Needham Girls HS Hazing

[Unregistered]

Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Anti-Hazing Law


Chapter 269: Section 18. Failure to report hazing

Whoever knows that another person is the victim of hazing as defined in section seventeen and is at the scene of such crime shall, to the extent that such person can do so without danger or peril to himself or others, report such crime to an appropriate law enforcement official as soon as reasonably practicable. Whoever fails to report such
crime shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.

Don't have to be a victim to be obligated to report an incident.

[Unregistered]

Funny, the ad at the top of the page says "Only the best for man's best friend" with a picture of a dog collar!

[Unregistered]

Sanity prevails!
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2010/11/0...ed-for-hazing/

Good decision

[Unregistered]

I did not allow hazing during my years as a coach. However freshman did carry equipment etc to the field, water coolers, ice, etc. and were assigned various tasks by the Captains during practice. It was between the players but I kept an eye on it and the captains were clear in understanding that there would be no physical or mental intimidation of any kind.

Strictly speaking the Needham incident almost certainly falls short of a criminal act IMHO. However it does appear to mentally demeaning and not appropriate. There are other and better ways of getting a team to bond than dog leashes. The kids who say they were ok with the treatment they received may be saying it because they are smart enough to know that there may be repercussions down the road when the media and school spot lights are off of the incident. 4 years can be a long time in HS.....

I believe that both the coach and players should be suspended for at least a game but should not have any permanent blemish on their records. This incident falls short of being outrageous and is better classed as inappropriate.

- Cujo

WOW!

If this had been done to a student (dog leashes and pies) who was not part of a team it would be bullying but because they are members of a team, it makes them exempt from what would be the new bullying laws.

[Unregistered]

I believe that both the coach and players should be suspended for at least a game but should not have any permanent blemish on their records. This incident falls short of being outrageous and is better classed as inappropriate.

- Cujo

One of your better posts, Cujo.

[Unregistered]

One of your better posts, Cujo.

You forgot the "-Cujo", Cujo

[Unregistered]

Strictly speaking the Needham incident almost certainly falls short of a criminal act IMHO. However it does appear to mentally demeaning and not appropriate.

This incident falls short of being outrageous and is better classed as inappropriate.

- Cujo

Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Anti-Hazing Law

Chapter 269: Section 17. Hazing; organizing or participating; hazing defined

Whoever is a principal organizer or participant in the crime of hazing, as defined herein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than three thousand dollars or by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment.
The term “hazing” as used in this section and in sections eighteen and nineteen, shall mean any conduct or method of initiation into any student organization, whether on public or private property, which willfully or recklessly endangers the physical or mental health of any student or other person. Such conduct shall include whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the weather, forced consumption of any food, liquor,
beverage, drug or other substance, or any other brutal treatment or forced physical activity which is likely to adversely affect the physical health or safety of any such student or other person, or which subjects such student or other person to extreme mental stress, including extended deprivation of sleep or rest or extended isolation.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section to the contrary, consent shall not be available as a defense to any prosecution under this action.

Neck wounds and a bloody nose seems like it might fit into the definition of "hazing".

[Unregistered]

I did not allow hazing during my years as a coach. However freshman did carry equipment etc to the field, water coolers, ice, etc. and were assigned various tasks by the Captains during practice. It was between the players but I kept an eye on it and the captains were clear in understanding that there would be no physical or mental intimidation of any kind.

Strictly speaking the Needham incident almost certainly falls short of a criminal act IMHO. However it does appear to mentally demeaning and not appropriate. There are other and better ways of getting a team to bond than dog leashes. The kids who say they were ok with the treatment they received may be saying it because they are smart enough to know that there may be repercussions down the road when the media and school spot lights are off of the incident. 4 years can be a long time in HS.....

I believe that both the coach and players should be suspended for at least a game but should not have any permanent blemish on their records. This incident falls short of being outrageous and is better classed as inappropriate.

- Cujo

Wow, Cujo, this is a scary post. You seem to be applauding kids for opting not to defend themselves against abusive behavior because "4 years can be a long time in HS..." Your note that "there are better ways of getting a team to bond than dog leashes," is also mind-blowing, in my opinion. Was this a tongue in cheek comment, or were you really pondering on the team-bonding process? I guess, having read nasty comments from you to posters in the past, it doesn't shock me that you seem to be on board with seniors "initiating" younger kids in whatever manner you deem ok. I wonder if you were my daughter's coach...

