Related: Rugby Case Files
On Oct. 19, the Office of Student Conduct officially suspended the entire Virginia Tech Men’s Club Rugby team until May 15, 2010, because of a hazing incident at an Aug. 28 party held by a member of the club.
According to a document obtained by the Collegiate Times, the team received a “loss of recognition” sanction from the Office of Student Conduct, which “means that the organization must cease all operations and activities in the organization’s name including but not limited to, any competitive play on or away from campus, any recruitment of members, any social activities, correspondence or communication, and any financial transactions.”
The club currently consists of approximately 90 members.
Now dismissed from the club, the host of the party invited younger members of the Division III team to an informal gathering after a Friday practice at the beginning of the semester.
The Division III team competes against Virginia colleges and does not practice with the Division I team, which competes nationally.
At the party, alcohol was served, and six new members to the club, or “rookies,” were told to enter a closet and finish a 1.75 liter bottle of bourbon before being let out.
After being let out of the closet, the six “rookies” continued in various types of beer “chug racing.” Once the party concluded, three of the freshmen “rookies” received a ride home from a designated driver.
Upon arrival to campus, the three freshmen received possession of alcohol tickets from a police officer and were required to attend a hearing at the Office of Student Conduct.
Byron Hughes, the assistant director of student conduct, held a hearing with the three freshmen on Sept. 18 and subsequently recommended that the entire Men’s Rugby Club be charged with student code of conduct violations.
On Sept. 21, Alan Glick, the assistant director of sport clubs, suspended the entire club until more information could be gathered prior to a meeting on Sept. 23 to hear the official charges.
The club conducted its own internal investigation and determined that only one member of the Division I team, a roommate of the host and not an officer of the club, was present during the party. Fourteen out of 40 Division III members attended
Once the club heard the charges at the conduct referral meeting and concluded the investigation, it reinstated the Division I team and left the Division III team suspended.
At the hearing, the club was given the opportunity to wait several weeks for a student panel hearing or one week for a hearing by a single individual — the team chose the individual in an effort to speed up the process.
The Men’s Rugby Club president Grant Furnary said the Division III team was initially suspended by the club, and not the university, after the conduct referral meeting. He felt the team as a whole was innocent.
“At the time, we didn’t think the entire club would be held responsible,” Furnary said. “We thought individuals would be charged as individuals, but we didn’t think the entire club would be suspended for the entire year because nobody knew that the party was going on as far as leadership.
“We thought maybe we may get a sanction,” Furnary said, “maybe an alcohol charge or something, and maybe a deferred suspension at the worst, but we didn’t think an actual suspension would be given to us.”
At the conduct hearing on Sept. 30, the club received the “loss of recognition” sanction. The club was found responsible for hazing, violating Virginia alcoholic regulations and a failing to observe rules and regulations issued by the university.
Furnary sent in an appeal because he felt the club was unfairly and overly punished.
“We had two things that were the main basis for our appeal,” Furnary said. “The first one is that we felt the punishment was too severe. We thought the year suspension for something like this was too severe, and we outlined that in the appeal.
“And the other one was we didn’t think we met two of the six criteria to make the event an official Rugby Club event,” Furnary explained. “We felt we only met the one that six or more members of a club were there.”
The “Organizational Cases” section of the Student Conduct Web site states two out of six possible criteria must be met in order to declare an event an organizational activity, which therefore allows the organization to be punished by the university.
Furnary does not dispute that the party involved six or more people, which would fulfill one of the two criteria. However, he disagrees with the second cited criteria against the club, which states that, “The incident involves or is actively or passively endorsed by a majority of the members of the organization.”
According to Furnary, the club held 34 Division I members and “about 40” Division III players at the time of the incident. With just 13 Division III players and one Division I player present, 19 percent of the club attended the event. The six “rookies” that attended had only been a part of the team for a week at most.
In addition, 33 Division I players, 44 percent of the team, were completely unaware of the party because they were not at the Division III practice. The only Division I player to attend was a roommate of the party host.
“The majority of the team didn’t even know that the event was going on, so there was no way it could be endorsed actively or passively,” Furnary said.
In a letter to the club after reviewing the appeal, Frances B. Keene, director of student conduct, wrote:
“I disagree with the assertion that the event in question does not meet the definition of an organizational event outlined in the student code of conduct and the University Policies for Student Life, contained in the Hokie Handbook. The party was mentioned at practice (redacted) so everyone on that team was aware of the gathering. Plus, the information about the party was translated to new members of the team, suggesting more than a casual invitation in passing. Furthermore, there were members of the Division I (redacted) and Division III (redacted) present at the event. Both of these facts refute your assertion that the majority of the organization did not know about the event.
“Additionally, there were enough members of the Rugby team for the newest members to associate the event with the team. Therefore, I do not find any basis to your argument that this was not a Rugby event.”
Glick also felt the punishment was appropriate due to university policy that views the Division I and Division III teams under the same umbrella, thus justifying the suspension of both teams.
“I know that not everyone between those Division I and Division III teams were involved, but unfortunately, Men’s Rugby is looked at as one organization at the university,” Glick said.
“Even though you might have an ‘A’ and a ‘B’ team in the case of rugby with the Division I and III, it’s one registered organization as Virginia Tech Men’s Rugby. There isn’t a distinction made between the two teams. In this case, what some members of one of the teams did unfortunately has to impact the entire team. That’s just the way it is.”
Furnary contends that only one member of the Division I team was present, and he does not understand Keene’s contention that multiple members of the Division I team were present.
This information was not disclosed to the club, and despite multiple attempts to speak with Keene, the CT could not get in touch with her.
With the suspension now official, the Division I team is discouraged with the end of its season despite almost no involvement with the incident, but it places no blame on those who were caught.
“They’re extremely frustrated, extremely disappointed,” Furnary said. “This was a year we thought we had the potential to do a lot of great things, and so the team is really angry that we can’t play. I feel like they sympathize with the freshmen that got in trouble, and nobody really blames them for saying anything because you put yourself first, you’d say the exact same things, you’d say what happened, and that’s the right thing for them to have done, so nobody is mad at them at all.
“Nobody is irritated about that,” Furnary said. “I think it’s just shock that it happened to begin with — sort of angry that that sort of thing was going on with the team, and disappointment that we’re not going to play for the rest of the year.”
Despite the unfortunate end to both the fall and spring seasons, the team is already working hard to restructure the club to ensure that this does not happen again.
“We will likely fold the Division III team completely,” Furnary said. “That way, everybody is practicing together, everybody is practicing at the same time, and there’s no way that the team leadership would know about this and let it go on, because if everybody is there together and somebody says, ‘Hey, I’m having a party, come over’, the team leadership is going to say, ‘No that’s not allowed, don’t go, don’t have this party.’ By not having separate practices and two separate teams, that should go a long way in keeping that from happening again.”