Hazing Allegation Holding Statement

Draft: 'The university is aware of a social media post alleging hazing involving members of the women's lacrosse team. We take these allegations seriously. The university has opened an investigation and is taking appropriate personnel steps while it proceeds. We are providing support to student-athletes and will not discuss individual student matters. We ask that the privacy of our students be respected. Further updates will come from the university as appropriate.' Function of each sentence: the first acknowledges without repeating graphic details; the second states values; the third confirms process and avoids naming employees; the fourth signals care and legal boundary; the fifth addresses the doxxing risk; the sixth sets an update expectation. If legal has approved confirming the coach's administrative leave, replace 'appropriate personnel steps' with that fact; otherwise do not. Leave out: names, photos, number of athletes, specific acts, the word 'victims,' promises of discipline, 'isolated incident,' and a bare 'no comment.' Reason: details can contaminate interviews and prejudge guilt; promising a firing creates liability; 'isolated' is a factual claim you cannot support. The trade-off is that a short statement leaves a vacuum. Fill it with a 5 p.m. internal Q&A and a stated next update time, not with speculation.

Order:

1. 0-2 hours: president, general counsel, AD, HR, Title IX coordinator. Channel: in person or secure call. Reason: legal and safety decisions come first.
2. 2-4 hours: student-athletes, in person, with coaches and counseling. Script: 'We do not have details. Here is support. Do not post about the investigation.' Reason: duty of care; they are most likely to be approached by media.
3. 4-6 hours: parents, by phone from the coach or AD, with a written follow-up and hotline. Reason: parents should not learn from TV.
4. 6-8 hours: full athletics staff, by briefing, not email alone. Reason: they answer phones and greet recruits.
5. By noon: public statement. By 5 p.m.: personal call to the $250,000 donor from the AD. Reason: relationship and pledge, but no promise about discipline.
6. Day 2: student paper background briefing and campus partners. Reason: the student paper has filed a records request; a background talk explains process without releasing records. Do not hold a press conference on day one. The facts are not settled, and a media event rewards speculation. A written statement plus a named update time is more controlled.

To the donor: 'I hear your anger, and I am not going to debate the facts with you. The university has a process, and I cannot prejudge it. The coach is on administrative leave while the review happens. I want to keep your support, but I will not trade a person's job for a gift.' Offer a meeting with the AD. Do not say 'we will fire him' or 'he will be cleared.' If the donor pushes, explain gift terms and donor intent with development and legal. To the student paper: 'The coach is on administrative leave. I cannot discuss personnel actions. The focus is the investigation and support for student-athletes.' If asked 'Was the coach fired?' say: 'I will not confirm or deny personnel matters. When there is a change we can share, we will.' Give a reason, not a bare 'no comment.' The responses differ because the donor gets relationship management and listening, while the media gets process and boundaries. Neither gets confidential personnel information. Do not let the donor's demand shape the public statement; that would suggest donors control discipline. Document both conversations and brief the president.