STAR/TRIBUNE
NEW YORK - As Superstorm Sandy marched slowly inland, millions along the East Coast awoke Tuesday without power or mass transit, with huge swaths of the nation's largest city unusually vacant and dark.
New York was among the hardest hit, with its financial heart in Lower Manhattan shuttered for a second day and seawater cascading into the still-gaping construction pit at the World Trade Center. President Barack Obama declared a major disaster in the city and Long Island.
The storm that made landfall in New Jersey on Monday evening with 80 mph sustained winds killed at least 17 people in seven states, cut power to more than 7.4 million homes and businesses from the Carolinas to Ohio, caused scares at two nuclear power plants and stopped the presidential campaign cold.
A levee broke in northern New Jersey and flooded the town of Moonachie, forcing authorities to evacuate as many as 1,000 people early Tuesday, Bergen County official Jeanne Baratta told The Record newspaper. Some people in a trailer park had to climb the roofs of their trailers to await rescue, she said.
The massive storm reached well into the Midwest: Chicago officials warned residents to stay away from the Lake Michigan shore as the city prepares for winds of up to 60 mph and waves exceeding 24 feet well into Wednesday.
"This will be one for the record books," said John Miksad, senior vice president for electric operations at Consolidated Edison, which had more than 670,000 customers without power in and around New York City.
The massive storm caused the worst damage in the 108-year history of New York's extensive subway system, according to Joseph Lhota, the chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
As Hurricane Sandy closed in on the Northeast, it converged with a cold-weather system that turned it into a monstrous hybrid of rain and high wind — and even snow in West Virginia and other mountainous areas inland.
Officials blamed at least 16 deaths on the converging storms — five in New York, three each in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, two in Connecticut, and one each in Maryland, North Carolina and West Virginia. Three of the victims were children, one just 8 years old.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
NY appeals court strikes down Defense of Marriage Act
New York (CNN) - A federal appeals court in New York became the nation's second to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, finding that the Clinton-era law's denial of federal benefits to married same-sex couples is unconstitutional.
The divisive act, which was passed in 1996, bars federal recognition of such marriages and says other states cannot be forced to recognize them.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined Thursday that the federal law violates the Constitution's equal protection clause, ruling in favor of a widow named Edith Windsor, an 83-year-old lesbian who sued the federal government for charging her more than $363,000
The case centered on the money Windsor wanted back, but raised the more looming question of whether the federal government can continue to ignore a state's recognition of her marriage and financially penalize her as a result.
"Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public," wrote Dennis Jacobs, a conservative judge in New York.
A federal appeals court in Boston made a similar ruling in May, but the moves are considered largely symbolic as the issue is expected to eventually be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The divisive act, which was passed in 1996, bars federal recognition of such marriages and says other states cannot be forced to recognize them.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined Thursday that the federal law violates the Constitution's equal protection clause, ruling in favor of a widow named Edith Windsor, an 83-year-old lesbian who sued the federal government for charging her more than $363,000
The case centered on the money Windsor wanted back, but raised the more looming question of whether the federal government can continue to ignore a state's recognition of her marriage and financially penalize her as a result.
"Homosexuals are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public," wrote Dennis Jacobs, a conservative judge in New York.
A federal appeals court in Boston made a similar ruling in May, but the moves are considered largely symbolic as the issue is expected to eventually be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Do facts matter in the presidential campaign?
By Julian Zelizer
Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) -- The fact-checkers have been out in force for months. With the presidential and vice presidential debates fully under way, and both parties claiming that their opponents are liars, websites and news shows are inundated with experts and reporters who inform voters about whether candidates are making claims that have little basis in fact.
Like the card game "B.S," in which players call fellow players when they lie about what card has been put into the collective pile, the fact-checkers shout out to Americans when they find that politicians are injecting falsehood into the news cycle.
But it is not clear what impact the fact checkers are having on the public at large or, nearly as important, on the politicians. They keep laying out the facts and the politicians keep stretching the truth. There is little evidence that the public is outraged by any of the revelations nor that it has any real influence on how the politicians conduct themselves, other than to provide more campaign fodder for attacks on their opponents.
