In 1997, Massachusetts Institute of Technology freshman Scott Krueger drank himself to death at his now closed fraternity house. The incident received a great deal of attention in the press as it was discovered that Scott was participating in his fraternity initiation and as charges were made that MIT turned a blind eye to student drinking and encouraged freshmen to live in off-campus fraternities in order to avoid building on-campus housing. By settling the case with Krueger's parents for $4.25 million MIT accepts some responsibility in Scott's death but leaves us with many unanswered questions.

What responsibility does the university have to teach life skills and basic morals when parents apparently fail to do so?

Had Scott come home with a sexually transmitted disease instead of in a casket, would MIT be at fault for not teaching him about the dangers of unprotected sex? Had Scott come home with a felony record for assaulting a police officer during a drunken riot, would MIT be at fault for not teaching him the Golden Rule?

Finally, regardless of whether his parents or schools failed to warn him of the dangers of adolescent peer pressure and drug and alcohol abuse, as and 18-year-old adult, what responsibility did Scott have in bowing to his peers and not recognizing when to say he'd had enough?