You are on page 1of 103

Hazing On Campus

Issues in Focus
August 2005

Table of Contents
NOTE: Click on a chapter title to go directly to that chapter.

Foreword ................................................................................................................................2 History of Hazing...................................................................................................................3 Legal Issues............................................................................................................................15 Hazing and the Law ...................................................................................................16 Major Court Cases Involving Hazing ........................................................................20 Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA) ................................................23 The Clery Act.............................................................................................................25 Investigating Hazing Incidents ..............................................................................................29 Warning Signs of Hazing...........................................................................................30 Campus-Based Investigations & Strategies ...............................................................34 Investigating Hazing Incidents: An Inter/National Organization Perspective...........47 Becoming the Campus Expert: on Hazing ...........................................................................51 Coalition Building on Campus...............................................................................................56 Student Development Theory and Hazing: Applying the Theory We Know........................63 Learning Opportunities: Understanding Students Definitions of Hazing ............................74 Appendix A: Hazing Laws by State.......................................................................................81 Appendix B: Generic Agreement of Responsibility ..............................................................83 Appendix C: 100 Ways to Create Good Members Without Hazing......................................93 Appendix D: Hazing Scenarios..............................................................................................98 Appendix E: Hazing Resources .............................................................................................93

This publication is provided to AFA members as a resource for their daily work. No part of this resource should be taken as legal advice or endorsed Association policy. All members are encouraged to consult with legal counsel when involved in investigating and/or adjudicating hazing incidents.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005

Foreword Dan Stoker, Director Co-Curricular Programs, University of Indianapolis Hazing on Campus Editor Hazing has become a problem that society cannot seem to resolve. Reports periodically surface involving the military, fraternities or sororities, athletic teams, or even high school students. Regardless of what groups are involved a pattern seems to emerge: the media focuses its attention for a while, the incident becomes fodder for water-cooler discussions, people are disgusted by the behavior, and then somehow we all forget and move on. There has not been a concerted effort to address hazing within higher education and society. The problem has become too big for one person or group to tackle. In order for hazing to be eliminated we need transformational change, something that is outside of our normal expectations, involving several constituent groups, creative thinking, and multi-faceted approaches. In the fall of 2003, the Executive Board of the Association of Fraternity Advisors (AFA) decided to start such a dialogue, to address the issue of hazing and see if change can occur. Beginning with the Hazing Think Tank at the 2003 Annual Meeting in San Antonio, individuals were brought together to create a plan to address hazing. This marked the first of many hazing initiatives the Association has undertaken, including financial support of Dr. Elizabeth Allans research on hazing, the National Hazing Symposium (in 2004 and 2005) and the inaugural National Hazing Prevention Week. This resource is yet another element of AFAs overall plan to address hazing. Our goal for this document was to develop a resource that will not only educate and broaden our daily approach, but also to provide support to individuals addressing hazing on college and university campuses. Although some of this information is fraternity/sorority specific, the intention is to provide support to anyone on campus, whether they are working with an ROTC department, the marching band or an athletic team. In fact, all of these individuals, and more, combined can make a significant impact on changing the campus climate towards hazing. To this end, we have included a chapter on forming coalitions to assist practitioners in expanding their network of colleagues working to end hazing. I would like to thank the many people who have contributed to this final product. Just as we need a coalition to create significant change, we needed a strong, dedicated team to generate the information for this publication. We hope that you find this resource useful as you work to prevent hazing incidents on your campus.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005

History of Hazing 1 Chad William Ellsworth, Student Activities Advisor for Greek Affairs, University of Minnesota According to Nuwer (1999), hazing was documented first by the Greek philosopher Plato in 387 B.C. In addition, a later group known as the Overturners were involved with similar hazings in the fourth century at the center of learning in Carthage. [The hazers] were rightly called Overturners, since they had themselves been first overturned and perverted, tricked by those same devils who were secretly mocking them in the very acts by which they amused themselves in mocking and making fools of others, Augustine said (Nuwer, 1999, p. 93). During the middle ages, students at medieval universities used hazing to demonstrate the privileges of precedence more senior students held over first-year students (Nuwer, 1999). For example, first-year students would have to demonstrate animal-like submission, or in other cases would be struck with wooden objects. In addition, more senior students engaged in a practice called fagging, in which more senior students were entitled to require other students to act as their servants. During this time, authorities, including educators, landlords, and town officials, confronted hazing to different degrees, such as creating statutes against hazing, publishing lists of specific acts that were considered hazing, and removing conferred honors from students who were involved in hazing. The earliest evidence of hazing in the United States is from Harvard College in 1657, in which an incident resulted in a judgment by the schools administration in favor of two first-year students who had been hazed (Nuwer, 1999). The first deaths that resulted from hazing activities at institutions of higher education occurred at Franklin Seminary in Kentucky in 1838 and Amherst College in 1847. Between 1838 and 1969, 35 deaths that resulted from alcohol abuse and hazing were recorded. Between 1970 and 2001, Nuwer (1999) said an additional 210 such deaths were reported. History of Hazing in Marching Bands Although marching bands only recently have gained attention for hazing activities, their members have been recognized for their participation in hazing activities since the early 20th century (Nuwer, 1990). According to Nuwer, the University of Gettysburg (Gettysburg College) had a group of hooded sophomores who were responsible for hazing freshman members of the marching band. Some of those students were pictured in the institutions yearbooks from 1912 to 1918. The practice was not unique to the University of Gettysburg, as similar groups existed at Barnard College and Columbia College. Even though, according to Nuwer (1990), many people think band hazing is widespread, campus newspapers and investigative reporters have not given much attention to the issue. Nuwer (1990) said that, since 1918, a number of incidents of band hazing have gained national attention. In 1981, an associate band director at Florida A&M University sought to end the groups hazing traditions when a seventeen-year-old band member was beaten. In 1984, Kappa Kappa Psi, a

This chapter is excerpted from: Ellsworth, C.W. (2004). Definitions of hazing: Differences among selected student organizations. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005

band fraternity at the University of Akron, was charged with hazing. Finally, in a 1984 news story, a band director at the University of Southern California said he encouraged upperclassmen to lean on newcomers. Of the practices described, many would be recognized as hazing activities. History of Hazing in Fraternities and Sororities According to Nuwer (1999), hazing became part of the initiation rituals of fraternities very soon after they were founded. For example, buffoonish rituals invented by members of Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity threatened fraternal decorum so much that, by 1898, the fraternity unanimously passed a motion to end such rituals. The first recorded fraternity-related hazing death took place at Cornell University in 1873, when a blindfolded pledge of the Kappa Alpha Society tumbled into a gorge. Because of the long tradition of hazing activities in Greek letter organizations, especially White fraternities, the North American Interfraternity Conference (NIC) has sought since 1929 to eliminate such activities in the chapters of its more-than-fifty member organizations, though such initiatives have been mostly unsuccessful (Nuwer, 1990). In 1929, the NIC conducted a survey that showed, although 90% of the membership was opposed to hazing, only 56% wanted organizations to take steps to prevent it. In 1938 and 1939, the NIC conventions announced it had beaten hazing, though half of the undergraduates surveyed at the convention in 1939 said they supported hazing. They said that paddles were effective means of disciplining newcomers. Despite the fact that fraternities receive much of the medias attention for hazing activities, it is a concern for sororities, too (Nuwer, 1990). In 1982, the Alpha Delta Pi chapter at the University of Southern California was found guilty of hazing after an intoxicated pledge had to have her stomach pumped. Likewise, in 1988, the Alpha Chi Omega chapter at the University of Maine was suspended after three pledges were blindfolded and branded in a cemetery. Nancy L. Haigwood, in a 1983 letter to the News-Post of Frederick, Md., said, I am especially incensed at vitriolic attacks on our practices of hazing, which non-Greeks fail to realize serve numerous valuable functions, (Nuwer, 1990, p. 231). Haigwood, a member of Kappa Kappa Gamma, said hazing built loyalty to the pledge class and sorority, strengthened the pledges mettle, and weeded out weaker pledges. The vice president of Haigwoods sorority soon thereafter said Haigwood did not speak for the organization and that hazing activities were isolated. According to Kimbrough (1997), hazing became a part of the pledging process for Black fraternities and sororities as early as 1900. However, the hazing activities developed separately from those in White fraternities and sororities. For example, pledges of historically Black fraternities and sororities were made to stand in single file lines, dress alike, and march in a group around campus. Although the pledging process had not received official sanction from any of the National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC) organizations, members of these organizations considered hazing activities necessary and traditional parts of the process of becoming a member. By the 1980s, hazing had become enough of a concern for historically Black fraternities and sororities that NPHCs member organizations made a radical change in the structure of their organizations.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005

Because of the negative attention that resulted from a number of hazing deaths and injuries, the eight organizations that were members of the National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC) abolished the pledging process in 1990 and instituted the membership intake process (Kimbrough, 2003). However, because of a lack of undergraduate buy-in and support, the pledging process remained as an underground method of becoming a member, or in some situations, undergraduates sought ways to restore the pledging process. Thus, hazing activities accompanied the pledging process as a semisecret, underground process that was nearly invisible to NPHC and college and university officials. According to Kimbrough, although there were 11 media reported hazing incidents in NPHC organizations in 1990 through 1995, there were 21 in 1996 through 1999, including 11 in 1999 alone. Twenty-six of these 32 incidents occurred at public, predominantly White institutions. History of Hazing in Military Organizations Hazing plagued military academies throughout their histories. Between 1905 and 1912, the United States Naval Academy drew considerable attention for hazing scandals (Nuwer, 1999). In 1920, academy records noted midshipmen cheered Charles Snedaker, who had been expelled for hazing, as he left the Naval Academy. More recently, Texas A&M University gained attention in 1984 when first-year student Bruce Goodrich died following an exercise session and the institution again received attention in 1991 when female cadets reported a number of abuses. In 1997, Dateline NBC and CNN showed evidence of some of the bloody rites of passage suffered by members of the Coast Guard, the Marines, the regular Navy, and the Navy Seals. Some rites of passage of military groups have been traced back to the sixteenth century. History of Hazing in Athletic Teams Although hazing activities in athletic teams have only recently received considerable attention from the media, the history of hazing in such organizations can be traced back to 1923, when two senior football players were expelled from Hobart College in New York for their involvement in a hazing activity, in which freshman Lloyd Hyde was beaten and thrown into a lake (Nuwer, 2003). In addition, Nuwer reported that three other players were disciplined for their participation. In 1980, University of Michigan Athletic Director Don Canham punished some of the institutions hockey players who shaved a fellow players pubic hair, stripped him, locked him in a trunk, and drove around before dropping the player in front of a residence hall. More recently, a rugby player at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, died when he fell into a creek after becoming intoxicated during an initiation activity. In 2003, ESPNs Outside the Lines aired a one-hour show and published a five-part online series on hazing in athletic teams, including high school athletes, college and university athletes, and professional athletes. According to ESPN, there were 67 reported incidents of serious hazing by athletes between 1980 and 2000, 24 of which occurred in 1999 and 2000 alone (Farrey, 2003). References Farrey, T. (2003). Athletes abusing athletes. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005

Kimbrough, W. M. (1997). The membership intake movement of historically Black Greek-letter organizations. NASPA Journal, 34, 229-239. Kimbrough, W. M. (2003). Black Greek 101. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Nuwer, H. (1990). Broken pledges: The deadly rite of hazing. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press. Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing, and binge drinking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Nuwer, H. (2003, May 17). Hank Nuwers unofficial clearinghouse to track hazing deaths and incidents. Retrieved December 1, 2003 from