What is going on? Why does all the new access to data via the Internet and the cottage industry of fact-checking experts seem to have so little influence on the basic dynamics of the election? Even with live bloggers tracking every word during the debate, the candidates are having no trouble stretching the truth or fabricating facts for their own purposes. At least thus far the polls don't seem to be registering any significant effects when the candidates are called out for doing this. Why isn't there a penalty for lying?
One of the biggest challenges for fact-checkers is that they must work in a political culture that, since the 1970s has been deeply distrustful of government and politicians. Polls consistently show that trust in government has steadily fallen since Vietnam with just a few temporary upticks. The public doesn't think much of politicians, nor do they ever expect them to tell the truth. We live with the ghosts of Watergate.
So when fact-checking organizations try to point out when politicians are stretching the truth, giving them Pinocchio noses for having made claims that have little bearing in fact, the public just isn't surprised. In fact, these revelations just confirm the general impression that the public has of their leaders. As a result, the fact-checkers fade in the noise of the media frenzy over the campaign.
The partisanship that shapes our politics has many costs. Congress has trouble making decisions, tensions among voters over certain issues are often severe, and the quality of our discourse often suffers. Perhaps one of the worst effects of partisanship, however, has been the fact that the truth is much harder to discern and, in many cases, voters don't even expect it.
The public lives in a world where it seems impossible to know what is fact and what is partisan fiction. Fact checkers, many of whom have legitimate and virtuous objectives to get Americans to really understand the choices before them, have trouble gaining much traction. When one of the players calls "B.S." during the political cycle, people might be listening, but it's not clear that there are lasting consequences.
Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) -- The fact-checkers have been out in force for months. With the presidential and vice presidential debates fully under way, and both parties claiming that their opponents are liars, websites and news shows are inundated with experts and reporters who inform voters about whether candidates are making claims that have little basis in fact.
Like the card game "B.S," in which players call fellow players when they lie about what card has been put into the collective pile, the fact-checkers shout out to Americans when they find that politicians are injecting falsehood into the news cycle.
But it is not clear what impact the fact checkers are having on the public at large or, nearly as important, on the politicians. They keep laying out the facts and the politicians keep stretching the truth. There is little evidence that the public is outraged by any of the revelations nor that it has any real influence on how the politicians conduct themselves, other than to provide more campaign fodder for attacks on their opponents.
What is going on? Why does all the new access to data via the Internet and the cottage industry of fact-checking experts seem to have so little influence on the basic dynamics of the election? Even with live bloggers tracking every word during the debate, the candidates are having no trouble stretching the truth or fabricating facts for their own purposes. At least thus far the polls don't seem to be registering any significant effects when the candidates are called out for doing this. Why isn't there a penalty for lying?
One of the biggest challenges for fact-checkers is that they must work in a political culture that, since the 1970s has been deeply distrustful of government and politicians. Polls consistently show that trust in government has steadily fallen since Vietnam with just a few temporary upticks. The public doesn't think much of politicians, nor do they ever expect them to tell the truth. We live with the ghosts of Watergate.
So when fact-checking organizations try to point out when politicians are stretching the truth, giving them Pinocchio noses for having made claims that have little bearing in fact, the public just isn't surprised. In fact, these revelations just confirm the general impression that the public has of their leaders. As a result, the fact-checkers fade in the noise of the media frenzy over the campaign.
The partisanship that shapes our politics has many costs. Congress has trouble making decisions, tensions among voters over certain issues are often severe, and the quality of our discourse often suffers. Perhaps one of the worst effects of partisanship, however, has been the fact that the truth is much harder to discern and, in many cases, voters don't even expect it.
The public lives in a world where it seems impossible to know what is fact and what is partisan fiction. Fact checkers, many of whom have legitimate and virtuous objectives to get Americans to really understand the choices before them, have trouble gaining much traction. When one of the players calls "B.S." during the political cycle, people might be listening, but it's not clear that there are lasting consequences.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Supreme Court takes new look at affirmative action
NEW YORK TIMES
As the Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in a case challenging race-conscious admission to public colleges, university officials across the country watched for clues to where the court might go while contemplating what steps schools might take if the court changed the state of the law.
