Note: This is a developing story pending the completion of the College’s hazing allegation investigation of Kappa Sigma.
The Geneseo fraternity Kappa Sigma has been temporarily suspended pending the completion of a College investigation, following allegations of hazing that took place at 21 Orchard St. in early March.
The allegations were reported to the University Police Department in a Silent Witness Form. Village of Geneseo Police Chief Eric Osganian said that the anonymous tips alleged that the new members of the Kappa Sigma Spring 2020 pledge class were engaging in a “pledging process” whereby the “pledges were sleep deprived, mentally harassed, and were being called to the fraternity house at night between 9 p.m. and 2 a.m.” The Silent Witness Form, according to Osganian, did not specify how the new members were being “mentally harassed.”
“We do not believe that there is any evidence to establish the hazing allegations made in the Silent Witness Form as fact. Kappa Sigma does not condone hazing and we are taking these accusations very seriously,” the President of Kappa Sigma, who prefers to remain anonymous, said, citing the ongoing nature of the College’s investigation into the validity of the accusations.
Those sought for comment by The Lamron who assume leadership positions at the college, including University Chief of Police Christopher Prusak, Coordinator for Fraternal Life and Off Campus Services Bethany Hettinger and Dean of Students Leonard Sancilio declined to participate in a formal interview. Their comments were provided via email to The Lamron and should be regarded as email statements.
Prusak said that if a silent witness does not elect to leave contact information or identify themselves through the information provided, the department would not “even be able to readily identify them. However, if the person provides information or evidence that would readily identify them as the reporter, it would be difficult to conduct any investigation without making their identity obvious to the persons under investigation. If a person elects not to leave contact information there would be no way to follow-up to provide resources.”
He said that it would be irresponsible and illegal to proceed to investigate “secret evidence” against an accused party.
The Lamron was unable to confirm whether or not the silent witness who provided the tip alleging hazing at Kappa Sigma is actively participating in the College’s investigation. The Lamron also attempted to identify the individual who silently reported the allegations and confirm how many anonymous reports were filed, but was unsuccessful in doing so, thus, the allegations cannot be confirmed nor regarded as fact.
“It would not be appropriate for us to comment on the specifics of an active investigation that is being handled by another agency or College office,” Prusak said.
According to University Police, when hazing concerns are reported to the department, the accusations are evaluated based on associated evidence to determine whether or not they are criminal in nature and if they occurred within the College’s jurisdiction.
“Not all anonymous complaints are relayed to the Village Police, only those that are alleged to occur in their jurisdiction, as is the case in this matter,” Prusak said.
UPD forwarded the Silent Witness Form report to the Village Police on March 9, according to Osganian, consistent with what Prusak called the “Village-College Memorandum of Understanding.”
“Most of the allegations made by the anonymous person who filed the report against the organizational group appear in violation with the College’s Anti-Hazing policies, and not in violation with the definition of hazing in the Penal law that would require action within our jurisdiction,” Osganian said.
Osganian explained that in order for the Village Police to conduct a formal hazing investigation on their department’s behalf, the Silent Witness Form report’s tip would have to be in violation of the penal law definition of hazing.
“The penal law describes hazing to be a reckless or intentional series of acts that cause substantial risk of injury to a person or a third person. The report states that the Silent Witness Form alleges a clear violation of the COVID and Hazing College policies enforced by the College. Although it seems like more of a violation of College rules, UPD gives us the complaint so that we can follow up to see if the complaint aligns with our jurisdiction” Osganian said.
According to Osganian, the Village Police did speak to an individual at the fraternity and conduct two follow-ups later that night to gauge if there was any hazing-related activity going on. The Village Police Department’s investigation was then closed because they could not “substantiate a hazing incident,” and their results were forwarded to UPD, said Osganian.
Prusak said that when hazing concerns are brought to the attention of UPD, along with their forward to the Village Police Department, the “appropriate College officers are notified for a parallel investigation to occur” in regard to the potential violation of College policy.
The College defines hazing as “any act, explicit or implicit, committed by a person, whether individually or in concert with others, against a student in connection with pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, holding office in, or maintaining membership in any organization or team and which is intended to have the effect of, or should reasonably be expected to have the effect of, humiliating, intimidating or demeaning the student or endangering the mental or physical health of the student, regardless of the person's willingness to participate,” according to the policies and procedures page.