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005

Hazing in Student Organizations 2 Chad William Ellsworth, Student Activities Advisor for Greek Affairs, University of Minnesota Fraternities Although initiation rituals and rites of passage serve practical purposes in fraternities, there are elements of the fraternity subculture that encourage and support hazing (Sweet, 1999). According to Sweet, symbolic interactionist theory can help explain how fraternities engage in the systematic manipulation of symbols, social relations, and definitions of situations, and often result in hazing activities. Although some people have suggested that hazing is a result of sadism, Sweet argued that fraternity brothers care very deeply for pledges, and regret when pledges are injured. Although such an idea does not justify dangerous and deadly hazing activities, it refutes the idea that hazing is a malicious activity. One way in which fraternities systematically manipulate symbols, social relations, and definitions of situations, according to Sweet (1999), is through the construction of new identity kits for pledges. For example, during the pledging process students receive books, paddles, pledge pins, and t-shirts that bear the fraternitys insignia. In this way, the fraternity becomes an increasing part of the students identity. In addition, fraternities deliberately and systematically limit the social interactions of the pledges, which reinforces a strong collective identity. The fraternities separate pledges, which isolates them from other social groups and ties their identity to the organization. Sweet used the Thomas Theorem to articulate the importance of the definition of the situation. The Thomas Theorem suggested that definitions of situations are produced through linguistic manipulation. Although fraternities engage in hazing activities, such activities are characterized as discipline or tradition, and are described as revelations of commitment and loyalty, which ensure that hazing activities remain part of the fraternity subculture. Sweet argued that, as long as such a vocabulary exists, hazing will continue. Although an organizations own tradition and vocabulary characterize and define situations for the organizations members, Sweet (1999) suggested fraternities also engage in elaborate packaging to give meaning to situations. For example, if fraternity members want to mark a situation as one of solemn importance, they will set a solemn environment through the use of candles, robes, etc. Sweet also argued that fraternities become important reference groups for members and pledges, and that they become more concerned with how they might be viewed by their fellow members and pledges. In the end, Sweet suggested that, from the symbolic interactionist perspective, the willingness of pledges to submit to hazing activities is linked to their inability to think of themselves beyond their status as future fraternity members, and that pledges literally lose the social identity they held before the pledging process, which is characteristic of a liminal or transitional phase. One cannot ignore the importance and prevalence of alcohol during the pledging process (Hunt & Laidler, 2001). Hunt and Laidler described alcohol as a social lubricant, which not only maintains the cohesion and solidarity of the group, but also affirms masculinity and male

This chapter is excerpted from: Ellsworth, C.W. (2004). Definitions of hazing: Differences among selected student organizations. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005

togetherness. Thus, it is no surprise that alcohol has taken a prominent role in the socialization process of newcomers in a number of student organizations. Although historically White Greek-letter fraternities have been responsible for a great number of deaths and tragedies, much more of the available literature describes the role of hazing activities in historically Black Greek letter organizations. In addition, the pledging process of historically Black Greek-letter fraternities is indicative of the difficulty in eradicating hazing activities. According to Jones (2000), hazing activities have historically been viewed as functional in historically Black Greek-letter organizations. The pledging process is viewed as the only mandatory ritual, because it determines the type of brother the pledge will become. In addition, it is the only rite in fraternities that demands sacrifice. Jones (2000) asserted that the common experience of the pledging process gives fraternities continuity and structure. The process is a symbolic journey, and represents the death and rebirth theme that is common in initiation rituals and rites of passage. The completion of the journey or ordeal represents the transformation from unworthy to worthy, and a new life that is tied to a larger community. Thus, the process is not meant to discipline or reform the initiate, but to remake him entirely. In the first part of a liminal phase, the initiate loses his previous identity and status. In the second, he acquires a new status. For this reason, members of historically Black fraternities will call their initiation date the day they were made. Jones suggested that modern hazing is the result of the phenomenon by which symbolic journeys become real, physical ordeals and journeys. Because of its position as ritual and tradition, the pledging process is considered more legitimate than the modern intake process, and the culture and expectations around the original pledging process are resistant to change. Jones argued that, in many situations, the pledging process has suffered because members have forgotten the original purposes of fraternity ritual, which has become random and degenerative. Ruffins and Evelyn (1998) related hazing in historically Black Fraternities and sororities to some of the types of abuse and cruelty suffered by people during slavery. Sandra Lewis in Ruffins and Evelyn lamented members of historically Black Greek-letter organizations have chosen to identify with the slave masters rather than with the slaves. Before traditions such as caning and paddling became popular, other traditions such as line walking, which involved close physical contact between pledges, were present. Ruffins and Evelyn attributed the persistence of hazing in historically Black fraternities to the fact that their members are more peer-oriented than other students. Many of the hazing activities of the pledging process are justified in the name of solidarity. For example, line brothers are encouraged to do everything possible to help each other. However, Kimbrough (1995) suggested that the attitude of members of historically Black fraternities toward the value of leadership had a greater influence on their acceptance of violent hazing. Kimbrough observed that such men had a strong desire to be led in return for the chance to lead later on. Others have proposed other views with regard to hazing in historically Black fraternities and sororities (Ruffins & Evelyn, 1998). Although some have compared hazing, including caning and paddling, to aspects of dominance and submission found in acts of sexual sadomasochism,

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005

others have rejected the theory. Others, on the other hand, have suggested hazing may be linked to child abuse, while some have suggested a link between the influence of gangs, which coincided with the abolition of the pledging process and the development of the membership intake movement, and the rise in violent hazing. Sororities Like their male counterparts, sorority members have received attention in the research literature about hazing, though not nearly to the same degree. In 1992, Shaw conducted a national research study of sorority hazing among land-grant institutions of higher education. The research study was designed to examine the relationship between being hazed as a pledge and hazing others later as a member, being hazed as a pledge and being able to define such activities as hazing, and hazing others as a member and being able to define such activities as hazing. Sixty-eight chapters, including 3,763 women affiliated with national sororities in 48 states and the District of Columbia responded. Shaw reported that a significantly higher number of women participated in hazing activities as both a pledge and member than did not, and that a higher number of women did not define such activities as hazing. In addition, the researcher said that a positive correlation was found between pledges and members who participated in hazing activities and those who did not define such activities as hazing. Finally, Shaw said that a positive correlation was found between women who were hazed as pledges and who hazed others later as members. In 1990, Shaw and Morgan conducted a research study of the perceptions of Greek advisors on sorority hazing. The research study included information from 283 Greek advisors from 45 states and the District of Columbia, and institutional size ranged from 650 students to 33,000 students. Shaw and Morgan noted that sororities tended to engage in psychological hazing activities more frequently than physical hazing activities, and such hazing activities were easier to hide. The researchers remarked that, because of the feelings of isolation and loneliness felt by some freshmen students, psychological hazing activities could be as dangerous as physical hazing activities. In addition, they suggested that, because of the influence of peer pressure, women were likely to participate in hazing activities as members even though they may have disagreed with such activities as pledges. Significant majorities of Greek advisors reported hazing existed in some sororities on their campuses, and that their institutions had educational programs and policies about hazing. However, a significant majority said more education was needed. Some of the most common hazing activities that Greek advisors reported as prevalent on their campuses included: required signatures, scavenger hunts, use of blindfolds, required singing, early or late initiation, errands, alcohol consumption, required wearing of ridiculous clothes, and trying to scare pledges about initiation. Finally, Shaw and Morgan said that Greek advisors needed consistency with regard to definitions of hazing, educational programs and policies about hazing, as well as procedures for handling reported hazing activities. Military Organizations Although fraternities and sororities receive much of the medias attention with regard to hazing, military organizations also have been the subjects of anecdotal, empirical, and historical

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


literature about hazing. According to a report issued by the General Accounting Office (1992), hazing activities in the service academies were rare before the Civil War, but became more prominent and virulent by the 1870s. By the early 1900s, over 100 hazing activities had been identified in the academies. In 1874, Congress passed legislation to prohibit hazing in the academies. However, today, the language of the laws prohibiting hazing activities in the three service academies is different in each case. In 1992, the General Accounting Office issued a report to the United States Congress about the treatment of students in the three Department of Defense service academies, which identified hazing activities as a continuing issue. The Department sought to determine the extent of hazing at the academies, review the actions taken by the academies to control and eliminate hazing, and assess the impact of hazing on cadets and midshipmen. Although more physically abusive forms of hazing were less common, the majority of students reported they had been: subjected to upperclassmen screaming in their faces; verbally harassed, insulted, and ridiculed; required to memorize and recite trivia; and forced to use study hours to prepare for fourth class duties. The officers on the commandants staffs tended to concur with the extent of hazing activities reported by the students, with the exception of the Air Force Academy officers, who indicated a significantly lower level of hazing activities than reported by Air Force Academy students. One of the most notable indications of the first report said that, despite efforts to eliminate hazing from the academies, it had not completely disappeared. Also, the report said that hazing activities in the three academies occurred more frequently than officially filed charges would indicate. In addition, the General Accounting Office reported that the academies rarely charged anyone with hazing, and tended to pursue hazing-type offenses with lesser charges. One of the most condemning statements of the General Accounting Office (1992) was that hazing was not a harmless action. It said, A strong correlation exists between exposure to such treatment and a number of undesirable outcomes, including higher levels of physical and psychological stress among cadets and midshipmen, lower grade point averages, attrition from the academies, and reduced career motivation (General Accounting Office, 1992, p. 3). However, the General Accounting Office (1992) noted some positive change; since changes to the fourth class systems at the Military and Naval academies, students at the academies reported a lower frequency of hazing activities. It also reported that it was the responsibility of the leadership at the academies to effectively define hazing activities, because the distinction between hazing activities and legitimate fourth class indoctrination was unclear. The General Accounting Office also recommended that the academies continue to educate students, faculty, staff, and alumni about hazing activities, as well as improve enforcement of the prohibition against hazing. Although the focus of this research study was limited to hazing activities of military organizations in the United States, the military organizations of other countries provide insight into the culture with regard to hazing in such military organizations. For example, Winslow (1999) conducted a research study of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. She said that, similar to the results of the research study by Aronson and Mills (1959), because of the severe hazing endured by soldiers in the Canadian Airborne Regiment, membership in the group is more