Related
Schools are bracing for three broad categories of possible outcomes in the case, Fisher v. University of Texas: a complete and history-making ban on race-conscious admissions, a tightening of the current limitations on consideration of race or ethnicity, or a decision that more or less leaves things as they are. The result will turn largely on the court’s reading of its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, when the justices, by 5 to 4, ruled that schools may take race into account as one factor among many, as long as they do not use numerical quotas. A decision will be issued next year.
“An outcome a lot of us in higher education are contemplating is that they could affirm Grutter, at least in name, but impose a stricter definition of what it allows,” said John C. Boger, dean of the law school at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and an author of a brief that school submitted to the court in support of the University of Texas. “Then the question becomes, do they make the test for race-conscious action so tough that no one could ever pass it?”
Such a ruling, just as surely as an outright ban on consideration of race, would force the more-selective public colleges to change their admissions practices. (Many of the nation’s public schools have open admissions, meaning that they take anyone whose high school credentials are above a certain threshold; they would not be affected by the ruling.)
Seven states already ban any consideration of race in admission to state schools, and to varying degrees, their colleges have responded with “race-blind” ways to achieve diversity, like distributing admissions among all public high schools, recruiting aggressively in poorer communities and giving some preference to low-income applicants and those from underperforming schools.
A report released last week by the Century Foundation argued that alternatives to affirmative action can work reasonably well in producing ethnic diversity, and much better in producing economic diversity.
In California, whose ban has been in place longest — voters approved it in 1996 — the highly competitive University of California system has tried several approaches, with varying results.
One approach in particular now being used in Texas, California and elsewhere, has won admirers: trying to spread admissions by community rather than race. That can mean giving preference to low-income students and those who go to low-performing schools, recruiting aggressively in poorer areas and, most often, admitting a certain percentage of students from the top of the class at every high school in the state.
“I don’t know anybody who’s opposed to that, in principle, but it has not allowed us to achieve the level of diversity we’d like to see, particularly at our most selective campuses, Berkeley and U.C.L.A.,” said David M. Birnbaum, chief deputy general counsel of the University of California system. “I think most educators believe in the importance and value of diversity, and if some avenues are closed to them to achieve that, they’ll look for others, but it’s not an easy thing to do.”
Mr. Boger said his colleagues had studied how a “percentage plan” would work at the University of North Carolina, and found that while it would admit nearly as many blacks and Hispanics, it would also significantly lower the caliber of students.
In addition, educators noted that if they could not take race into account, there was no guarantee that all public universities would go to the same lengths that California has to achieve diversity. Some even speculated that their states’ lawmakers might block such measures.
As the Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in a case challenging race-conscious admission to public colleges, university officials across the country watched for clues to where the court might go while contemplating what steps schools might take if the court changed the state of the law.
Related
Schools are bracing for three broad categories of possible outcomes in the case, Fisher v. University of Texas: a complete and history-making ban on race-conscious admissions, a tightening of the current limitations on consideration of race or ethnicity, or a decision that more or less leaves things as they are. The result will turn largely on the court’s reading of its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, when the justices, by 5 to 4, ruled that schools may take race into account as one factor among many, as long as they do not use numerical quotas. A decision will be issued next year.
“An outcome a lot of us in higher education are contemplating is that they could affirm Grutter, at least in name, but impose a stricter definition of what it allows,” said John C. Boger, dean of the law school at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and an author of a brief that school submitted to the court in support of the University of Texas. “Then the question becomes, do they make the test for race-conscious action so tough that no one could ever pass it?”
Such a ruling, just as surely as an outright ban on consideration of race, would force the more-selective public colleges to change their admissions practices. (Many of the nation’s public schools have open admissions, meaning that they take anyone whose high school credentials are above a certain threshold; they would not be affected by the ruling.)
Seven states already ban any consideration of race in admission to state schools, and to varying degrees, their colleges have responded with “race-blind” ways to achieve diversity, like distributing admissions among all public high schools, recruiting aggressively in poorer communities and giving some preference to low-income applicants and those from underperforming schools.
A report released last week by the Century Foundation argued that alternatives to affirmative action can work reasonably well in producing ethnic diversity, and much better in producing economic diversity.
