Jean lawsuit against University dismissed
Reverie 39, Wikimedia Commons
September 15, 2021
On September 10, a federal judge dismissed former University student John Jean’s lawsuit against the University.
The decision was announced a year to the day after the alleged hazing, negligence, and negligence per se occurred at the former Kappa Delta Rho fraternity house on Strohecker Farm Lane.
University President John Bravman briefly addressed the results while speaking to new fraternity bid recipients on Sunday.
“We just had a lawsuit against [the University] dismissed on Friday, with prejudice,” President Bravman said, meaning another amended complaint may not be filed against the University in this case. However, Director of Communications Mike Ferlazzo further explained that “the court’s decision is subject to appeal to the Third Circuit and the case continues for the chapter, the national organization and the Bucknell students who must still respond to the allegations of hazing that are still pending in the court.”
Jean’s argument focused on an alleged pattern of hazing at the University, citing recent misconduct or removal of two Greek-letter organizations, as well as the men’s swimming and diving team and the Bison Chips.
His attorney wrote that because so many organizations had been removed, “it was foreseeable to [the University] that its training, prevention, enforcement and response to hazing was insufficient and it recklessly encouraged [University] students to haze pledges and fellow students.”
Judge Matthew W. Brann said last week that Jean did not establish “that Bucknell was aware or should have been aware that hazing would occur at the September 10, 2020 Iota Chapter initiation event.”
Unless the University was “aware that hazing would occur at [Jean’s] initiation event, the Court cannot conclude that [the University] consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that Jean would be subjected to hazing.”
Because Judge Brann dismissed the suit with prejudice, Jean cannot continue his case without filing with a federal appeals court.
President Bravman used his Sunday afternoon remarks to denounce hazing on campus, saying, “there is zero tolerance and acceptance of hazing. I know what goes on. I know what [my fraternity] did. I was buried alive in a coffin,” President Bravman said, referring to his pledge process at Stanford. “We don’t do that anymore.”
“I spill a lot of psychological blood defending you,” he said, eyeing the new pledge class. Bravman noted long-existing opposition to the Greek system on campus by some, citing those who would “make [Greek life] disappear” if they could.
President Bravman cautioned the students there that the future of Greek life on campus is up to them and warned of the pressures and temptations that lead students to engage in harmful behavior.
Bravman concluded, “You have to help me do my job… Give me less to defend and more to celebrate and I promise you, I’ll do that. That’s the best I can offer you.”
The national and local chapters of the fraternity, as well as three students, were named in the original lawsuit; litigation against them is still ongoing. Jean accused those other parties of false imprisonment, assault and infliction of emotional distress in his September 22, 2020 complaint.
Ferlazzo provided an additional statement to the University in a Sept. 16 email which averred that “Bucknell was not aware and could not have been aware that hazing would occur at the chapter initiation event. The court agreed that the University cannot be held legally responsible for the alleged hazing.”
“The safety and well-being of our students is Bucknell’s No. 1 priority,” Ferlazzo continued.
Robert Owen • Sep 20, 2021 at 12:18 am
Class of ’74. Bucknell was rightfully dismissed from this case, but its reaction to the offense was excessive: banning the entire fraternity for the alleged off-campus acts of a few. It seems to suggest an animosity to free student associations and fraternities in particular. Fraternities are voluntary organizations – no one is compelled to join, remain, or participate in any activity, Should all members be held responsible for events that they did not support or participate in, or is “guilt by association” enough to deny them all the usual rights of students? Sure, 18- to 21-year-olds can be knuckleheads sometimes, and if they cross the line they should receive appropriate discipline.
The faculty social engineers have long preferred that all activities be tightly controlled by the University, but is that a good reason to overrule all of the positive social, psychological, and educational benefits of self-organized small groups? Students are not employees, slaves, or inmates, they are individuals with rights to associate within reasonable boundaries.
BOB HOLOF • Sep 17, 2021 at 11:49 am
I am class of ‘53. It seems in 70 years little has changed. The University still believes it needs fraternities to cement its alumni base. It turns a blind eye to its responsibility at the human rights violations fostered by a fraternity based institution. These include separatism, bullying, and physical abuse. The objectors to being associated with a University so dependent on this structure were listened to by other top tier schools. It is time for some serious soul searching by Bucknell’s board and administration.