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


attractive. Winslow reported that, because of such hazing activities, soldiers proved their readiness to participate in the group regardless of personal cost, and have thus gained the acceptance of the group. Winslow (1999) also identified similar processes to those identified by Sweet (1999) in her research study of fraternity hazing from a symbolic interactionist perspective. Winslow reported that, in the separation stage, the new members former identity was stripped away, and a new collective identity formed. Then, the new members entered a liminal stage, where events become parodies and inversions of real life and new members are humiliated and tested. In the final stage, the new members become full members of the group. Winslow said that, because of little interaction and teamwork between the groups, each group developed its own practices for indoctrinating new members. With regard to the application of a symbolic interactionist perspective to the indoctrination of new members to the Canadian Airborne Regiment, Winslow said, Culture is a social force that controls patterns of organizational behavior. It shapes members cognition and perceptions of meanings and realities. It provides affective energy for mobilization and identifies who belongs to the group and who does not (Winslow, 1999, p. 435). In addition, Winslow (1999) remarked about the importance of alcohol as a cultural symbol in the Canadian Airborne Regiment. Winslow said that, as an important aspect of masculine identity, it served to affirm that identity, as well as to mark important events as a ceremonial symbol. Winslow also identified some of the undesirable effects of hazing practices on group dynamics. For example, she said that group bonding could threaten authority and undermine discipline when the group becomes more important than anything else. In addition, she said that a strong group could develop and maintain inappropriate norms, as well as facilitate defiant and subversive acts. Ostvik and Rudmin (2001) compared bullying and hazing among Norwegian soldiers. Ostvik and Rudmin characterized hazing as behavior by a cohort of senior members against a cohort of newcomers, public, ritualistic with little change from year to year, concluding at the end of the initiation period, bringing about group solidarity, and as a socialization process for newcomers. The researchers remarked that serious hazing incidents have resulted in deaths or suicides among military organizations from around the world. Ostvik and Rudmin reported that, although hazing occurred more frequently among soldiers in the Norwegian Army, only a small minority reported being hazed. However, 46% believed most senior members of the organization hazed newcomers, which was positively correlated with perpetrating hazing (r=.40, p<.001) and with being hazed (r=.26, p<.001). The researchers concluded that hazing served social and cultural functions and that, because it is resistant to efforts to end its practice, organizations should move to formalize such social and cultural rites of passage. Finally, in another example of the degree to which hazing is embedded in the social and cultural tradition of military organizations around the world, McCoy (1995) examined hazing in the Philippine Military Academy. McCoy remarked that the ritual hazing of newcomers served as the defining moment of their lives at the academy. The researcher said such hazing activities could be found throughout the world, even among peaceful groups of people, as a central rite of passage, and that such activities could shape gender roles in those societies.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Athletic Teams Although fraternities, sororities, and military organizations have received considerable attention throughout the empirical and historical literature, athletic teams recently have emerged as a common setting for hazing activities. In 1988, Adler and Adler explored intense loyalty in college athletics through a case study with a college basketball team. They identified five conceptual elements that contributed to the development of intense loyalty in college athletics: domination, identification, commitment, integration, and goal alignment. With regard to hazing in athletic teams, the elements of dominance and identification become even more important. Adler and Adler argued that, through dominance and the related idea of subordination, athletic teams exert inordinate pressure on individuals in order to increase loyalty to the groups and weaken ties to others outside the groups. The idea is similar to the notion of the separation phase identified above. In addition, part of the socialization of student athletes involves a destruction of the old identity and the construction and legitimization of the new identity, an idea that is parallel to that of liminality, one of the transitional phases that is often a part of the socialization of newcomers. Finally, Adler and Adler identified unification in opposition and group solidarity, which also have parallels in other groups, as conceptual elements that contribute to the development of intense loyalty. In the context of the socialization of student athletes, a research study by Hoover (1999) corroborated the idea that hazing is a part of the socialization of student athletes and discovered that hazing is a consistent issue among athletic teams at colleges and universities throughout the United States. Hoover collected information from 2,027 respondents from 224 institutions and sought to identify: the scope of initiation rites in college athletics, perceptions of what is appropriate or inappropriate, and strategies to prevent hazing. The researchers then identified what were acceptable, questionable, and unacceptable initiation activities. Although 12% of the respondents reported being hazed as a member of an athletic group, 79% of them said they had been subjected to one or more typical hazing activities as part of their team initiations. Ninety-six percent of the student athletes who participated in the research study reported they had participated in acceptable initiation activities; only 20% of them had participated in only acceptable initiation activities. Furthermore, Hoover suggested that 20% of student athletes participated in questionable initiation activities, and 60% participated in unacceptable initiation activities. In addition, according to the research study conducted by Hoover at Alfred University in 1999, juniors and seniors were more likely than freshmen and sophomores to acknowledge and recognize they had been hazed, and athletic coaches, athletic directors, and deans were less likely than student athletes to know about hazing activities. Finally, the report suggested that most student athletes (60%) would not report hazing activities, a higher percentage than either athletic coaches (52%) or athletic directors (54%) who thought most student athletes would not report such activities. Student affairs officers were much more skeptical; 71% of them reported most student athletes would not report hazing activities. With regard to strategies to prevent hazing activities, only two specific strategies were chosen by more than half of the student athletes involved in the research study by Hoover (1999): strong disciplinary and corrective measures for known cases (52%) and athletic, behavioral, and

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


academic standards guiding recruitment (51%). More than 50% of the athletic coaches, athletic directors, and deans who participated in the research study included as strategies to prevent hazing activities: strong disciplinary and corrective measures for known cases; athletic, behavioral, and academic standards guiding recruitment; and clear staff expectations in athletics for monitoring and enforcing. Although the majority of athletic coaches (56%) and athletic directors (56%) also suggested alternative initiation activities as a strategy to prevent hazing activities, only a minority of the deans (47%) who participated held similar views. Marching Bands Finally, although there is anecdotal and historical evidence that band members participate in and perpetuate hazing activities, they have not been included in any of the above research studies, nor any others that have been shared throughout the empirical literature. This suggests that band members should be included in future research studies. References Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1988). Intense loyalty in organizations: A case study of college athletics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 401-417. General Accounting Office, Division of National Security and International Affairs. (1992). DOD service academies: More changes needed to eliminate hazing. Report to Congressional Requesters. (EDRS Publication No. GAO/NSIAD-93-36). Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General Accounting Office. Hoover, J., & Milner, C. (1998). Are hazing and belongingness related to love and belongingness? Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 7, 138-141. Hoover, N. C. (1999). Initiation rites and athletics: A national survey of NCAA sports teams. Final report. Alfred, NY: Alfred University. Hunt, G. P., & Laidler, K. J. (2001). Alcohol and violence in the lives of gang members. Alcohol Research & Health, 25(1), 66-71. Jones, R. L. (2000). The historical significance of sacrificial ritual: Understanding violence in the modern Black fraternity pledge process. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 24, 112124. Kimbrough, W. M. (1995). Self-assessment, participation, and value of leadership skills, activities, and experiences for Black students relative to their membership in historically Black fraternities and sororities. The Journal of Negro Education, 64(1), 63-74. McCoy, A. W. (1995). Same banana: Hazing and honor at the Philippine Military Academy. The Journal of Asian Studies, 54, 689-726.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Ostvik, K., & Rudmin, F. (2001). Bullying and hazing among Norwegian army soldiers: Two studies of prevalence, context, and cognition. Military Psychology, 13(1), 17-39. Ruffins, P., & Evelyn, J. (1998, June 25). The persistent madness of Greek hazing. Black Issues in Higher Education, pp. 14-18. Shaw, D. L. (1992). A national study of sorority hazing incidents in selected land-grant institutions of higher learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 1077. Shaw, D. L., & Morgan, T. E. (1990). Greek advisors perceptions of sorority hazing. NASPA Journal, 28(1), 60-64. Sweet, S. (1999). Understanding fraternity hazing: Insights from symbolic interactionist theory. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 355-364. Winslow, D. (1999). Rites of passage and group bonding in the Canadian Airborne. Armed Forces & Society, 25, 429-457.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Legal Issues Tracy Maxwell, Executive Director, CAMPUSPEAK Hazing involves many legal issues. As advisors, we must balance our role of helping students with the legal needs and requirements of the institutions that employ us. This can sometimes be tricky. When I started a job at a university several years ago, a hazing case involving a fraternity and sorority hazing each others new members had been adjudicated by the Greek Judicial Board the semester prior to my arrival. The sorority had cooperated fully in the investigation and punished its members who had taken part in the activity. The fraternity had not been as forthcoming or cooperative and was severely punished for their actions by the student judicial board. Sanctions included the loss of recruitment privileges for one semester. Many of the fraternitys alumni were unhappy with the results of the judicial hearing and filed suit against the university. It was around this time that I started my new job. While my colleagues were being deposed and spending time with university counsel regarding the suit (I wasnt named), I was trying to build rapport with my new students. The fraternity in question was particularly interested in beginning a positive relationship with me, and starting off on new footing with the university. However, I was advised by university counsel that I could not talk to members of the fraternity while the lawsuit was in progress. The fraternity leadership was not happy when I shared this news with them. They protested that they were being negatively affected by this lawsuit filed by our alumni. When I pointed out to them that their alumni actually had no right to sue the university that in fact the students names were the ones on the suit that was actually the beginning of the end of the lawsuit. The students werent in favor of it and told the alumni, who eventually dropped the action against the university. This is just one small example of how complicated the legal issues surrounding hazing can get. This section will help you understand and effectively deal with these issues in your job. It covers hazing and the law (including examples from major court cases involving hazing), reporting requirements of FERPA and the Clery Act, investigation strategies and judicial procedures related to hazing incidents and warning signs of hazing.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Hazing and the Law Mitch Crane, Esq. Hazing is most generally defined as an action by an individual or group of persons that involves physical or emotional endangerment to another individual as a condition or part of membership in an organization or class. Laws, rules, and/or regulations have expanded this definition to include such activities as sleep deprivation, calisthenics, consumption of substances, and any activity that serves no educational purpose. A look at origins of the word is enlightening. In meteorological terms, a haze is vapor or fog that makes it difficult to see. The words origin may be in nautical usage. The Old French word haser means to irritate, annoy, and became used as a verb in defining activities used against sailors that were designed to oppress, punish, or harass by forcing to do hard and unnecessary work(Websters New World Dictionary, 1953). This usage was adapted to common usage in the United States to define activities used to initiate or discipline (fellow students) by means of horseplay, practical jokes, and tricks, often in the nature of humiliating or painful ordeals (Websters New World Dictionary, 1953). At that time, reports were surfacing of such activities on U.S. campuses involving fraternities and members who were veterans of the Korean War as were older stories involving the same organizations and World War II veterans. Because fraternities in the 1950's were generally restricted to those of a certain social class and race, the roots of hazing were in the elite boarding schools the upper classes attended until the injection of hazing practices by war veterans. More recent origins are commonly tied to cultural practices of inner cities, perhaps as portrayed by popular film, and the perceived stereotyping and glorification of hazing in movies. Hazing in womens organizations was mostly restricted to humiliation until the more recent trend in all areas of culture led to the mimicking of the worst of mens activities. The worst activity that has led to hazing-related tragedies of late has been the abuse of alcohol in general and, more specifically, in new member activities. The cultural roots of hazing, the mass-media glorification of what is shown as a harmless and expected practice, the abuse of alcohol and other substances and societys understandable intolerance of tragedy in fraternal organizations has made hazing one of the greatest challenges facing fraternities and sororities today. Criminal and Civil Legal Issues There are many areas of law that involve the issue of hazing. Criminal law and civil law are the major areas that deal with the rights of victims and the sanctions against those responsible for hazing. They are not mutually exclusive - a hazing incident can be dealt with in both criminal and civil proceedings (as well as in institutional administrative proceedings). A crime is a violation of the rules of society. While the violation of an individuals rights might be involved, society itself is said to suffer from such conduct. The penalty can be incarceration and/or a fine that is paid to the government. The civil law involved is the law of torts. A tort is a

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


civil wrong. The elements required are that the defendant has a duty to protect the plaintiff (victim) from harm. That duty must exist by a law. There must be a breach of that duty and that breach must be the cause of an injury (physical or emotional). The penalty in a civil case is a judgment of money. That money goes to the injured plaintiff. A person accused of hazing can be charged criminally and can be sued in a civil action. A criminal proceeding requires that there be a violation of a criminal law and there must be a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A civil proceeding requires an allegation that an injury occurred as a result of a failure on the part of a defendant to carry out the legal duty to protect. Corporations and associations are persons and can be defendants in civil, as well as criminal, actions. A civil judgment can be issued if the defendant is found responsible by a preponderance of evidence is it more likely than not? A person can be found not guilty in a criminal trial though responsible in a civil trial. Most state criminal and civil laws allow consent of the victim as a defense. Hazing Laws Over forty states have anti-hazing laws. Most of those laws make hazing a criminal offense (the others define and ban hazing but make the violation of the statute subject to civil or administrative remedies). Thirteen states have laws that eliminate consent as a defense in hazing cases. See Appendix A for a chart differentiating the anti-hazing laws in existence. It must be pointed out that the existence or absence of a state law on hazing does not necessarily preclude criminal and civil remedies for a hazing victim. It is against the law in every state to harass a person; to assault a person; to cause a death either intentionally or through gross behavior or indifference. It is a civil violation in every state to fail to warn someone of dangers that you are aware of or which are foreseeable. Legal action taken as a result of hazing and the publics increasingly low regard for fraternal organizations are not caused by the incidents alone, tragic as they may be, but from the hypocrisy that exists when organizations that purport to have high standards exhibit behavior that contradicts their expressed reasons for existence. It is important to understand that laws dealing with hazing are state-created. Each state is different in the application of law and civil responsibilities. Campus professionals should speak with qualified legal experts and ascertain the nuances of the state in which they work. Can There Be Consent? As stated before, in most jurisdictions a person who consents to a violation loses the right to remedy for resultant injury. It can be argued that a person cannot complain if he is told that, as a condition of membership, he will be hazed in specific ways and, after agreeing to join, is hazed just that way. That person knows what the responsibilities are, what was to happen, and agreed to them by joining. Every inter/national fraternal organization prohibits hazing. Most all define hazing in the most inclusive terms. Most local organizations prohibit hazing. All institutions of higher learning have similar restrictions. Organizations as a condition of recognition agree to abide by the anti-hazing regulations. Most fraternal organizations are required to sign non-hazing declarations. It is rare for an organization to tell prospective members during recruitment that