In California, whose ban has been in place longest — voters approved it in 1996 — the highly competitive University of California system has tried several approaches, with varying results.
One approach in particular now being used in Texas, California and elsewhere, has won admirers: trying to spread admissions by community rather than race. That can mean giving preference to low-income students and those who go to low-performing schools, recruiting aggressively in poorer areas and, most often, admitting a certain percentage of students from the top of the class at every high school in the state.
“I don’t know anybody who’s opposed to that, in principle, but it has not allowed us to achieve the level of diversity we’d like to see, particularly at our most selective campuses, Berkeley and U.C.L.A.,” said David M. Birnbaum, chief deputy general counsel of the University of California system. “I think most educators believe in the importance and value of diversity, and if some avenues are closed to them to achieve that, they’ll look for others, but it’s not an easy thing to do.”
Mr. Boger said his colleagues had studied how a “percentage plan” would work at the University of North Carolina, and found that while it would admit nearly as many blacks and Hispanics, it would also significantly lower the caliber of students.
In addition, educators noted that if they could not take race into account, there was no guarantee that all public universities would go to the same lengths that California has to achieve diversity. Some even speculated that their states’ lawmakers might block such measures.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Obama, Romney tied in polls
Washington (CNN) - Three new national polls of likely voters released in the past 24 hours indicate the race for the White House is all knotted up and suggest that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney got a bounce out of last Wednesday's first presidential debate.
According to a CNN Poll of Polls that averages all three non-partisan, live operator surveys, Romney has the support of 48% of likely voters, with President Barack Obama at 47%. While the CNN Poll of Polls does not have a sampling error, the margin is well within the sampling error of the three surveys averaged into the CNN Poll of Polls.
According to a CNN Poll of Polls that averages all three non-partisan, live operator surveys, Romney has the support of 48% of likely voters, with President Barack Obama at 47%. While the CNN Poll of Polls does not have a sampling error, the margin is well within the sampling error of the three surveys averaged into the CNN Poll of Polls.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Cheerleaders With Bible Verses Set Off a Debate
NEW YORK TIMES
By MANNY FERNANDEZ
KOUNTZE, Tex. — The hand-painted red banner created by high school cheerleaders here for Friday night’s football game against Woodville was finished days ago. It contains a passage from the Bible — Hebrews 12:1 — that reads: “And let us run with endurance the race God has set before us.”
That banner, and other religious-themed signs made by the high school and middle school cheerleading squads in recent weeks, have embroiled this East Texas town in a heated debate over God, football and cheerleaders’ rights.
School district officials ordered the cheerleaders to stop putting Bible verses on the banners, because they believed doing so violated the law on religious expression at public school events. In response, a group of 15 cheerleaders and their parents sued the Kountze Independent School District and its superintendent, Kevin Weldon, claiming that prohibiting the students from writing Christian banner messages violated their religious liberties and free-speech rights.
On Thursday afternoon, the two sides met in a courtroom on the second floor of the Hardin County Courthouse. It had all the trappings of a high-profile courtroom drama: Lawyers from both sides haggled over the Texas Constitution and the cheerleaders’ own constitution, a police officer with an assault rifle and binoculars was stationed on the roof, reporters filled the jury box, and one witness — Kieara Moffett, an 11th grade cheerleader — teared up on the stand during cross-examination.
The superintendent’s decision has outraged many students and their parents, and has brought national attention upon a small town about two hours outside Houston. The cheerleaders’ supporters have put up lawn signs and started a Facebook page called Support Kountze Kids Faith that, with nearly 50,000 members, far exceeds the town’s population of 2,100.
The Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, offered to defend the cheerleaders’ First Amendment rights and wrote a letter to the superintendent saying that the decision to ban the religious messages was based on erroneous legal advice. Representatives of the newly formed Concerned East Texans for Separation of Church and State have taken action as well, delivering a gift basket to the district’s central office that included coffee, chocolates and a thank-you card.
Each side’s lawyers cast their clients as courageous: The teenage cheerleaders, for standing up to the school district to protect their religious views, and Mr. Weldon, himself a Christian and a former football coach, for taking an unpopular position in a largely conservative Christian town in order to, as he sees it, uphold the law.
