Lifting as We Climb : The American Council on Human Rights and the Quest for Civil Rights

The narrative of African Americans’ quest for racial equality and social justice in the Twentieth Century is typically construed in the context of main-line civil rights organizations—e.g., NAACP, SCLC, SNCC, and the like. However, for decades, black fraternal networks had been helping to lay the groundwork for the major civil rights campaigns that culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1938 Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated created the National Non-Partisan Lobby on Civil and Democratic Rights (“NPC”), later renamed the National Non-Partisan Council on Public Affairs. It was the first full-time congressional lobby for minority group civil rights. Throughout the organization’s life, the NPC worked with a range of other organizations that sought similar ends. The NPC was dissolved in 1948. In place of the NPC, Alpha Kappa Alpha established the American Council on Human Rights (“ACHR”) with the help of Delta Sigma Theta, Zeta Phi Beta, and Sigma Gamma Rho sororities as well as Alpha Phi Alpha, Phi Beta Sigma, and Kappa Alpha Psi fraternities. From 1948 to 1963 the ACHR employed the collective resources of its organizations to make recommendations to the United States government concerning civil rights legislation. This piece draws from primary ACHR documents to analyze the organization’s history and works as it lead to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Litigation Landscape of Fraternity and Sorority Hazing: Criminal and Civil Liability

Hazing—“the act of placing another person in a ridiculous, humiliating, or disconcerting position as part of an initiation process”—has caused injury and death. Some of the benefits asserted by those who participate in hazing are that the practice “creates deep and long-lasting bonds among those who endure it, instills the values of the group in new members, builds character, demonstrates commitment to the group, forges a connection with all members who had previously endured the experience, and inspires the respect of one’s peers.” Yet numerous lawsuits against individuals, fraternal organizations, and educational institutions have prompted legislatures to pass hazing laws that augment and enhance general criminal laws. The argument for these laws emphasizes that the “benefits of specialized hazing laws purportedly include the removal of procedural hurdles that have impeded prosecuting hazing injuries and increased awareness of the dangers of hazing.” However, the first hazing statute in America was not crafted with the goal of punishing hazing conduct of Greekletter organization members. Rather, “[t]he first hazing statute in America appeared in 1874 in response to hazing in the military” and the “perceived attitude toward hazing by midshipmen.” It was long believed that the best way to eradicate conceit or “freshness” among new military initiates was through personal humiliation, leading to “plebe bedevilment” and torment. In response, Congress enacted a federal law in 1874 criminalizing this type of hazing in military units, whether or not the acts resulted in actual harm. In this Article, we offer an overview of the current hazing litigation landscape and what the future might look like in this area

The Litigation Landscape of Fraternity and Sorority Hazing: Defenses, Evidence, and Damages

In recent years, increasing public and media attention has focused on hazing, especially in collegiate fraternities and sororities. Whether it is because of the deaths, major injuries, or litigation, both criminal and civil, collegiate fraternities and sororities have received increased scrutiny. In this Article, we explore a range of tactical considerations that lawyers must consider—from defenses to evidentiary concerns. We also explore how damages are contemplated in the context of hazing litigation