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


hazing exists. As a matter of fact, recruitment usually includes the statement that the chapter does not haze. Therefore there can be no consent. The Role of Alcohol It is illegal to consume alcohol if one is under the legal age, and most new members are underage. The serving of alcohol to new members as part of an activity is illegal. Hazing involving alcohol removes that consent because, in most jurisdictions, a person under the influence loses the ability to consent. The use of alcohol in hazing incidents serves to elevate the skepticism and hypocrisy with which fraternities and sororities are oftentimes viewed. The greater the violation of individual rights and the more aggravated the resultant tragedy, the louder the outcry for action. When fraternities and sororities purport to adhere to laws, rules and regulations and subsequently show blatant disregard for these very things, public outcry becomes stronger and more frequent. As a result, laws will become stronger, verdicts will become larger and the net of responsibility will undoubtedly be cast more widely. The Advisors Role & Agency Law An advisor is generally not personally liable and not criminally culpable for an incident the advisor had not participated in and had no knowledge of. In a criminal proceeding, an advisor risks arrest for an incident that he or she participated in or conspired in the planning or cover-up of. Additionally, in some states (Appendix A) it is a crime to not report a hazing incident. The same principles apply in civil matters. An advisor who participates in, helps plan, has knowledge of, or covers-up a hazing activity or incident is exposed to suit. An advisor who acts within the scope of the job description and is named a defendant in a suit, will usually be named as an agent of the institution. In that position, the exposure to loss is the institutions and money damages come out of the institutional pocket. It is important to have a written job description and to act only within the responsibilities delineated in that description. If the position requires education of members and organizations on the issue of hazing, written reports should be filed and provided to the advisors supervisor. If the job involves policing and investigation, the advisor should file written reports and recommendations and provide a copy to the superior. If ordered to do something outside of the job description, the advisor should request a written notification, or produce such documentation. Truth in Advertising Colleges and universities that recognize and promote fraternal organizations place in the minds of incoming students and their parents an expectation that there is safety in those organizations. If anti-hazing policies are publicized, there will be a similar expectation that they are enforced.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Do not allow parents and new students to believe there are no issues of concern. Be realistic and inform that hazing is an issue on campuses today and that your institution has taken steps to eliminate the problem. Give examples if asked. Publicizing incidents may cause immediate concern among some, but it honestly shows the problems exist. Publicizing reasonable disciplinary actions taken against violating organizations and individuals (if permitted under FERPA) not only sends a message to other individuals and organizations, but also reduces liability. It is important to publicize both the positive and negative things that organizations do. Press releases and other information about awards and positive recognition should be widely disseminated and parents should be included on this list whenever possible. In addition, parents of new students are informed by many institutions today about violations of policy by fraternities and sororities. This can be shared in a basic grid report distributed at orientation, through a website, or in multiple ways. Sharing this information in a formal way can help advisors avoid uncomfortable questions about which organizations are the best or worst on campus. Give parents and students the information and let them decide for themselves. Society demands high standards and adherence to those standards. If the purpose of fraternal organizations is to teach men and women principles and standards that will be used to the benefit of that society, the campus professional is expected to hold advisees to those standards and principles. Failure to do so will result in their being held to those standards and expectations in another forum. Reference Webster's new world dictionary of the American language (1958). Cleveland & New York: The World Publishing Company. Additional Resources Kimbrough, W.M. (2003). Black Greek 101: The culture, customs, and challenges of black greek fraternities and sororities. Farleigh Dickinson University Press. Nuwer, H. (1990). Broken pledges: The deadly rite of hazing. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press. Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing, and binge drinking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Nuwer, H. (Ed.) (2004). The hazing reader. Bloomington: Indiana University Press Anson, J.L. & Marchesani R. F. (1990). Baird's manual of American college fraternities, 20th edition. Indianapolis, IN: Bairds Manual Foundation.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Major Court Cases Involving Hazing Mitch Crane, Esq. Federal Courts ILLINOIS Donald Edwards v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. 1999 WL 1069100 (1999) The United States District Court for the Northern Division of Illinois ruled that a cause of action could lie against, and a duty existed by, a national fraternity for hazing-related injuries to a pledge when the national chapter knew or should have known that hazing was taking place in violation of state law. NEW YORK Sylvester Lloyd, Jr. v. Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity and Cornell University 1999 WL 47153 US District Court, ND New York (1999) Cornell University was found to have no liability or duty to protect a student from repeated hazing by a recognized organization when it had no knowledge of the hazing and had been assured by the national organization that no intake was taking place during the period in question. State Courts ALABAMA Jones v. Kappa Alpha Order 730 So.2d 203 (1998) The fraternity claimed that the pledge assumed the risk of injury when he allowed himself to continue to be hazed after 20-40% of his fellow pledges quit. There is no liability when others refused to give in to peer pressure, (Barran v. Kappa Alpha Order, Inc.). In a companion case, no liability of the national fraternity where no evidence it ratified or authorized hazing. Individual members and chapter could be liable. FLORIDA McMillan v. Broward County School Board 834 So.2d 903 (2003) High school basketball coach not subject to discipline if he was without knowledge that hazing took place on trip. GEORGIA Caldwell v Griffin Spalding County Board of Education 503 S.E.2d 43 (1998) High school football coach and principal were both protected under sovereign immunity where no showing of actual malice on their parts and no evidence they aided or abetted students who committed crime of hazing. ILLINOIS Haben v. Anderson 597 N.E.2d 655 (1992) Consumption of large amount of alcohol and injury during initiation ceremony was reasonably foreseeable. There was no differentiation between liability of individuals and the organization itself.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


People v. Anderson 591 N.E.2d 461 (1992) There is no absolute liability in hazing incidents. State must prove recklessness, knowledge or intent. Quinn v. Sigma Rho Chapter of Beta Theta Pi Fraternity 507 N.E.2d 1193 (1987) The fraternity had legal duty to 18-year-old pledge to refrain from requiring participation in dangerous acts requiring him to chug-a-lug 40-ounce pitcher of beer and engage in other heavy drinking as part of initiation ceremony. IOWA Garofalo v. Lambda Chi Alpha 616 N.W.2d 647 (2000) National fraternity had no duty to protect pledge from his decision to drink. No heightened duty to protect because of a special relationship in a fraternity. 19-year-old pledge made an adult decision to drink. KANSAS Prime v. Beta Gamma Chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha 47 P.3d 402 (2002) There was no duty on part of house corporation or national fraternity to protect underage pledge from injury as a result of voluntarily drinking in excess during big brother night. LOUISIANA Kendrick Morrison v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, et. al. 738 So.2d 1105 (1999) The Court of Appeals of Louisiana upheld a jury verdict against a national fraternity and the State of Louisiana involving a freshman beaten by the chapter president. The jury found the chapter president, the national organization and the state were liable: the president for administering the beating; the national organization for failing to notify the university of reported hazing by its local chapter and failed to have an alumni advisor in violation of fraternity regulations; and the state for failing to notify the national organization and to follow up on reports of hazing at the states campus at Louisiana Tech. MARYLAND Jon-Michael McKenzie v. State of Maryland 748 A.2d 67 (2000) A challenge to the constitutionality of the criminal anti-hazing statute in Maryland was denied. The Court of Special Appeals stated that such a law was not over broad and did not interfere with First Amendment rights to participate in fraternities and sororities and did not violate Freedom of Association rights. The court stated that believe that beatings, mock kidnappings, forced binge drinking, and similar activities are necessary tests of an initiates loyalty because its always done that way, is to engage in Orwellian groupthink and stated that the state has the power to regulate activities it deems dangerous. MISSOURI Nisbet and Nisbet v. Bucher, 949 S.W.2d 111 (1997) Liability was established where students were pressured to become intoxicated as a condition of membership (on the St. Pats Board at the University of Missouri-Rolla) and where abandoned in a state of acute alcohol intoxication.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


NEBRASKA Jeffrey J. Knoll v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska 601 N.W. 2d 757 (1999) The Supreme Court of Nebraska found that liability does exist as does a duty to protect a student who was injured during a hazing activity when the activity was foreseeable by the university. The court determined that the university had knowledge of prior hazing incidents on campus and of alcohol abuse and of other law violations by the fraternity in question (Phi Gamma Delta). NEW YORK Shambhu Oja v. Grand Chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity, Inc. 257 A.D.2d 924 (1999) A seventeen-year-old fraternity pledge died after consuming alcohol in what was alleged to be a hazing ritual. Individual defendants sought dismissal because alcohol use was voluntary. The State Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division upheld the lower courts ruling that a private cause of action under the state anti-hazing criminal statute could allow recovery for a plaintiff whose willingness to be bullied and humiliated in exchange for the social acceptance which comes with membership in a circle which, to the puerile, may seem alluring and even exalted. PENNSYLVANIA Santana Kenner v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. 808 A.2d 178 (2002) The Superior Court of Pennsylvania relieved the national chapter from liability when an initiate was harmed when it was established the national organization did not know and should not have know of hazing activities and had taken strong steps to educate on and eliminate hazing. The court did find that there was potential liability on the part of individual chapter members for the act as well as the chapters advisor for failing to educate chapter members and new initiates on policies and law and for failing to be involved himself in intake.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA) Mitch Crane, Esq. The Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA) was enacted by the United States Congress in 1974 to protect parents and students rights to privacy. It limits the transfer of records without consent. This is a civil statute, not criminal. As in other areas where Congress has injected itself in responsibilities generally left to the states (drinking and seat-belt laws), the penalty for violation is the loss of federal funds. FERPA allows the distribution of funds to educational institutions on the condition that there is no institutional policy permitting the release of educational records without the written consent of a student or the parents if the student is a minor. FERPA does not prohibit the release of organizational records. Disciplinary action taken against an organization is not personal. Disciplinary records of an individual are personal and are considered educational. FERPA does create an exception regarding the release of records in certain individual cases. Records of action taken may be released to an alleged victim of a crime of violence (forcible rape, assault, arson, etc.). Records may be released to an alleged victim of a crime involving nonforcible sex. In cases where there is a risk to the safety or well being of others, release of records is permitted to teachers and other school officials. Release of information regarding alcohol or controlled substance use by a student under 21 to that students parent or legal guardian is also allowed. While the release of the results of disciplinary actions taken by an institution against an individual student is not permitted because those records are considered educational, Congress created a major exception in institutional law enforcement agencies. A campus police department that has investigative and arrest powers, as would any police department, may release records kept for law enforcement purposes. In other words, the records of a police department involving a criminal investigation, not being educational, are not protected by FERPA. Federal courts interpreting FERPA have stated that this federal law overrides any state law permitting or even mandating release. The same courts have stated that access to these educational records is not a matter of freedom of the press or freedom of information. The campus professional is bound to protect and not release, except as noted above, the individual records of students without that students written permission or that of a parent or guardian if the student is not yet 18. The records of organizations may be released. A summary of general action taken against individuals is acceptable as long as it is not possible to identify any one person. In other words, it is permissible to state in a monthly, semester or annual report the number of cases investigated concerning certain crimes or violations of policy and to state the type of disciplinary action taken. When in doubt, consult your campus attorney.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Reference U.S. Department of Education (n.d.). Family educational rights & privacy act (FERPA). Retrieved November 17, 2004, from ferpa/index.html