After a daylong hearing that included the testimony of two cheerleaders, District Judge Steven Thomas of Hardin County decided to extend for an additional 14 days more a temporary restraining order that he had put in place two weeks ago. The move prevents district officials from enforcing the ban on religious signs for 14 days and allows the cheerleaders to continue to create and display the banners at the home game on Friday night as well as other coming games. It seemed likely that the judge would hold another hearing in two weeks.
“I feel like it’s getting God’s word out to those that need it,” Kieara, 16, said of the banners.
By MANNY FERNANDEZ
KOUNTZE, Tex. — The hand-painted red banner created by high school cheerleaders here for Friday night’s football game against Woodville was finished days ago. It contains a passage from the Bible — Hebrews 12:1 — that reads: “And let us run with endurance the race God has set before us.”
That banner, and other religious-themed signs made by the high school and middle school cheerleading squads in recent weeks, have embroiled this East Texas town in a heated debate over God, football and cheerleaders’ rights.
School district officials ordered the cheerleaders to stop putting Bible verses on the banners, because they believed doing so violated the law on religious expression at public school events. In response, a group of 15 cheerleaders and their parents sued the Kountze Independent School District and its superintendent, Kevin Weldon, claiming that prohibiting the students from writing Christian banner messages violated their religious liberties and free-speech rights.
On Thursday afternoon, the two sides met in a courtroom on the second floor of the Hardin County Courthouse. It had all the trappings of a high-profile courtroom drama: Lawyers from both sides haggled over the Texas Constitution and the cheerleaders’ own constitution, a police officer with an assault rifle and binoculars was stationed on the roof, reporters filled the jury box, and one witness — Kieara Moffett, an 11th grade cheerleader — teared up on the stand during cross-examination.
The superintendent’s decision has outraged many students and their parents, and has brought national attention upon a small town about two hours outside Houston. The cheerleaders’ supporters have put up lawn signs and started a Facebook page called Support Kountze Kids Faith that, with nearly 50,000 members, far exceeds the town’s population of 2,100.
The Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, offered to defend the cheerleaders’ First Amendment rights and wrote a letter to the superintendent saying that the decision to ban the religious messages was based on erroneous legal advice. Representatives of the newly formed Concerned East Texans for Separation of Church and State have taken action as well, delivering a gift basket to the district’s central office that included coffee, chocolates and a thank-you card.
Each side’s lawyers cast their clients as courageous: The teenage cheerleaders, for standing up to the school district to protect their religious views, and Mr. Weldon, himself a Christian and a former football coach, for taking an unpopular position in a largely conservative Christian town in order to, as he sees it, uphold the law.
After a daylong hearing that included the testimony of two cheerleaders, District Judge Steven Thomas of Hardin County decided to extend for an additional 14 days more a temporary restraining order that he had put in place two weeks ago. The move prevents district officials from enforcing the ban on religious signs for 14 days and allows the cheerleaders to continue to create and display the banners at the home game on Friday night as well as other coming games. It seemed likely that the judge would hold another hearing in two weeks.
“I feel like it’s getting God’s word out to those that need it,” Kieara, 16, said of the banners.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
California governor OKs ban on gay conversion therapy
(CNN) -- Therapy aimed at turning gay kids straight will soon be illegal in California, with the state's governor declaring he hopes a new law will relegate such efforts "to the dustbin of quackery." The legislation -- which the state Senate passed in May, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law this weekend and will take effect January 1 -- prohibits attempts to change the sexual orientation of patients under age 18.
"This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide," Brown tweeted. "These practices have no basis in science or medicine."
But practitioners of so-called "reparative therapy" say the assertions of the governor and gay rights advocates "just are not true," according to David Pickup, a spokesman for the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
Joined by "individual therapists and individual minor clients," his group will file a "major lawsuit" this week to challenge the law," Pickup said. The Pacific Justice Institute separately told CNN it will file its own lawsuit Monday, alleging the law violates the First Amendment.