[Unregistered]

Sanity prevails!
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2010/11/0...ed-for-hazing/

Judge's ruling is consistent with almost every decision regarding school sports. Basically, students have no right to participate in HS sports, so they have no intrinsic right to due process when that priviledge is removed from them. My guess is that parents attorney argued that the School's policy (as articulated in the student hand-book) afforded the players some level of contractual due-process and that the Principal violated those expectations. I haven't seen the specific Needham rules, but most handbooks afford the HS principla wide latitude to suspend students form extra-cirricular activities if there is involvement with any sort of innapropriate behavior. So it should be no surprise that the Principal's decision was upheld. There is a disconnect here between a violation of the State's Criminal Statute (which these students and coach may. or may not. have violated) and the code of conduct expected for student-athletes participating in school sponsored events. Hazing is a specific term defined by our criminal code. It has substantial meaning and serious consequences if violated. What the Principal held was that these players violated the school rules (not the State Law) and he has absolute authority to parcel out discipline for those violations. Lets leave it at that and let the rest of this play out.

[Unregistered]

It's interesting that (according to news reports) one of the 5 "offenders" is also a freshmen (the remaining are seniors), while the "victims" were both freshmen. Team dynamics run amok if this is true.

to the "what if" person -- I do not believe for a minute that the girls subjected to dog leashes (so tight they left marks on their necks, according to the reports) and pies in the face (causing a nosebleed to one girl, again according to the news reports) went along and were having a grand old time with these "fun and games." Even if the leashes were not tight and the pie did not cause a nosebleed, there is sufficient evidence that there were leashes and pies and how you could think this is not humiliating is beyond me. Of course the girls are not going to admit they were uncomfortable about the whole thing, there are 4 years of high school and lots of team sports for these girls before graduation.

[Unregistered]

I can't wait to hear/read Coach T's (as in Talk to my attorney) next news conference on this
incident.

[Unregistered]

What if the kids who reportedly were hazed have no issue with what occurred as they do not feel it was a bullying or hazing behavior. What if the parents and school have blown this whole thing way out of proportion with the hysteria surrounding bullying and their knee jerk reaction. What if the girls involved actually support the elimination of these suspensions. Maybe the bullying going on here is all this misinformation and crucification of this team before the facts are clear, and is really now becoming more the WBZ and school doing a hatchet job on these kids, the team and the coach without knowing what really happened?

Were kids lead around the field with dog leashes and blind folded? Were pies smashed in their faces? Did one cause a bloody nose? Is this considered hazing? (What else could it be?) Is hazing against school and MIAA rules? Then it really doesn't matter whether the "victims" are OK with it or not. The upperclassmen broke the rules. They must pay the price, because the next time it happens the "victims" might not be all right with it and the hazing of a far serious nature. Cujo is right though, this incident is better classified as inappropriate and an example of teenagers making dumb decisions because they are teenagers.

[Unregistered]

You are right, these things do happen. However, there is a big maturity difference between a 14 year old high school freshman and a 18, 19 or 20 year old college student.

These things happen to 18, 19 and 20 year old college students because they learn in their earlier educational and sports careers that this is perfectly acceptable behavior. It is not. The suspension should remain and the people who think that this is appropriate at any age might consider how much they would appreciate being led through their office in a dog collar and had pies smashed in their face by coworkers as a team building exercise.

[Unregistered]

Good point. The coach needs to go---he was aware of it and did nothing. If there is one thing I learned during my child's high school sports experience is that there are far too many coaches who simply are terrible role models. When they be standing up and doing the right thing for the kids, they never do. This is a chance to send the right message by prosecuting the coach for failure to report and giving the alleged offenders the best lesson of their young lives by prosecuting them as well.

Question. One of the news reported stated a freshman was involved. Was this also freshman on freshman hazing? Was this freshman exempt from the hazing? How does that happen?

[Unregistered]

Judge's ruling is consistent with almost every decision regarding school sports. Basically, students have no right to participate in HS sports, so they have no intrinsic right to due process when that priviledge is removed from them. My guess is that parents attorney argued that the School's policy (as articulated in the student hand-book) afforded the players some level of contractual due-process and that the Principal violated those expectations. I haven't seen the specific Needham rules, but most handbooks afford the HS principla wide latitude to suspend students form extra-cirricular activities if there is involvement with any sort of innapropriate behavior. So it should be no surprise that the Principal's decision was upheld. There is a disconnect here between a violation of the State's Criminal Statute (which these students and coach may. or may not. have violated) and the code of conduct expected for student-athletes participating in school sponsored events. Hazing is a specific term defined by our criminal code. It has substantial meaning and serious consequences if violated. What the Principal held was that these players violated the school rules (not the State Law) and he has absolute authority to parcel out discipline for those violations. Lets leave it at that and let the rest of this play out.

Thanks for the clarification. Is the District Attorney the one responsible for deciding about hazing charges?