Hanover Police Selectively Enforce Underage Drinking Laws Against Dartmouth Students
Criminal prosecution is an inappropriate response to tragedy.

The Hanover Police Department brought charges against two Dartmouth College juniors and the Alpha Phi Sorority (APhi) for alcohol-related misdemeanors following the drowning death of Won Jang, a 20-year-old biomedical engineering major, this July. Jang's death is tragic, but selectively enforcing underage drinking laws against his classmates is inappropriate.
Officers of the Hanover Police Department recovered Jang's body on July 7 after a missing persons report was filed that same day, per The Dartmouth. The preceding night, Jang, a member of the Beta Alpha Omega Fraternity (Beta), attended an off-campus party hosted by the APhi. He and "several attendees made a spontaneous decision to swim in the river," according to Hanover Chief of Police Charles B. Dennis, when a "heavy rainstorm hit the area."
Jang, whose family confirmed to the police that he could not swim, was tragically left behind as other partygoers exited the river. The toxicology report determined Jang's blood alcohol level to have been 0.167, which is typically accompanied by "disorientation, dizziness, increased motor impairment, blurred vision, and impaired judgment."
Though earlier reporting suggested that hazing could have led to Jang's death, the Hanover Police Department declared the fatality an accidental drowning in September as its investigation continued. On Friday, the Hanover Police Department concluded its investigation by charging two members of the Beta fraternity with providing alcohol to underage persons.
The department also charged APhi with "facilitating an underage alcohol house party" under Section 644:18 of New Hampshire's criminal code. The college itself hosts Microbrew Mondays, Winter Carnival, and Green Key, all of which are liable to underage drinking, despite various age-verification measures.
APhi and Beta, which had been previously suspended for three terms in fall 2023, have been suspended by Dartmouth since July 9 and will remain so while the college conducts an internal investigation, NPR reports. Suspending fraternities and sororities discourages them from hosting parties on pain of derecognition; it does not stop college students from binge drinking and making regrettable decisions.
The Hanover Police Department's media release did not specify why charges were brought against the two Beta brothers, who were part of Jang's rush class as fellow sophomores at the time of the drowning. Lieutenant Mike Schibuola of the Hanover Police Department explained to Reason that the Betas charged in the case were the fraternity's social chairs, which are typically responsible for planning and procuring alcohol for social events.
The event Jang attended was an informal pregame APhi and Beta held before their Wedding Tails, a termly party between the houses that was officially registered with Dartmouth's Office of Greek Life. Schibuola says neither attendance nor drinking at the pregame was mandated. Schibuola also tells Reason that the partygoers who went to the river did so to remove stains from their clothes, not in an attempt to complete the Ledyard Challenge, which is a longstanding Dartmouth tradition in which students swim naked across the Connecticut River and run over the Ledyard Bridge to collect their clothes.
Nothing that happened on the fateful night of Jang's drowning was out of the ordinary or malicious. Over thirteen-hundred Dartmouth students upvoted an anonymous Fizz post objecting to The Dartmouth's framing of the charges: "Literally every frat provides alcohol to underage ppl. To charge them with this and then frame it as their fault is unfair. The event was tragic and heartbreaking. This frames the issue wrong."
Neither hazing nor coercion had anything to do with Jang's tragic death. Holding Beta's social chairs and APhi criminally responsible for underage drinking does not advance justice but selectively scapegoats two young men and an innocuous sorority.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
dude ambles into water in which he lacks the skills to sustain his own life and it's the Apple Pies' fault?
I’m actually with the PD here. This isn’t/wasn’t some local Sheriff or Police Chief or Dean on a power trip. A dead body turned up in the river.
For all of Nicastro’s idiotic “Universities serve alcohol too and despite various age-verification measures…”, if your frat gets suspended for underage drinking and then an underage member of the frat drowns, while drunk, at a fraternity event… you *very probably* have a drinking problem.
Sometimes I hate being a Morlock, but fuckin’ Eloi, man. If you don’t eat them, they’ll wander into the local river and drown.
I’m leaning this way too. Nobody gives a shit if students got drunk and puked. It became an issue when the coroner needed to get involved.
It’s all fun and games until someone falls into the drink.
The after party activities did not go swimmingly.
I wonder if they waved goodbye.
The tides have turned against underage drinkers.
Are you shore of this?
these puns are a Hasselhoff. were there no lifeguards?
Then go back to the root cause, which is government laws and selective enforcement which encourage binge drinking.
Government has nothing to be proud of here. They created the environment which encouraged the behavior they now tsk tsk over.
lolwut?