"We do competent therapy, therapy that truly works," Pickup, who himself underwent such therapy and now administers it to others, said Monday on CNN. "For them to have a bill that says, 'No, we can't even talk about these issues, we can't do anything to help these children resolve their homosexual feelings and maximize their heterosexual potential' -- that's the height of political and therapeutic irresponsibility."
Pickup alluded to a report by the American Psychiatric Association that, he says, doesn't find any "proof that (the therapy) causes harm." But the psychiatric organization -- which is the world's largest of its kind, with more than 36,000 members -- determined, in fact, that reparative therapy poses a great risk, including increasing the likelihood or severity of depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior for those undergoing therapy. Therapists' alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already felt by patients, the association says.
"The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation," the association says.
"This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide," Brown tweeted. "These practices have no basis in science or medicine."
But practitioners of so-called "reparative therapy" say the assertions of the governor and gay rights advocates "just are not true," according to David Pickup, a spokesman for the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.
Joined by "individual therapists and individual minor clients," his group will file a "major lawsuit" this week to challenge the law," Pickup said. The Pacific Justice Institute separately told CNN it will file its own lawsuit Monday, alleging the law violates the First Amendment.
"We do competent therapy, therapy that truly works," Pickup, who himself underwent such therapy and now administers it to others, said Monday on CNN. "For them to have a bill that says, 'No, we can't even talk about these issues, we can't do anything to help these children resolve their homosexual feelings and maximize their heterosexual potential' -- that's the height of political and therapeutic irresponsibility."
Pickup alluded to a report by the American Psychiatric Association that, he says, doesn't find any "proof that (the therapy) causes harm." But the psychiatric organization -- which is the world's largest of its kind, with more than 36,000 members -- determined, in fact, that reparative therapy poses a great risk, including increasing the likelihood or severity of depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior for those undergoing therapy. Therapists' alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already felt by patients, the association says.
"The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation," the association says.
Monday, October 1, 2012
UND Hockey Knuckleheads
GRAND FORKS HERALD
The call to UND police earlier this month that resulted in four UND freshman hockey players cited for underage drinking and seven other players suspended, came in as a request for medical assistance.
The responding officer, Cheryl Sevigny, reported that paramedics suggested two of the freshmen be watched overnight and took another to the emergency room on suspicion of alcohol poisoning.
On Friday, Grand Forks County prosecutors charged the four freshmen players with underage drinking, a Class B misdemeanor. They are Jordan Schmaltz, 18; Bryn Chyzyk, 19; Zane Gothberg, 20; and Drake Caggiula, 18. All four are scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 30. UND says it will handle their discipline internally.
In her report, Sevigny said she received a call from the 911 dispatch center around 8 p.m. Sept. 15 about “a highly intoxicated male subject passed out in room 102B Walsh Hall and the RAs were unable to wake him.” Nicholas Garfield, the resident assistant in Walsh, made the 911 call. He said he’s confident he kept one or more of the freshmen from a possibly critical problem, he said.
Just as Garfield was going on duty that evening, he told the Herald, “I saw members of the hockey team being brought in.” Freshman members of the hockey team live in Walsh Hall, Garfield said, and older team members were carrying in obviously intoxicated freshmen who could not walk on their own.
When he asked what was going on, Garfield said, “a few of the hockey members told me they have it taken care of and I should just go back to doing what I was doing.”
But he was concerned about the welfare of the freshmen and called 911, he said. “In the process of making the call, I deemed it morally weird and unethical if I did not go and check on them, either way. It didn’t matter what they said.”
Officer Sevigny said in her report that, when she arrived at Walsh Hall on the call about the one intoxicated player, Garfield told her there also was “another highly-intoxicated male subject passed out in room 202B Walsh.”
Gothberg, who had a strong odor of alcohol, was passed out face down on the floor and Chyzyk was lying on the futon. Sevigny shook Gothberg, and he responded, but Chyzyk did not, even though she “shook him, tapped his face and spoke to him,” Sevigny said. He had vomit on the front of his shirt.
“While I was trying to wake Chyzyk, someone mentioned that he had taken a lot of shots that night,” she said. “I then used a pressure point behind his right ear, Chyzyk started to move and I asked Chyzyk to speak with me. Chyzyk then mumbled he’s sleeping and swung his arm at me.”