Hettinger said that Geneseo has more than 25 Greek organizations amounting to over 1,000 students. The Office of Fraternal Life requires all these students to complete online hazing prevention programs, such as “Hazing Prevention 101” and “Fraternity & Sorority Life.”
Hettinger further explained that presidents and new member educators receive additional education about hazing policy each semester prior to taking new members.
“[They] are required to sign the form as a demonstration that they understand both the college’s hazing policy, New York State hazing legislature and the consequences for violating either,” Hettinger said. “This form also holds organization presidents and new member educators responsible for sharing this information with their active members, new members, and ensuring their compliance.”
Hazing investigative procedures commence as a joint effort on behalf of the Office of Student Life and the Office of Fraternal Life. Both Hettinger and Sancilio said that they could not speak to the specifics of the allegations against or interim suspension of Kappa Sigma, citing the ongoing nature of the College’s investigation.
Sancilio said that, in general, the nature of the investigation depends on whether the fraternal organization in question is nationally affiliated. Kappa Sigma is a nationally recognized fraternity.
“When possible, we involve the national and they assist in the investigation, and we expect information to be shared,” Sancilio said. “If the organization is not national, more falls on the campus to investigate … either through the conduct office or fraternal life. We have also engaged the services of an outside investigator in the past.”
Hettinger further explained that an organization’s inter/national headquarters could also investigate depending on the allegations and evidence.
“An I/HQ may launch an investigation independently of the college, or they may just defer to the outcome of the college’s process,” Hettinger said. “Ultimately, an investigation may lead to an organization appearing before a student conduct board—a student, a staff member, and a faculty member, all of whom are impartial to those involved in the case. The board reviews the case and determines whether or not the organization is responsible for the violation, and if necessary, assigns sanctions.”
The President of Kappa Sigma said that their national headquarters is “finishing up” their investigation of the allegations. Speaking on behalf of their organization, they added, “We have complied with the Village Police Department investigation and are currently complying with the investigation being hosted by both the College and our national headquarters.”
Sancilio said that at this point, there have been no charges levied against the group. In light of “concerning” information being shared with the Office of Student Life, interim suspension measures were put into place to “ensure the health and well-being while the concerns are investigated.”
“If an organization is placed on interim suspension during its new member education process, then its process is paused—along with all other organizational activities and operations—until the investigation is complete and an outcome is reached. Their new member status is simply put on hold,” Hettinger said.
Sancilio referred The Lamron to the “Conduct Procedures for Registered Student Groups” for the process, trial and possible consequences if a student organization is found guilty.
According to the page, a student organization is an “integral part of the co-curricular life on the Geneseo campus” and must follow the responsibilities set forth form the College, including the Student Code of Conduct. In the event of a violation, action will be taken.
The policy explains that the Dean of Students or someone appointed by them investigates all complaints unless it falls under Title IX. The dean and a Conduct Administrator will decide if charges will be dropped based on “mutual consent of all parties involved” or if it will be brought to the Student Conduct Board.
The misconduct will then be judged if it has been committed by an individual and/or the group, and separate trials will proceed accordingly. Any individuals charged will be tried by the Student Conduct Board in a separate trial. The Student Conduct Board is composed of three members of the Geneseo community: faculty, administrative staff and students, respectively.
According to the policy, the charges will be brought to a representative of the organization and the organization's advisor, who can attend the trial if they choose to. No more than two members from the organization can speak at the hearing and present all evidence. Just like a normal trial, the organization can call witnesses and question anyone or anything brought forth by the college unless a written testimony is approved by the group prior to the trial.
The policy states that “if the majority find the organization has violated the standards of conduct, the Board will, by majority vote, determine the conduct action to be taken against the organization.” The group can face consequences anywhere from a written warning or conduct probation with sanctions, such as performing community service, fundraising for a designated organization, paying the injured party, being banned from College facilities and activities, or writing a public apology.
Sancilio explained that most silent witnesses will remain anonymous unless evidence shown during the trial reveals something regarding who the individual is.
“Any retaliation against someone presenting information to the College for review would be a violation of the Code of Conduct and would be handled separately,” Sancilio said. “All witnesses are welcome to discuss their options and resources (e.g., police, no contact letters, counseling, Title IX, etc.) with the Dean or Assistant Dean.”