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


The Clery Act Brian Perry, Assistant Director of Greek Life & Education, University of Texas at Austin Definition and History The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act is the landmark federal law, originally known as the Campus Security Act, that requires colleges and universities across the United States to disclose information about crime on and around their campuses. Because the law is tied to participation in federal student financial aid programs it applies to most institutions of higher education both public and private. It is enforced by the U.S. Department of Education. The Clery Act is named in memory of 19-year-old Lehigh University freshman Jeanne Ann Clery who was raped and murdered while asleep in her residence hall room on April 5, 1986. Jeannes parents, Connie and Howard, discovered that students hadnt been told about 38 violent crimes on the Lehigh campus in the three years before her murder. They joined with other campus crime victims and persuaded Congress to enact this law, which was originally known as the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990. The law was amended in 1992 to add a requirement that schools afford the victims of campus sexual assault certain basic rights, and was amended again in 1998 to expand the reporting requirements. The 1998 amendments also formally named the law in memory of Jeanne Clery. The law was most recently amended in 2000 upon passage of Megans Law. With this amendment, the Clery Act now requires schools beginning in 2003 to notify the campus community regarding where public information about registered sex offenders on campus can be obtained. Annual Reports Schools are required to publish an annual report every year by October 1st that contains three years of campus crime statistics and certain security policy statements including sexual assault policies which assure basic victims rights, the law enforcement authority of campus police and where students should go to report crimes. The report is to be made available automatically to all current students and employees while prospective students and employees are to be notified of its existence and afforded an opportunity to request a copy. Schools can comply using the Internet so long as the required recipients are notified and provided the exact Internet address where the report can be found and paper copies are available upon request. A copy of the statistics must also be provided to the U.S. Department of Education. Crime Statistics Each school must disclose crime statistics for the campus, in unobstructed public areas immediately adjacent to or running through the campus, and in certain non-campus facilities including fraternity/sorority housing and remote classrooms. The statistics must be gathered from campus police or security, local law enforcement, and other school officials who have significant responsibility for student and campus activities such as student judicial affairs directors. Professional mental health and religious counselors are exempt from reporting obligations, but may refer patients to a confidential reporting system. The school has to indicate whether or not it has done so in its report. Crimes are reported in the following seven major categories, with several sub-categories:

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


1. Criminal Homicide broken down by: a. Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter b. Negligent manslaughter 2. Sex Offenses broken down by: a. Forcible Sex Offenses (includes rape) b. Nonforcible Sex Offenses 3. Robbery 4. Aggravated Assault 5. Burglary 6. Motor Vehicle Theft 7. Arson Schools are also required to report the following three types of incidents if they result in either an arrest or disciplinary referral: 1. Liquor Law Violations 2. Drug Law Violations 3. Illegal Weapons Possession If both an arrest and referral are made only the arrest is counted. The statistics are also broken down geographically into: 1. 2. 3. 4. On campus Residential facilities for students on campus Non-campus buildings On public property such as streets and sidewalks

Schools can use a map to denote these areas. The report must also indicate if any of the reported incidents, or any other crime involving bodily injury, was designated as a hate crime. Access To Timely Information Schools are also required to provide timely warnings, and a separate, more extensive, public crime log. It is this requirement that is most likely to affect the day-to-day lives of students. The timely warning requirement is somewhat subjective and is only triggered when the school considers a crime to pose an ongoing threat to students and employees. The log records all incidents reported to the campus police or security department. Timely warnings cover a broader source of reports (campus police or security, other campus officials, and off-campus law enforcement) than the crime log but are limited to those crime categories required in the annual report. The crime log includes only incidents reported to the campus police or security department, but covers all crimes not just those required in the annual report, meaning crimes like theft are included in the log. State crime definitions may be used. Schools that maintain police or security departments are required to disclose in the public crime log any crime that occurred on campus or within the patrol jurisdiction of the campus police

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


or the campus security department and that was reported to the campus police or security department. The log is required to include the nature, date, time, and general location of each crime as well as its disposition if known. Incidents are to be included within two business days, but certain limited information may be withheld to protect victim confidentiality, ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations, or to keep a suspect from fleeing. Only the most limited information necessary may be withheld and even then it must be released once the adverse effect is no longer likely to occur. The log must be publicly available during normal business hours. This means that in addition to students and employees the general public such as parents or members of the local press may access it. Logs remain open for 60 days and must be available within two business days of a request. Reporting While hazing has not specifically been a part of the required Clery Act reporting, hazing incidents can be included as part of the campus reporting if they include other aspects that are specifically identified in The Clery Act. Some examples might include but are not limited to: sexual assaults, paddling, burglary, robbery, or aggravated assaults. On most campuses the campus police or local police department play a critical role in coordinating this information. Having an expertly trained police department is critical to correct reporting. However, each campus has the ability to establish exactly who will be responsible for campus security reporting among the administration. Any reportable crime must involve the police, but often college or university officials are the first to know about a situation and may be part of an investigation that leads to findings that need to be reported under the Clery Act. It is for this reason that fraternity/sorority life officials should be part of the college or university's Clery Act reporting training. On many campuses, especially those with on-campus fraternal organizations, there may be situations where fraternity/sorority staff is part of the campus security team. In all circumstances it is a good idea for Fraternity/sorority life officials to follow up and make sure that an incident has been reported. It is also not a problem to report a crime through multiple sources to the campus security officials because the fine for unreported incidents is $25,000. It is better to be thorough than to assume that someone else has filed the report. There is no standardized reporting form, however the federal government guidelines and categories are specifically stated and fraternity/sorority officials should be trained on these categories. Legislation The future of The Clery Act in relation to hazing is unclear. Recent legislation has been proposed to the House of Representatives to include hazing as a specific component of campus reporting. H. R. 1207, the Hazing Prohibition Act of 2003 would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to withhold federal student financial assistance from students who have been found guilty of hazing and would also require the reporting of hazing statistics. The bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness in March 2003. One of the significant challenges for this legislation is the fact that hazing is not federally regulated and is only addressed through state statutes. Since each state can establish their own policies in regards to hazing it would make reporting difficult in terms of language and definition. The actual proposal can be viewed at:

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Reference Security on Campus, Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved October 21, 2004, from

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Investigating Hazing Incidents The following section will assist practitioners in identifying warning signs of hazing and investigating alleged hazing incidents, emphasizing that that a strong relationship with inter/national organization staff members and volunteers will go a long way toward advancing investigations and redirection of chapter behaviors.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Warning Signs of Hazing Dave Westol, Executive Director, Theta Chi Fraternity I remain convinced that the vast majority of our undergraduates: (a) understand what hazing is or who they can check with if they dont; (b) are opposed to hazing in most forms; (c) would support a non-hazing program if they have a hand in developing it; and (d) are not dedicated to hazing practices. With that said, I offer the following insights from more than thirty years of experience working alongside campus professionals to investigate and eradicate hazing. Trends More psychological/emotional hazing, utilizing stress and anxiety. Continued use of alcohol to impair judgment and logic. More activities inside of houses or at remote locations. A return to demeaning, belittling activitiesusing the back door to enter the chapter house, a certain set of stairs, programmed answers or responses or greetings, carrying certain items. Education of new members becoming more apparent. Some fraternity/sorority communities requiring new members to attend seminars to be educated. Potential members and new members less willing to put up with hazing practices. More whistle-blowers.

Standard Excuses for Hazing

I went through it, so they have to go through it. They have to go through something to earn their way in. We dont want a cakewalk. The pledges want to be hazed. No one ever got hurt doing this. Wed lose prestige on campus if we eliminated hazing. It gives them some memories. It makes them closer. There is no other way of disciplining pledges.

Standard Timetable for Hazing Common Hazing Practices Following Recruitment and Formal Pledging Ceremony: Weeks 1-2: Weeks 3-5: Weeks 6-8: Assignment of menial tasks and dutiesestablishes foundation for, Youre less than we are. First lineupintense, designed to scare new members, establish role of initiated members, set tone for Hell Week. References to Hell Week become common, mind games regarding failure to perform becomes more frequent. New member class unity stressed and emphasized as goal of the program.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Week 9:

Hell Week. Usually 3-4 days, beginning on a Wednesday and ending on a Saturday or Sunday.

Common Hazing Practices During Pre-Initiation:

Deprivation of food and sleep in order to reduce resistance to hazing, break down

individual strengths, decrease logic/rational thought.

Demeaning games and practices to make the new members feel stupid, inadequate, or

unworthy of membership.
At least one fake ending, if not more, to convince new members they are active, and

then abusing them for believing that they were actually finished with pre-initiation.
Psychological shocks and stressful situations, often pitting the new members against one

another or against the Hell Week chairmen.

Inappropriate or ridiculous clothing to further reduce self-esteem and confidence. Sensory deprivation or exhaustion practices: locking new members in a dark room,

playing same music repeatedly over a loudspeaker, keeping new members in a small area for extended periods of time. Calisthenics, fun runs, or other physically exhausting exercises. Trust us games, almost always involving the use of blindfolds so that the new members cannot see what is actually occurring: The toilet grab, the brick drop, the Valley of Death, branding. Requirement to memorize and repeat trivia and/or phrases or words. Work sessions that usually end with a frustrating series of events that result in the work being repeatedi.e., a clean floor is intentionally soiled by brothers, a wall is spray-painted. Emphasis upon the right answer, the right decision(s)an incorrect response results in physical exertion, eating of unsuitable foods such as onions or hot peppers, punishment for the entire new member class. Emphasis upon new member class unity.

Red Flags for Hazing Practices Any one of these practices indicates, suggests or confirms a hazing philosophy or mentality, which in turn produces other hazing practices.
New members answering the telephone and identifying themselves as new members.

During pre-initiation, answering with a required phone spiel.

Emphasis upon new member class unity, carried to behavior, dress, responses to

questions, demeanor.
New members dressing alikehats, wearing suits on the same day, wearing rags or pieces

of cloth around one ankle are examples. Some practices have gang behavior overtones, i.e., Colors worn in some fashion. Heads shaved. Group buying: new members, often in preparation for Hell Week, are told to purchase certain items. They often do so as a group. Fun runs: new members running in a fashion similar to that used by military units or running together, almost always around womens fraternities or sororities. Standardized greetings on campus or otherwise by new members to actives.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


New members required to use certain entrances to the house, or not allowed to use certain

areas of the house, other than the chapter room.

New members carrying certain objectspens, notebooks, black books, change for a

quarter, matches, or any other items that are not normally carried or which are uniform in appearance. New members required to carry their manuals with them at all times. New members required to wear their new member buttons or pins at all times. Social calendars which refer to Hell Weekor other activities. Watch for modifications late in the term. Taping newspaper, aluminum foil, paper or other coverings over the windows, especially on the first floor, during pre-initiation. Posting a placard or poster near the doorOnly initiated members of _______allowed to enter at this time during pre-initiation. New members carrying paddles with them to class or otherwise. If this is over a period of time, new members often tie the paddles to their belts. New members performing most or all of the housecleaning duties. Standardized or programmed answers to questions regarding hazing. Brothers tell the new members that if they reveal what has occurred, the chapter will be closed and it will be the fault of the new members. Listen for similarities in responses and key phrases, often intertwined with subtle criticisms of the investigative process and self (chapter)-serving phrases. Numerous rules for new members. Usually prepared at the beginning of the semester, sometimes two or three pages in length, detailing what new members must and must not do. Ask for a copy of new member rules or new member dos and donts. Reluctance of members to allow visitors in chapter house during pre-initiation. Frequent reference to and use of the word respect. New member program not outlined on paper, or if it is, the outline consists of one or two pages of vapid phrasesMeeting 2: New members learn about history of national. New member educator avoids meetings with volunteers/consultants. If a meeting is held, new member educator is confrontational (Best defense is a good offense) or vague and offers generalized answers with little content. The words Encouraged, Suggested or Asked are used when describing how new members are involved in activities. These words are used as a means of blunting any allegations that new members must be involved or attend an event. Observe interaction between new members and members, if possible in a casual atmosphere. For example, do new members jump to their feet and offer members a chair when members approach a group of individuals who are seated? Is there a Got-ta-do list? In other words, do the new members got-ta-do X, Y and Z that day, week or within a specific number of days? This will usually be an oral, as opposed to written, list. When is initiation? Ask the new members first. Then, ask the new member educator. If the answer is, We/I dont know, ask, Why not? Whats the secret? Code words, phrases or terms in the new member program, on the social calendar, or used by members. New members required to stand when addressed by members or to call members, Sir or Maam or Mr./Ms.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Common Investigation Practices of Inter/National Organizations

We do not reveal the name(s) or any other information, of any type, regarding the

source(s) of the information.

