On April 3, it came to light that an internal investigation at Saint Joseph’s University was underway regarding hazing allegations involving the softball team.
According to a 6abc Action News re- port, an unnamed source told the news station that students being initiated onto the team, particularly freshman, “had to consume alcohol, perform acts involving inappropriate touching, perform lap dances for upperclassman on the team, mimic various sex acts and other allegations too graphic to be outlined.”
Joseph Lunardi, associate vice president of Marketing and Communications, confirmed to 6abc Action News that the university was aware of the allegations.
A review and investigation is currently ongoing within the Saint Joseph’s Office of Community Standards, which released a statement last week regarding the student behavior violations.
“Saint Joseph’s University is aware of allegations involving members of the women’s varsity softball team. SJU has respond- ed via applicable Community Standards procedures for investigating such allegations and, if warranted, determining disciplinary action,” said the statement. “While its investigation of the matter is ongoing, remedial actions have already been taken to assure the welfare and educational environment for all involved. Due to federal student privacy regulations, there can and will be no additional comment by the university at this time.”
Members of the softball team also released a statement last Monday to The Hawk in regards to the allegations and ongoing university investigation.
“As a team, we are devastated by the allegations and resulting reports that have come about in recent weeks,” the statement read. “We respect the ongoing investigation and the officials involved and cannot address specific allegations at this time. As you have likely seen, they are serious and not to be taken lightly—but the buzzwords reported by the media do not capture the spirit of our culture.”
The players said that they hope the students of St. Joe’s will use their intuition when forming opinions about the recent claims and that they intend to deal directly with the assertions.
“If you have a class with us, share a dorm with us, eat with us in the cafeteria, we ask you this: let your gut determine the kind of people we are, and hold off on judgment in light of recent reports…We are fac- ing allegations head on and with our heads held high. Hawk Hill is too important to us to do anything less,” the statement read.
According to the St. Joe’s student hand- book, hazing is defined as “any action or situation created intentionally, whether on or off campus premises, to produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule.” The student handbook also states that “Saint Joseph’s University prohibits all forms of hazing. The Anti-Hazing Law of Pennsylvania states that any person who causes or participates in hazing commits a misdemeanor of the third degree…[and] individuals found responsible of hazing may be fined, placed on probation, suspended or dismissed.”
The policy outlined in the student handbook also lists specific consequences for in- stances in which a university team or organization is suspected of violating the hazing policy: “Likewise, organizations, clubs, and teams may be fined, placed on probation or disbanded…Organizations, teams, or chapters may also face sanctions by university departments under which they function.”
In regards to the Community Standards process for dealing with documented incidents, there are multiple options available for case resolution, primarily depending on the seriousness of the allegations.
According to the Community Standards page on the St. Joe’s website, “When an incident report/complaint is received, the report/complaint is assigned to an administrator within the Division of Student Life.” The following options are then offered for case-resolution: an alternative resolution hearing, an administrative hearing, a Peer Review Board hearing, or a Community Standards Board hearing.
According to the website more serious Community Standards violations are heard by an Administrative Hearing Officer or the Community Standards Board. An Administrative Hearing Officer is most often a member of Residence Life or a Community Standards professional staff member, and in the case of a Community Standards Board hearing, the allegations will be heard by a three-person panel consisting of faculty, administrators/staff, and students.
Additionally, according to the website, “For these more serious Community Standards violations, a pre-hearing meeting shall be scheduled. This pre-hearing meeting is part of the Community Standards process.“
The website also stated that if the allegations involve a student organization, the case shall be heard by a Peer Review Board, which is a three-person panel consisting of students, plus a chairperson, or an Administrative Hearing Officer.
At this time, the university is continuing to investigate the allegations involving the varsity women’s softball team and will implement Community Standards processes in order to further explore the issue.