I seriously doubt that alcohol is only available on campus infrequently and in large quantities.
>>A dead body turned up in the river.
if Chapter President Suzie Greenberg didn’t drag him into the water I’m still taking the case for AlphaPhi … probably gratis too just for the publicity
if Chapter President Suzie Greenberg didn’t drag him into the water I’m still taking the case for AlphaPhi
See Stupid above. Plenty around here who can't handle "Stupid games, stupid prizes" and "Not my monkeys, not my circus." and are sure everyone back to Carrie Nation and Anthony Comstock are on the hook.
Despite Jack's 'selectively enforce' narrative, this wasn't a "novel legal construction". This was a Jacob "Hunter Biden isn't guilty of illegally possessing a firearm." Sullum-style, selective enforcement. Except, again, in this case enforcement only showed up because of a body.
in my driving youth I only seriously dealt with the cops the one time I almost hit a house with my car.
Sounds like she needs to see a neurologist. *urologist*
+1 birds of a feather
Sorry, no. There is no such thing as an "underage drinking problem". The problem is irresponsible drinking. And lack of knowledge of when and how to drink responsibly is primarily a parent problem.
In fairness, we've made it stupidly hard for parents to exercise their responsibility to teach their kids about safe drinking. The problem at the root is the same mystical thinking that we lampoon when gun grabbers say it - inanimate objects do not have agency. The alcohol did not magically jump into that kid's blood stream. Nor, from the available evidence, did anyone put a gun to that kid's head and force him to drink. He made choices. They were tragically bad but they were his choices.
And being in college, no his age does not matter. If he was old enough to vote and old enough to die for his country, he was more than old enough to be taught how to drink without becoming a danger to himself or others.
Yeah when I was growing up the legal age was 18 but suddenly became 21 thanks to mad mothers and cowardly rent seekers in the federal legislature. The 19 and 20 year olds didn't become any more or less responsible because somebody waved that magic wand. Our ancestors drank alcohol all day long. Men women and children. The species probably wouldn't have survived otherwise. If this kid had grown up with a glass of wine at the dinner table he might have limited his intake or had a better tolerance. Or he may have drowned stone cold sober because for some reason he never learned to do what the vast majority humans have no problem doing, swim. Sad story but shit happens.
Yeah, we used to hand out Darwin Awards for this.
Look who Won this year.
*hat tip*
Won lost, film at 11.
Can we, as libertarians, advocate for the revocation of student aid to any fraternity/sorority members who were present for the prior suspension *and* the drinking party at the river?
It seems like an institution of higher learning should be able to, out of hand, flunk out anyone who gets told "Stop drinking or worse things will happen." and then proceeds to have a friend drown, while drinking with them. But, at the very least, we all shouldn't have to be paying for it/them, right?
Can we, as libertarians, agree drinking is not the government's business, and selective enforcement is one of the hallmarks of rule by men instead of rule by law?
selective enforcement is one of the hallmarks of rule by men instead of rule by law?
All enforcement is selective. Non-selective enforcement is universal oppression. They didn't make up the rules after the kid drowned.
Your "selective enforcement" is an adoption of Nicastro's whimsical interpretation where he invokes non-sequiturs and red herrings like "The University hosts Winter Carnival" and "They *definitively* weren't attempting to complete the Ledyard Challenge (which nobody mentioned)."
I know you and your Dartmouth friends want free rides for your idiotic lack of intelligence and agency, but that doesn't mean it's owed to you by anyone.
So selective enforcement doesn't abridge my agency? Underage drinking laws don't abridge my agency? Individualism bows to the wisdom of government kleptocrats to pick and choose when they enforce laws? You depend on government to determine which victims are worthy of justice?
You have funny ideas for an alleged libertarian.
So selective enforcement doesn’t abridge my agency?
Correct. This is pretty basic to fundamental cognition. The selective enforcement of the laws of physics that prevent you from flying but not birds doesn't infringe on the agency of birds. The University and State didn't whimsically enact these laws to punish these kids for this drowning. The laws were on the books, they were exceedingly lenient in their enforcement until it killed someone. The fact that you and Jack want to turn the narrative around such that people who were nowhere near the kid when he drowned, didn't provide him any alcohol, and didn't cajole him into the water with as, somehow, more culpable than the people who were right there just shows that you don't actually give a shit about the law or selective enforcement or agency or the dead kid in the river. You only care about disruption and rearranging the power structure according to your whims.
kleptocrats to pick and choose when they enforce laws?