We do not reveal the extent or detail of the information we have received. We do not bargain for informationIf you tell us the truth, we will not recommend that

the charter be revoked.

We do not deceive undergraduates or alumni in order to obtain information. If a chapter visit is necessary, we interview individuals, not groups. Ask open-ended questions. Take detailed notes. If hazing is present, and some members

are playing hide the ball, inconsistencies will appear.

In many hazing programs, the hazing practices are not detailed on paper. Ask the new

member educator: Take me through a full week of pledging, Sunday evening to Sunday eveningpretend Im a new member. What is expected of me, and where, and when? The educator will often provide graphic details without considering the context, because, This is just how things are done here.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Campus-Based Investigations & Strategies Douglas N. Case, Coordinator of Greek Life, San Diego State University Steffani Pealer Lautenschlager, Greek Life Advisor, Georgia State University Discovery of Potential Hazing Activity Sources of Hazing Reports Because hazing activities are shrouded in secrecy and steeped in tradition, discovering and investigating hazing can be particularly challenging for campus officials as well as fraternity/sorority staff and officers. Victims of hazing rarely report it, even when serious injury results. They view hazing as a rite of passage, and loyalty to the organization compels them to protect its secrets. Victims tend to report hazing only when something goes terribly wrong or when the sense of loyalty is gone because they are no longer a member of the group (e.g., they were depledged or chose to resign rather than participate in activities to which they objected). Even disgruntled victims, however, are often reluctant to report hazing for fear of retaliation or social ostracism. Signs of Potential Hazing Most blatant hazing occurs behind closed doors, outside of public view. There are, however, many telltale signs that should arouse suspicion. Good examples are the chapters that go to great lengths to cover all windows in the chapter house during a pre-initiation week and post signs admonishing non-members from entering the premises. Despite the secrecy and the reluctance of victims to file reports, there are many ways that campus and fraternity/sorority officials can learn about potential hazing. Others might witness hazing activities or hear accounts of hazing. This can include roommates, friends, neighbors, parents, members of other chapters, faculty, student affairs staff, resident advisors, police, and healthcare workers (when hazing-related injuries occur). It is important that campus fraternity/sorority professionals inform faculty, staff, parents and others of the importance of reporting suspicious circumstances and who to contact to make a report. Hazing Hotlines Since many are willing to report suspected hazing only when they can do so anonymously, some campuses and organizations have established hazing hotlines. This can involve a contracted service with an outside firm or a voice mail system (sometimes with a feature that pages the campus fraternity/sorority professional when a message is received). Another alternative is an Internet site where a person can submit an anonymous report that is sent by e-mail to the appropriate authority. Although the hotlines allow people to make anonymous reports, many encourage that the caller leave a name and number so that they can be reached if more information is required in order to investigate. Callers should be directed to provide as many specific details as possible including the date, time, location, description of activities and participants, name of the organization (if known), etc. Telephone numbers of appropriate staff members should be included so the caller has the option of talking with a person rather than

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


simply leaving a message. The caller should be given the telephone number of the campus police and/or a mobile telephone number for a student affairs staff member to call if the hazing is still in progress so there can be an immediate intervention. Interestingly, hazing hotlines receive relatively few prank calls. Regardless, the opportunity to prevent future dangerous situations outweighs the inconvenience of hoaxes. Parents It is common for parents to call with concerns and request their identity not be revealed. This is often due to fear that the son/daughter may experience retaliation or other consequences if it becomes known who made the report, or because they believe that the son/daughter will be angry that the parents report may result in disciplinary action against the organization. Parents and others should be assured that their identity will be held in confidence to the degree possible and information on how they may be contacted for follow-up information should be requested. A campus official should not, however, offer a guarantee of confidentiality. Sometimes a campus official has a legal duty to report all known information when a crime is involved. Additionally, in some situations, the chapter will be able to determine or predict the source of the report based on the nature of the information provided. It is often helpful to explain to parents that their assistance may be instrumental in preventing injury to another parents son/daughter in the future. If the caller declines to provide his/her identity, ask the caller to call back in a few days in case follow-up information is needed in order to proceed. Another option is to suggest that the reporting party obtain a confidential email address and provide it to you so that you can have follow-up communications. Anonymous Reports On occasion, the college/university or inter/national fraternity/sorority headquarters will receive an anonymous letter, e-mail message, or voice-mail message. The problem with an anonymous communication is that it is usually impossible to contact the sender for additional information. The communication may provide sufficient information to conduct a successful investigation (perhaps even including photographs). On the other hand, anonymous communications often have a lack of verifiable information or can be so vague that unless the chapter confesses (which is unlikely), there is insufficient information to proceed. Regardless of the likelihood that an investigation will lead to a quick dead end, some type of investigation should still be made. A simple inquiry may cause the chapter to cease a dangerous activity. If the campus professional shares the anonymous report with the headquarters staff member (or vice versa), the other party may be aware of some additional information that may help to substantiate or otherwise explain the reported account. Red Flags and The Rumor Mill Two other sources of information that should not be ignored are the rumor mill and red flags (warning signs). Rumors can include students sharing unverified information and may also include overheard statements that imply that hazing has occurred. Red flags could be the newspapers on the windows of the chapter house, consistent new member low grades, or statements made by members that imply that certain hazing activities are perceived as being

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


acceptable. A rumor or vague suspicion may not be grounds for initiating a full-scale investigation but should nonetheless not be ignored. Making chapter advisors, headquarters staff members, inter/national and regional fraternity/sorority officers, visiting chapter leadership consultants and others aware of concerns may lead to more education about hazing, closer monitoring of activities and other interventions. If a campus fraternity/sorority professional receives a report of alleged hazing in progress, every reasonable effort should be made to make an immediate intervention to halt any possible hazing. Obviously, if there is a credible report of a serious injury, emergency medical personnel should be contacted. If possible, the staff member should personally go to the scene. If thats not practical, another responsible person should be dispatched to investigate and stop any illegal or inappropriate activity. This might be the campus police, another campus administrator or a chapter advisor. If it is not feasible for any official to get to the scene immediately, an attempt should be made to contact the chapter president or other executive officer to inform them of the report and to instruct them to cease all activity until the situation can be evaluated. It may be advisable to request an on-duty campus staff member (such as a residence hall coordinator) to go to the scene, observe what is happening (without entering the facility if the alleged activity is indoors) and report back. It is important for you to consult with your universitys legal counsel or risk manager on what steps they recommend in serious hazing situations. Initial Steps Notification of Appropriate People Whenever there is a credible report of hazing, all parties that may be involved in conducting or overseeing an investigation need to be promptly notified. On the campus this may include the chief student affairs officer, the dean of students, directors and coordinators of student affairs offices that oversee fraternities and sororities, and the judicial affairs office. For more severe incidents, particularly where serious injuries have occurred, it may be appropriate for the campus or city police and campus legal counsel to be informed. If there is likelihood that the incident could create media attention, the campus public affairs or media relations office should also be alerted. The executive director of the inter/national office should be informed immediately so the headquarters can assist with the investigation. Depending on the organization and the circumstances, the inter/national office may arrange for investigation by a staff member or a volunteer inter/national, regional or local fraternity/sorority official. In most, but not all cases, the chapter advisor should be immediately alerted. The chapter advisor will appreciate being informed prior to or concurrent with notification to the headquarters. Unfortunately there are a few volunteer advisors who have old school attitudes regarding hazing, and some advisors (especially those who only recently graduated) are more inclined to assist the chapter in eluding punishment rather than sharing information that may be incriminating. In those rare situations, it may be advisable to defer notification of the chapter advisor until after key witnesses have been contacted and interviewed.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Cover-ups Because of the secrecy of hazing and the reality that the consequences of hazing violations can be severe, many chapters will embark on a cover-up campaign. For that reason, it can be a strategic mistake to notify the chapter president before critical facts have been verified and key witnesses interviewed. When the president is notified, it should be stressed that failure to fully cooperate with an investigation, efforts to coerce potential witnesses, to stonewall or provide false information, and any attempts to retaliate against persons who reveal information will result in disciplinary action against the chapter and individuals involved. It may be helpful to note that, if hazing is confirmed, the trustworthiness, integrity, and cooperation of the chapter leadership may be deciding factors in determining the nature of the sanctions imposed. Critical Incident Management Many campuses have critical incident management teams that meet to coordinate the institutional response to incidents such as hazing. Team members typically involve the same campus officials, listed above, who were initially informed of the situation. The team should meet as soon as possible to evaluate the situation, determine what steps need to be taken, and assign responsibility for each of the tasks. The team should meet periodically until the matter is investigated and adjudicated if there is evidence of policy violations. It is also a good practice for the team to conduct an evaluation after the process is complete to determine what went well and what could be improved. Interim Chapter Suspensions Sometimes in serious situations, a temporary suspension may need to occur to move forward with the situation at hand. One of the major concerns for university and inter/national organization is to make sure all of the hazing activities cease immediately. In some cases, the hazing may or may not be occurring by the time you discover what is going on. However it is important to make sure all members, both initiates and new members, remain safe. Neither the university nor the inter/national organization want any further hazing to occur. Both parties have a duty to take care of the situation. Temporarily suspending a chapter is recognizing there may be potential harm if the members continue to remain active in the organization. Therefore, it may be in the best interest to temporarily suspend the named chapter(s) pending an investigation. The universitys fraternity/sorority affairs, student activities, and judicial affairs offices or other student affairs departments, as well as the regional and/or inter/national staff can each take these actions regarding the organization. Documentation is also needed to outline the clear expectations of what is to occur and not occur during the time of temporary suspension. In most cases, the chapter cannot conduct any chapter functions or activities, especially new member activities. Whether a chapter on interim suspension can conduct chapter meetings or attend campus fraternity/sorority council meetings may vary according to the campus or organizational policy.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Duty to Care When no action is taken and hazing continues either of the knowing parties can be held liable for negligence and for any further harm or damage done to individuals or property. Negligence occurs when someone is aware of the wrongful activities, no action is taken, and as a result injury occurs. In this case, individuals (chapter members, campus fraternity/sorority professionals, or inter/national organization staff members) can be held liable in court. Both students and professionals have the duty to prevent these injuries and/or harm from occurring when they know of their existence. With the breach of this duty, individuals can be held liable for any injuries. Investigation Strategies Who Conducts the Investigation? Who conducts the initial investigation will depend on several variables, including the source of the initial report of alleged hazing, the severity of the allegations, who has knowledge of the allegations, and the nature of the relationship of the various parties with the chapter. For most serious cases, many parties will be conducting an investigation concurrently. Investigators may include the inter/national headquarters, regional fraternity/sorority officers, the chapter advisor, the campus judicial affairs and/or fraternity/sorority affairs staff, and sometimes law enforcement personnel if criminal activity is indicated. It is important that all involved in the investigation coordinate their efforts. Campuses use various models for handling judicial matters involving fraternities and sororities. At some institutions, the campus fraternity/sorority professional conducts the investigation and provides the information to the appropriate judicial authority for action. At other institutions, the matter is immediately referred to the judicial affairs staff for investigation, and the role of the campus fraternity/sorority professional is to advise the chapter about the process. In this case, it is important for the fraternity/sorority affairs staff to provide complete background to the judicial affairs staff. Interviews In many cases, it will be necessary to conduct individual interviews with chapter members and other witnesses. It is best to avoid conducting meetings alone. Two people can record and remember things better than one. Additionally, having two people present makes it easier to manage hostile situations. Strategically, it is typically best to interview people in the following order, if possible: nonmember witnesses, new members (or alleged victims), chapter officers, and alleged perpetrators. If practical, members who are being interviewed should be sequestered so they cant compare notes. At the beginning of the interview, stress that providing false or misleading information may lead to individual disciplinary action. At the end of each interview, summarize the information provided and ask the person if the summary is correct. Asking witnesses to provide a

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


written statement or to sign a summary of the information can be important documentation for a hearing. In some cases, it may be appropriate to tape record the interview (it is very important that the person be informed that the conversation is being recorded). It is not uncommon in hazing cases for there to be peer pressure to modify ones account of what happened, so documentation of the interviews is important. Thorough documentation also makes it easier to identify discrepancies and inconsistencies in information. Here are some potential questions to consider when conducting interviews. Begin with openended questions and then ask questions to confirm details.

