94.66 The hidden side of masculinity at the Citadel [male bonding; sense of obligation to the group;men like women seek lasting relationships], 270

94.73 Gender discrimination against men in college disciplinary cases [Yusuf v. Vassar College], 280

94.76 New data reveal increase in test cheating [more cheating at larger institutions; repetitive testcheating and fraternity membership], 285

94.82 Hazing and sexual harassment [discrimination must be based on sex; scope of Title IX and"hostile environment" theory], 296

95.1 Teenage alcohol abuse [alcohol abusers responsible for their conduct; alcohol abuse andsuburban youth culture; binge drinking survey; secondary binge effects], 312.

95.22 Student gambling [growth of gambling in American high schools and colleges; prohibitingbookmaking on campus; special risks associated with gambling.

97.43 The perils of regulating fraternity life [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit allowedHamilton College fraternities to invoke the Sherman Antitrust Act in an effort to challenge policyrequiring all students to live on campus], 656.

98.1 Law and Policy: 1998 [recent data on substance use by students; outline of suggested policiesand procedures; A recommended approach, identified in Booker v. Lehigh University, involvesestablishing reasonable rules or policies and affirming that adult students have ultimateresponsibility for their own conduct], 684.

98.40 Fraternities and the "right of association" ["sense of Congress" statement on Protection ofStudent Speech and Association rights; review of court opinions defining scope of the "right ofintimate association"], 776.

98.49 "Voluntarily endured" hazing protected in Alabama [in Jones v. Kappa Alpha, the AlabamaSupreme Court held that a fraternity pledge assumed the risk of hazing, and could not pursue acause of action against a fraternity or its members for the hazing], 803. n fraternity houses], 352.

99.17 Individual liability for acts of hazing [in Oja v. Grand Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity a New York appellate court held that college fraternity members can be held individually liable for acts of hazing; interview with Douglas Fierberg, an attorney who has represented hazing victims], 848.

99.46 Expanding the university's duty of care [in Knoll v. Board of Regents the Supreme Court of Nebraska held that the University of Nebraska had a duty as a landowner to protect a nineteen-year old student from "foreseeable" acts of unlawful hazing by an off-campus fraternity; interview with law professors Bickel and Lake], 917.

99.50 Responding to student misconduct off-campus, part I [legal authority to discipline students for off-campus misconduct; opinion of the Maryland Attorney General], 925.

99.51 Responding to student misconduct off-campus, part II [defining educational objectives; seeing students as part of an association-on or off-campus; avoiding "country club" judicial systems for upper-middle class youth; giving students a voice in defining policy; interview with Timothy Brooks at the University of Delaware], 927.

00.12 Hazing and the constitution [In McKenzie v. State of Maryland a state appellate court rejected a variety of claims�including an alleged violation of the right of association�and upheld the constitutionality of Maryland's anti-hazing law], 961.

00.13 Fraternities and "freedom of association" [In Phi Lambda Phi Fraternity v. University of Pittsburgh a federal district court rejected "freedom of association" and "equal protection" claims by a fraternity sanctioned at the University of Pittsburgh], 964.

00.39 Defining the "associational rights" of fraternities, part I [In Pi Lambda Phi v. University of Pittsburgh the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld disciplinary sanctions imposed by the University of Pittsburgh against a local chapter of the Pi Lambda Phi fraternity; danger of allowing local chapters to ignore the ideals stated in fraternity charters--becoming little more than drinking clubs], 1040.

00.40 Defining the "associational rights" of fraternities, part II [Analysis of the June 28, 2000 Supreme Court opinion in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale; comparison with the holding in Pi Lambda Phi v. University of Pittsburgh], 1044.