What are they stealing by enforcing these drinking laws? The education Dartmouth owes them? The right to provide alcohol to other people's kids? More critically, what are they stealing *from you* by enforcing these drinking laws?
Obeying laws requires knowing what the laws are. Selective enforcement makes laws less knowable. If you think agency requires second-guessing what laws will be enforced at any particular moment, you must include precognition in your definition of agency.
A libertarian who apparently thinks having excess bureaucrats on the payroll isn't theft. Goodness gracious!
>>Obeying laws requires knowing what the laws are.
every Greek in the last 100 years knows to ensure nobody ends up dead.
This is more stupid than George Floyd and Michael Brown combined.
Cops shoot some unarmed guy crawling on his hands and knees down a hotel hallway? Abso-fucking-lutely fry the bastards. FBI plugs a woman holding her baby through her own front door? If you need me to do the drawing and quartering, I'll need to borrow a horse. Two college kids get... fined? Suspended? Community service? A good, old-fashioned, Dartmouth slap-on-the-wrist for violating the law in such a fashion that it results in someone's death (after the *private* fraternity gets suspended from the *private* University)? GTFO with your idiotic social justice moral panicking.
Our system of law is not a tool for justice. It's a tool for oppression. Because the law is unknowable and contradictory, every single person is a lawbreaker. This means that anyone, if watched long enough, can be sent to prison. That is by design.
End all student financial aid. And sure the school should be able to remove any student.
But if you choice to drink and then go swimming without knowing how to swim, that is on you. No criminal charges against others for your dumbass behavior.
They aren't being charged for his dumbass behavior. That would be charging him or murder or negligent homicide. They're being charged with providing alcohol to a minor. Specifically after the organization (which isn't an individual for other retards) was already penalized for it.
Way back when, the libertarian line was "You are free to swing your fist right up to the point of someone's nose." Which would seem to strongly suggest that, past the point of someone's nose to the point of a dead body, you aren't advocating libertarianism as any sort of practical policy as much as you're advocating woke libertine nihilism. Again, the University didn't conduct some random inspection and find kids drinking underage. The root cause is because they found a body in the river. The root cause of the body being in the river wasn't because the kid made his own decision to go buy or acquire some alcohol and then go swimming. The group made a decision and left one of their own there. The invocation of individual agency in defense of them is even more spurious and selective as the invocation of the pre-written and pre-enforced law.
They aren't being charged with he crime of murder because they know it wouldn't stick. They are being charged as a result of a death because that's the only crime they could pull out of their bag of selective enforcement tricks.
Perhaps you have selectively forgotten those old sayings about not escaping the ride. The drinking law crime is the ride because they have to pretend they are tough on underage drinking, when the reality is they don't give a shit about underage drinking.
Ritual over justice.
"wasn’t because the kid made his own decision to go buy or acquire some alcohol and then go swimming"
Yes. Yes that's exactly why he died. No one else's fault.
CB
Good to see all the faux libertarian nameplates making a show today.
Yes. Yes that’s exactly why he died. No one else’s fault.
So, as a libertarian, you’ve got the receipts?
Because, again, where I come from, actual, no-shit “Live Free or Die” libertarians, definitively Classical Liberals, set up police authority and courts of law for specifically this purpose and Federalism for dumbasses who can’t tell their ass from a hole in the ground otherwise.
Huh? Calm down.
He made the choice to drink. No one made it for him. That's pretty libertarian, I think.
All the rest of your screed is a distraction from your statement that it wasn't the kid who made the decision to drink.
CB
Huh?
Receipts. Evidence. Proof that he and he alone made the choice to drink and that nobody made it for him.
I know how you libertines like to work without evidence and call it justice, but that's not how virtually society anywhere for the last several hundred-to-thousand years has broadly worked.
Equality before the law means the deceased is presumed as innocent as the survivors. We aren't in a court of law and you're free to make your own judgements. But then, unless you're self-righteous or totalitarian asshats, you literally can't logically or factually dispute "selective enforcement".
The group made a decision and left one of their own there.
Well then lets put blame where blame is due. His parents should be charged with neglect for having not got him swimming lessons. That's the true root cause of his drowning.
Me, I'm still on the side of not anyone's fault but his own.
"The root cause of the body being in the river wasn’t because the kid made his own decision to go buy or acquire some alcohol and then go swimming. The group made a decision and left one of their own there."