Tell me a little bit about why you think you were asked to come in here today. Talk to me about what happened on the day/night of ______. If someone told us that _________ happened, would that person be telling us the truth? What typically occurs during your chapters new member period? o Required to stay at chapter facility? o Interviews with initiated members? o Exercises? o Big brother/sister program? o Were members ever encouraged/forced to participate in activities? o New member tests? o Cleaning or other forms of servitude? o Proving their membership? o What is required of the new members during the new member period and/or preinitiation week? How has alcohol played a role in the new member activities? o Are they compelled or asked to not drink during the period? o Are they compelled or asked to drink things that are non-alcoholic? You say these activities are tradition. Who taught you the tradition? o How long has it been going on? o Who participates in the activities? o Did you go through these activities as a new member? If there was an injury: What caused the injury? o Walk me through what occurred immediately after the injury took place? o What is the timeline of events since then? Can you define hazing for me? o What has your chapter taught you about hazing? o Were these activities you were conducting hazing? o Is your adviser and/or inter/national office aware of these activities? o Do alumni participate in these activities? Talk to me about what kind of outcome you wish to create through these [hazing] activities. What is the purpose of these activities? What are the consequences for not completing a specific task or new member activity? Were chapter officers aware that these activities were occurring? Advisors? What would you do if you were in my position and came across this information? What would be your recommendations of where we would go from here?

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


What individuals (initiates, new members, and alumni) were participating? Which chapter

officers were present? Who else was there?

Is there a structure for an official and unofficial new member educator? What is this

persons role?
Were you given any instructions on what to say or not say about this incident? Are there questions that you believe I should ask of other witnesses? What additional information should I know about this situation?

Disciplinary Proceedings Institutions have varying disciplinary procedures regarding fraternity/sorority-related misconduct. In some cases there are fraternity/sorority judicial boards under the auspices of the campus fraternity/sorority councils, or there may be a general student peer judicial board under the auspices of the judicial affairs office. At other institutions, hazing cases are handled exclusively by judicial affairs officers or other campus administrators. The process for appealing judicial action also varies, but on most campuses the chief student affairs officer is the final avenue of appeal for recognized student organizations. Often, there may be a completely different and separate process for handing the discipline of individual students. Regardless of the model, the established procedures should be carefully followed to ensure fairness and due process. Inter/national organizations frequently have fewer legal constraints than colleges and universities. For example, an anonymous letter may not be admissible in a campus judicial proceeding at a public educational institution, whereas the inter/national organization can make a determination of guilt or responsibility without being required to release the source of information. Depending on the nature of the available evidence, the most effective way of handling the matter might be for the inter/national organization to take the lead in investigating the allegations and developing mutually agreed upon sanctions if the allegations are found to be substantiated. (See section below on Working Together on Sanctions) Sanctions for Individuals As awareness and concern for hazing increases, not only are chapters being held responsible, but also individuals involved with the actions or activities. Not only should the individual members involved be held personally accountable for their own actions, but chapter officers, such as the president, new member educator, risk management chair, or social chair may be held responsible if they failed to fulfill their duty to prevent hazing from occurring. Chapter members who provided untruthful information to an investigating official or at a hearing should also be sanctioned. Anyone found to be at fault or to have knowledge of hazing and the duty to stop these actions could be named in a lawsuit, sanctioned through the university or even criminally charged. Each state has varying statutes on hazing and its consequences. At the institution level individuals can face various sanctions for their actions.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Sometimes when an inter/national organization or institution imposes a serious sanction on entire groups, such as suspension of the chapter, they neglect to additionally impose action on the individual members, such as suspending or expelling the chapter officers and members involved. This is a mistake. If students understand that participation in hazing, or being in a position of authority and allowing hazing to occur, can seriously affect their academic career, they are less likely to take the risk. Possible Sanctions for Individuals: Campus Probation or Suspension - Students may receive a probation period and remain in school pending behavior changes. However, students may also be given suspension or expulsion from the institution. If the investigation continues through graduation a degree may be held pending the outcomes. Colleges may even choose to withhold the degree for a period of time as a sanction, however this may only be effective if the individuals are interested in attending graduate or professional school or wish to be readmitted to the institution. Organizational Probation or Suspension - Individuals may also receive probation or permanent suspension from the organization. Other than outright removal from the organization or structured probation terms, students may also be subject to immediate alumni status, removal from office, probation from activities (social and non-social), and removal from new member activities. If the member remains active in the organization continual monitoring by chapter or campus advisors can be essential in charting the progress of changes for both the individual and organization. Educational Requirements - It may also be important to assign educational projects, such as reading books on hazing or researching the history of hazing deaths since 1970, and providing reports to the fraternity/sorority affairs office and the chapter. Some recommended books for this purpose include Wrongs of Passage or The Hazing Reader by Hank Nuwer (1999, 2004 Indiana University Press), Black Haze by Ricky L. Jones (2004, State University of New York Press) or Black Greek 101 by Walter M. Kimbrough (2003, Rosemont Publishing & Printing). Requiring education for the entire campus and community can be even more beneficial. Having individuals coordinate hazing prevention and education speakers or programs may also be valuable. Working Together on Chapter Sanctions If after the investigation the facts are not in dispute and it is conclusive that hazing violations occurred, and if the institution and the inter/national organization are on the same page as to the nature of sanctions that are appropriate, consideration should be given to the development of mutually-determined joint sanctions. In many instances, where the chapter is willing to accept responsibility, a time-consuming hearing process can be avoided. More importantly, a joint sanction sets the stage for the institution, the inter/national organization, and the local volunteer alumni to work as partners in redirecting the organization. Jointly determined sanctions can be implemented by the institution and the inter/national organization each preparing their own sanctions letters, with identical or similar provisions. Another option to consider is a settlement agreement signed by the chapter officers, chapter

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


advisor, university official, and inter/national fraternity/sorority official. Some institutions have all of the members of the chapter sign the agreement as a way of ensuring that all members are aware of expectations and consequences of failure to comply with the terms of the agreement. A Generic Agreement of Responsibility developed by the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs at the University of Pennsylvania is included in Appendix B. The generic agreement includes a menu of possible sanctions that might be imposed depending on the nature of the infraction. Possible Chapter Sanctions The sanctions imposed for a hazing violation often depend on the nature and severity of the incident, the chapters history of violations, and the degree to which the chapter accepts responsibility for its actions (as measured by the level of cooperation during the investigation and an expressed commitment to institute change). Following is a list and brief description of sanctions to be considered. Normally, unless a chapter is disbanded, there will be multiple sanctions imposed. Expulsion/Charter Revocation For serious violations resulting in serious injury or death or for repeat violations, the best option may be for the organization to lose its campus recognition and have its charter revoked by the inter/national organization, either permanently or for a specified period of time. Usually, the period will be at least three or four years so that a new chapter can be started after the former members have graduated. A timeline, process and conditions for reestablishing a chapter should be indicated. An inter/national organization may be more inclined to revoke the charter if the institution provides a written agreement stating the date and terms for re-establishing the chapter. Suspension of Privileges For serious violations not resulting in disbanding the organization, the chapter will normally lose some or all campus privileges for a specified period of time. Examples of privileges that could be suspended include participation in fraternity/sorority council activities, use of campus facilities, right to lease institution-owned housing facilities, participation in intramural sports, right to apply for student government funding, right to submit awards applications, participation in college/university activities such as Homecoming, Greek Week, etc. Probation Probation is normally defined as a specified period of time (typically one year) during which the chapter must remain free of violations, with consequences for violations (e.g., suspension) specified in advance. It is common for a list of conditions and restrictions to be included as part of a probation. Alumni Receivership Alumni receivership is when the inter/national organization places the charter in the hands of an appointed alumni board. The alumni board has the authority to control all chapter operations including approval of events, appointment of officers, expenditure of funds, etc. Normally, authority is gradually returned to the undergraduates as they demonstrate responsibility and make progress toward agreed-upon goals.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Membership Reviews A membership review occurs when the inter/national organization appoints a committee of staff and/or alumni to interview the entire membership and determine which ones will be permitted to continue to be part of the chapter. Members who have engaged in inappropriate behavior, are financially delinquent, fail to maintain a specified grade point average, have not met attendance expectations, or who do not demonstrate a genuine commitment to the organizations mission and values (i.e., the bad apples) are dismissed and prohibited from having any interaction with the chapter. Those who remain are often required to sign contracts that spell out membership expectations. Creation of an Approved New Member Education and Development Program Hazing occurs because of a faulty approach to new member education and development, so it is important for the chapter to have a written program that has been approved by both campus and inter/national officials. The program should include a calendar of events and complete descriptions of all activities. The chapter may be required to certify that the program submitted represents the entirety of its program, with deviations from the submitted program prohibited without prior approval. Although it may take many formats, a positive, constructive new member education and development program should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following elements: Goals for the program, including the skills and knowledge that need to be taught to the new members Expectations of new members; requirements for initiation Job description for the new member educator; initiation date Requirements and expectations of big brothers/sisters Expectations of the general membership Role and involvement of alumni in the new member program A week-by-week schedule of activities, and hour-by-hour schedule for any retreats, preinitiations, etc. A complete, detailed description of all activities (except inter/national esoteric ritual) Copies of written materials that will be distributed to the new members Procedures for evaluation of new members Academic success programming, including time management, etc. Community service projects Education on alcohol and drugs, date and acquaintance rape, etc. Non-hazing statement Policy instruction campus and inter/national fraternity/sorority risk management policies, chapter bylaws, etc. Leadership development and instruction on chapter operations officer duties, recruitment, chapter budget, parliamentary procedure, etc. Character development understanding and applying the organizations guiding principles Education on the campus fraternity/sorority community and promotion of campus and interfraternal involvement Monitoring of New Member Activities A requirement can be imposed that an approved chapter advisor be required to be present at all new member activities.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Restriction on Length of New Member Programs To minimize future hazing opportunities, the chapter can be required to initiate new members within a specified period of time (usually six to eight weeks). Elimination of Pre-Initiation Activities Hazing has traditionally been most prevalent during an initiation week (a.k.a. Hell Week, Work Week, I-Week, etc.) held prior to the formal initiation. A well-planned new member education and development program can eliminate the need for any culminating around-the-clock activities at the end of the new member period. Sponsorship of Hazing Speakers The chapter can be required to fund an approved expert on hazing to present a program to the campus fraternity/sorority community. Ongoing Hazing Education for Chapter Members The chapter can be required to implement a program to educate the members at least annually on hazing policies. All members should be supplied with a copy of the hazing policies of the institution and the inter/national organization and can be required to submit a signed affidavit indicating that they have received, read, understood and agreed to by the members. Presentation of a Hazing Workshop for the Fraternity/Sorority Community The chapter can be required to develop an educational workshop to present to the campus fraternity/sorority community or at other fraternity/sorority leadership conferences. A focus of such presentations should be what the chapter has learned from its mistakes. The chapter might also be required to develop a video or other multi-media presentation as part of the workshop. Hazing Research and Reflection Another educational opportunity is to have the chapter leadership (president, new member educator, etc.) conduct some research or read a book on hazing and present a workshop on what they learned. Alcohol Free Housing If alcohol was involved in the hazing, requiring the chapter house or other chapter facility to be alcohol-free for a period of time (if not already required by the institution or inter/national organization) can be an effective sanction. Alcohol-Free Social Events If alcohol was involved in the hazing, the chapter can be prohibited from having any alcoholic beverages consumed at any chapter-related activities, regardless of location, for a period of time. If this sanction is selected it is critical to clarify how chapterrelated activities is defined so that the chapter doesnt attempt to circumvent the sanction by organizing unofficial events. Live-in Advisor In order to provide older adult supervision and to serve as an educational resource, the chapter can be required to have a live-in advisor. If this sanction is selected, it should include the job description and qualifications, selection and evaluation process, and expectations of the type of accommodations and stipend that the chapter will be expected to provide. Progress Reviews The chapter leadership can be required to meet with the campus fraternity/sorority professional on a monthly basis to review progress made in completing the

