kids who are committed to colleges will have some explaining to do, although I doubt any would now lose their opportunity to play.

Is this something the college coach decides or is it admissions?