Caggiula meanwhile, was taken to Altru Hospital for possible alcohol poisoning, Sevigny said.
Derek Forbort, a junior, and other older members of the team gathered in the hallway to find out what was happening, Sevigny said. Told that another officer was trying to call Athletic Director Brian Faison, Forbort asked why he “had to contact Faison.”
Forbort also told her “it wasn’t an initiation party but a party that had gotten a little out of hand,” Sevigny said. Once Faison heard about the party, the four senior captains on the team — Andrew MacWilliam, Corban Knight, Danny Kristo and Carter Rowney — were suspended for the Oct. 19 game against the University of Alaska Anchorage.
A few days later, it was announced that three sophomores, all 21 or older — Connor Gaarder, Andrew Panzarella and Stephane Pattyn — will be suspended for the Oct. 20 game against the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Both games, part of a tournament, will be played in Fairbanks.
The call to UND police earlier this month that resulted in four UND freshman hockey players cited for underage drinking and seven other players suspended, came in as a request for medical assistance.
The responding officer, Cheryl Sevigny, reported that paramedics suggested two of the freshmen be watched overnight and took another to the emergency room on suspicion of alcohol poisoning.
On Friday, Grand Forks County prosecutors charged the four freshmen players with underage drinking, a Class B misdemeanor. They are Jordan Schmaltz, 18; Bryn Chyzyk, 19; Zane Gothberg, 20; and Drake Caggiula, 18. All four are scheduled to appear in court on Oct. 30. UND says it will handle their discipline internally.
In her report, Sevigny said she received a call from the 911 dispatch center around 8 p.m. Sept. 15 about “a highly intoxicated male subject passed out in room 102B Walsh Hall and the RAs were unable to wake him.” Nicholas Garfield, the resident assistant in Walsh, made the 911 call. He said he’s confident he kept one or more of the freshmen from a possibly critical problem, he said.
Just as Garfield was going on duty that evening, he told the Herald, “I saw members of the hockey team being brought in.” Freshman members of the hockey team live in Walsh Hall, Garfield said, and older team members were carrying in obviously intoxicated freshmen who could not walk on their own.
When he asked what was going on, Garfield said, “a few of the hockey members told me they have it taken care of and I should just go back to doing what I was doing.”
But he was concerned about the welfare of the freshmen and called 911, he said. “In the process of making the call, I deemed it morally weird and unethical if I did not go and check on them, either way. It didn’t matter what they said.”
Officer Sevigny said in her report that, when she arrived at Walsh Hall on the call about the one intoxicated player, Garfield told her there also was “another highly-intoxicated male subject passed out in room 202B Walsh.”
Gothberg, who had a strong odor of alcohol, was passed out face down on the floor and Chyzyk was lying on the futon. Sevigny shook Gothberg, and he responded, but Chyzyk did not, even though she “shook him, tapped his face and spoke to him,” Sevigny said. He had vomit on the front of his shirt.
“While I was trying to wake Chyzyk, someone mentioned that he had taken a lot of shots that night,” she said. “I then used a pressure point behind his right ear, Chyzyk started to move and I asked Chyzyk to speak with me. Chyzyk then mumbled he’s sleeping and swung his arm at me.”
Caggiula meanwhile, was taken to Altru Hospital for possible alcohol poisoning, Sevigny said.
Derek Forbort, a junior, and other older members of the team gathered in the hallway to find out what was happening, Sevigny said. Told that another officer was trying to call Athletic Director Brian Faison, Forbort asked why he “had to contact Faison.”
Forbort also told her “it wasn’t an initiation party but a party that had gotten a little out of hand,” Sevigny said. Once Faison heard about the party, the four senior captains on the team — Andrew MacWilliam, Corban Knight, Danny Kristo and Carter Rowney — were suspended for the Oct. 19 game against the University of Alaska Anchorage.
A few days later, it was announced that three sophomores, all 21 or older — Connor Gaarder, Andrew Panzarella and Stephane Pattyn — will be suspended for the Oct. 20 game against the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Both games, part of a tournament, will be played in Fairbanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)