Banned from Pennsylvania
 

This GLO is now banned from operating in the state of PA. What are your thoughts on the constitutionality of this action? We have seen universities revoke recognition and nationals pull charters. But, I am unaware of a state saying a group is unable to operate there. Is this a first?

http://abc7ny.com/2911457/?ex_cid=TA...ource=facebook

I am so confused... how does a Pennsylvania judge get to demand abolishing a fraternity chapter that had no involvement in the hazing of a pledge from a chapter from another state? I understand the chapter in question was FROM NY, but the hazing occurred in Pennsylvania. I cannot imagine this holds up at all. The Penn State chapter does not appear to have been involved with this hazing in any way....

You are correct. The Penn State chapter has absolutely no involvement in this case. However, the judge ruling on the case in PA (because that is where the crime happened) has ruled that the fraternity is forbidden from operating any chapters in the entire state. This ruling seems overreaching to me. I am wondering if there are others with legal backgrounds here that could weigh in.

Does the judge have that authority?? Could any judge simply rule that any GLO, or all GLOs for that matter, are outlawed throughout their state and close chapters at their discretion?

I know that courts can and routinely do shut down companies which are engaged in criminal behavior, but this seems pretty unique. The organization itself was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, so I imagine this was within the range of punishment allowed by Pennsylvania law. I'd have to do some real legal research to figure this one out and I don't know enough about Pennsylvania law and have no real wish to learn it. It sounds as if the national organization is kind of a joke relying on the "honor system" to stop hazing. If there were no other measures taken to avoid hazing, and from the article, it seems like the fraternity admits its own published ritual involves some force in the crossing ceremony, these guys don't deserve to be in business at all.

Now I know my own organization has chapters which haze, but our national organization and alumni volunteers do really try to stay on top of things. We get frequent visits from HQ consultants, we have tip lines, and risk prevention staff at HQ. I'm sure most quality national organizations have similar things in place. I'm glad this judge is sending a message that the "honor system" is no longer sufficient.

Between the national org relying on the "honor system" as hazing prevention and the students in question testifying that they were told by the national org to hide all paraphernalia related to the national org, I'm not particularly sympathetic for Pi Delta Psi to not be allowed to operate within Pennsylvania. I'll leave the legal stuff to their legal team, who presumably is figuring out how to mount an appeal.

It's happened before. NY state schools banned national fraternities and sororities because of their discriminatory practices. (This was in the 50s) So yes, there is precedent.

I agree that there is precedent, however even though this is narrower, it is much deeper. This decision would seem to prevent Carnegie-Mellon University (to pick a private college in Pennsylvania with a greek system) from having a Psi Delta Pi chapter on campus. I can understand legal decision which prevent two private entities from merging under anti-trust rules, but this seems to be quite different than this.