Sorry but you're really floundering here. The kid obviously made his own decision when he put the bottle in his mouth. And unless somebody shoved a funnel down his throat the group didn't make any decision one way or another. The kid went to a party where alcohol was available and drank it. Then he decided to go into the river despite the fact that he didn't know how to swim. We will never know if alcohol had anything to do with his drowning. People go swimming with BAC levels like that every day and walk away with no problem. I know I have many times. It's not claimed that the individuals charged served this kid or had any idea he was even there let alone that he decided to wander into the river. Shit happens. Sometimes it's just a tragic accident.
Sorry but you’re really floundering here.
No, I'm not. It's written State Law. It's in the student handbook. You freely admit that you don't know exactly what happened and you don't know the punishment. You may not like the fact that Hunter Biden or Alec Baldwin or Hillary Clinton or Lorie Loughlin's kids are subject to rules you don't like, but the rules were written, communicated, clear, and longstanding. This wasn't some novel legal construction. This wasn't some false-premise sting. That some social chair should lose the position as social chair because someone drowned at one of their social events is a completely rational decision. That they do 24 or 40 hours of community service isn't really cruel or unusual. 6 mos. in jail? Call me back. Permanent/felony record? Sure, somebody else needs to be reined in too. Otherwise, it's Hanover and Dartmouth. And you insisting they bend to your will is no better than and considerably worse than someone performing and investigation and disciplining the social chair(s).
But you don't care because of some Hank Phillips-esque animism whereby if someone is found guilty of providing someone alcohol leading to their immediate and foreseeable demise, it's the fall of Western Democracy (again). Unintended consequences are only irrational idiocy when people you don't like engage in them. Brilliant!
Hanover Police Selectively Enforce Underage Drinking Laws Against Dartmouth Students
Why does confusion about “Local/Domestic Police Force Selectively And Preferentially Enforcing Laws Against Documented/Local Citizens” from Cato/Reason not surprise me?
College drinking is Beta behavior.
Immediately after completing a suspension, the frat hosts a party where some hits 0.16 and drowns.
Total coincidence.
There are many things wrong here.
* Selective enforcement means no one knows what the law really is in practical terms.
* Enforcing drinking laws to punish a bunch of kids who acted less than nobly, but not criminally, just breeds more contempt for laws and government. OK if you want to rule by fear and uncertainty, I guess.
* Drinking is none of the government's business.
* There's something silly about the college regulating fraternities and sororities. "Look at us, the Aphas! who ask the college for permission to exist." Yeah, that's impressive.
Selective enforcement means no one knows what the law really is in practical terms.
Welcome to libertarianism. Everybody making up their entirely individual sets of rules as we all go along doesn't lead to fewer drownings. Once again, it's weird how you people can impugn enforcers who didn't buy the alcohol, didn't provide it to anyone involved, and even told them not to do what they did beforehand without any real, individual punishment, but when it comes to the actual people who actually did hand him alcohol and cajole him into the water, suddenly, selectively, nobody could've foreseen the outcome.
You aren't libertarians. You're the future recipients of Chase Oliver's monkeypox infections (that would be, for those who identify as Stupid, because you ideologically can't stop buttfucking each other for two weeks).
Lol
You don't have a clue about individualism, libertarianism, personal responsibility, or anything of the sort. You're just another statist.
And then there's this:
Yes, with a wink wink nudge nudge, we won't enforce it, we haven't been enforcing it, so don't do it, wink wink nudge nudge.
Spare the rod and spoil the child.
So now they handed him the drinks and cajoled him into the river? Nobody is claiming that in the article above.
You don't have the receipts to say he didn't buy and pour the alcohol himself and, yes, the description is pretty clearly 'cajoled'.
Again, your retarded sperg dunking aside, whether you head off to Hanover or Dartmouth yourself and impose your will as the law of the land or pay off the University and/or the parents not to discipline the kids (selectively) despite written law or rule, the whole thing is stupid, pseudo-libertarian, false-hope, wish casting, clickbait.
Except it's not "selective enforcement."
This frat literally just came off a suspension.
This is a "repeat offender."
“My body, my choice”, unless I get drunk and fall in the river. The exceptions to MBMC continue to grow.
"Literally every frat provides alcohol to underage ppl. To charge them with this and then frame it as their fault is unfair. The event was tragic and heartbreaking. This frames the issue wrong."
I don't think you're making the point you wanted.
The students should know better to drink heavily on the quad and sleep in class.
That way, they won't have any problems.
Jang, whose family confirmed to the police that he could not swim
OK, full stop. What first world citizen can't swim? Seriously, how sheltered and coddled are these infants?
Should one float the idea that all people should be taught to swim?
Swimming is white supremacy.
Did he even know how to do the breast stroke with his girlfriend?