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


sanctions and in achieving chapter goals. As part of this process, the chapter can be required to develop specific goals and standards with detailed action plans. Progress reviews also allow the campus advisor to assess the success of various interventions, which may be useful information in dealing with similar incidents in the future. Release of Information About the Incident When the situation is high profile, the media will cover the story very quickly. Consult the necessary people on your staff and follow the procedure you have set in place to work with the media. It is also important to speak with the organization in violation, as well as all of the chapters on how to work with various media that will be requesting interviews. As always, it is never appropriate to say no comment as this serves as a red flag to the media that there is something to hide. Instead, create a strategy ahead of time to ensure the best decisions are made to guide the employees and the fraternity/sorority community in a positive direction. Working with the media and providing statements can assist in getting the most correct information out. For serious cases, it could be helpful to have a special meeting of all chapter presidents to inform them of the investigation. This can prevent false rumors from spreading and communicate the message that the institution takes all allegations of hazing seriously. Institutions or inter/national offices may be fearful of releasing too much information or any information at all because of how this will reflect upon the organization or the institution. However, when actions are taken that violate the oaths, constitutions and bylaws and ideals members promised to uphold, it is imperative to show the community how individuals and organizations are being held responsible for these actions. Providing further information to the community through a press release can be a means of accountability. Press releases to the fraternity/sorority community, newspapers, faculty/staff, and inter/national offices can further assist in getting the correct and consistent information out to everyone. No matter the size of the institution or organization, information can spread quickly. Providing the correct facts for everyone is crucial. However, this does not mean every detail of the case is disclosed, especially if an investigation is still in motion. It is important to establish the basis of what has occurred and what actions are being taken. Getting this information out can ensure that chapters and individuals understand the true consequences of hazing. Following up with the campus, community, and media once decisions are rendered is also important. The community should know that hazing is taken seriously, investigated and punished severely. A meeting of chapter leaders to discuss the incident and its consequences may be an important step in creating change within the community. However, be cautious when dealing with release of information about sanctioned individuals. Although it is important to let others know the potential for individuals to be held accountable, universities must also not provide information about individual student sanctions. Under the guidelines of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), institutions are not allowed to release information from a students record without permission of the student or parent. Therefore, the institution may provide general information that individuals have been held accountable for the hazing actions. Be cautious of naming specific details that may lead to the identification of student(s) who have

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


been sanctioned. There is more detailed information about FERPA in an earlier section of this resource. When There Is Not Enough Information To Move Forward Many times, it becomes challenging to work with cases of risk management violations, as not all of the information may point to a true violation. In some cases, this is a result of an anonymous phone call, e-mail or note. Other times, only basic information may be provided, not allowing professionals to make a clear distinction of what truly occurred and/or who may be responsible. During these times, it is imperative to proceed and gather as much information as possible. One strategy may be to set up a meeting with the chapter president and advisor regarding the situation to determine what information they can provide regarding the allegations. However, often no further information regarding the case is gathered. Through these conversations, it would be essential to provide the chapter president and advisor with a reminder on the policies regarding hazing, consequences, and how the investigation will move forward. Empowering the chapter president to provide any further information at this time or to go back to their organization to find out if any such activities are occurring is fundamental. This will provide a second chance for the executive leader to step up and do the right thing. Set a deadline for the individual to discover the further details and set a follow up meeting to determine the next steps. If no further information regarding these allegations is established it might be conclusive to provide a statement of warning and let the president know if hazing is present in the chapter, he/she has the duty to change it. In addition, any new information regarding these allegations that is acquired at any point in time will cause the investigation to resume. All information must be provided now to ensure the organizations cooperation with the procedures. However, in the situation where further information proves the allegations have some merit, it is imperative to continue with the investigation process and move forward as efficiently as possible, and provide written notification that if further information arises, and/or future activities occur, they will be sanctioned. Keep all processes and information documented. The strategies outlined above provide a framework from which to operate when a hazing incident occurs on campus. It is always prudent to consult with your campus legal counsel and colleagues in judicial affairs as you craft your own approach to managing hazing investigations. References Jones, R.L. (2004). Black haze. State University of New York Press. Kimbrough, W.M. (2003). Black Greek 101: The culture, customs, and challenges of black greek fraternities and sororities. Farleigh Dickinson University Press. Nuwer, H. (2002). Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing and binge drinking. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Nuwer, H. (2004). The hazing reader. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Investigating Hazing Incidents: An Inter/National Organization Perspective Brian Tenclinger, Director of Undergraduate Services, Chi Phi Fraternity Incident reports sent to inter/national organization staff members come from a variety of sources and vary in the amount of information provided. Reports of hazing are taken very seriously and prompt immediate attention from the staff. Each organization has its own protocol for handling a hazing allegation; however there are many commonalities among them. These include: (1) the process of discovery used to investigate the incident; (2) the initial steps taken by the staff and/or volunteers; (3) the conversation with the host institution; and (4) operational aspects , such as size, structure, and the politics (scope of authority) within the organization. Similar to an institution, most inter/national organizations have one or two designated staff members who will receive and respond to incidents involving undergraduate chapters. There are many factors within inter/national organizations that dictate how quickly an inter/national organization can respond to an incident, such as: number of chapters (the greater the number of chapters, the greater the opportunity for incidents to occur), whether or not the organization representative involved is a full-time employee or volunteer-based working from home, and whether or not that representative is at her/his desk when the report is received. Inter/national organizations work in conjunction with their host institutions to maintain good working relationships. The following steps should help those on campus to better understand the inter/national organization perspective when responding to an incident. I. Discovery/Investigation of Incident a. Source of the report i. Anonymous? ii. Parent? iii. Student? iv. Campus administrator v. Neighbor? vi. Member? vii. Alumnus? viii. Campus or local media? ix. Police report? b. Amount of information shared in the report chronology of event, etc. c. Death of student(s)? d. Life-threatening injury/illness? e. Media involved?

II. Initial Steps a. Report is received i. notify appropriate personnel in inter/national organization; typically the Executive Director and Director of Chapter Services (or designated appointee) b. Report is reviewed i. Who? What? Where? When? How? Why? Establish chronology of incident and all related facts ii. Parties involved? iii. Death?

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


iv. Injuries? v. Hospitalization? c. Media involved? d. Review chapter file i. Current status of chapter? ii. Previous history? Discuss and decide immediate course of action iii. Issue interim suspension pending investigation iv. Who do we notify next? v. Do we travel to campus? vi. Do we need volunteer support? e. Notification outside inter/national organization i. Legal counsel ii. Insurance company (will vary on the situation) iii. Chapter advisor iv. Campus fraternity/sorority advisor or Dean of Students v. Chapter faculty advisor vi. President of organizations governing board vii. Chapter president III. Conversation With University a. Sharing information i. Typical conversation will include these questions: 1. Is the host institution aware of the incident? 2. What can you share about the incident? (Who? What? Where? When? How? Why?) 3. Status of individual(s) involved? 4. Hospitalization? 5. Disciplinary status with institution? 6. What can the inter/national organization do to assist in the immediate future? b. Fact finding i. Can the inter/national organization be of assistance? 1. Ideally, conduct joint investigation on-site with representatives of institution and HQ working together to conduct interviews, discover facts, etc. 2. Not ideal, but common are two separate investigations by institution and organization then share notes ii. When will this take place? iii. What information can institution share with inter/national organization? c. Communication i. Critical that institution and organization keep open lines of communication ii. Establish a designated person at institution and organization to stay in contact d. Media plan IV. Operational Aspects Of Organization And How They May Manifest Themselves Just as each institution has its own policies and politics, so does each inter/national

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


organization. Many factors are considered when an alleged hazing incident occurs where a chapter is located. Those factors include four critical areas: a. The size of the staff b. The organization of the staff c. The politics d. The budget The size of an inter/national organizations staff will dictate everything from the response time to the ability to be on-site and assist with an investigation, handling the media, etc.. Inter/national organization staffs range from one full-time person handling all aspects of the organization to thirty, each with a specific duty. In many situations, smaller inter/national headquarter staff rely on regional volunteers men and women in the area who are trained to be a direct extension and liaison for the organization. If the alleged incident requires someone from the inter/national organization to be on-site, in many instances, it will be quicker and more cost effective to send a regional volunteer. Organizations that employ traveling educational leadership consultants, often find these staff members are the quickest to respond to an incident as they may be visiting a neighboring campus. What is important for the institution to remember is that the size of the organizations staff, in combination with other factors, will dictate who responds, who can travel, and who can make some of the critical decisions. Similar to the size of the staff, the structure or organization of the inter/national organization will also dictate who and how the team will respond. In some cases, the designated person to respond to a campus-based incident will be a trained volunteer in the region. It may also be the traveling consultant who is nearby to serve as the on-site contact. Many campus professionals will often call the headquarters and ask to speak with the person assigned to handle chapter services and/or risk management and reduction. Like a campus fraternity/sorority professional, the chapter services or risk management staff member is one person. She/he may respond immediately, and may also send a designated staff member or volunteer to be the on-site coordinator. Third, the politics of the organization will determine how decisions are made. In the heat of the moment, it is often frustrating for a campus official to talk with a representative from the inter/national organization and hear that she/he cannot pull a charter or get rid of em. Similar to a college and university, the scope of authority given to the staff will dictate decisions that involve temporary suspension, investigations, and revocation of a charter. Each organization varies as to who can issue a temporary suspension letter, travel to a host institution, and revoke a charter. In many cases, the latter (charter revocation) often relies on a recommendation from the executive director to a board of trustees/governors, as well as a recommendation from that organizations legal counsel. Another factor to consider when it comes to a charter revocation is the decision to withdraw it from the undergraduate organization or put the charter in alumni receivership. The latter, alumni receivership, will most often result in a complete overhaul of the undergraduate organization. This typically includes the loss of recognition, a complete membership review, and a cease and desist order from the executive director. In the ideal fraternity/sorority community, the inter/national organization maintains a duty to

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


keep the communication lines open with the host institution. Decisions made by the inter/national organizations staff often require the consultation of numerous individuals, and in some cases, additional factors, such as the size of the staff and the budget, direct how an organization will be able to respond. Incidents of hazing (or other illegal behaviors) are taken seriously by the staff and volunteers at the inter/national organizations. The campus fraternity/sorority professional must keep in mind that while she/he is often in the midst of the action and emotions that come with a high-profile incident, the organizations staff and volunteers are likely miles away and removed. This fact does not mean that they are not equally concerned about the situation. Understanding how each team operates is a key factor in providing the best services for our common customer the undergraduates who have joined our organizations.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Becoming the Campus Expert on Hazing Taunia Coe Schulke Defining Campus Expert A person with special knowledge or ability who performs skillfully (Cognitive Science Laboratory, n.d.). A person who is widely recognized as having valuable knowledge in a particular area, and who has demonstrated ability to deal with a particular task or problem much more efficiently than most people (Richards, 1994). A person with a high level of combined education, experience, and skill; see also wisdom (Canadian Forest Service, n.d.). An expert is someone who knows the worst mistakes that can be made in his field and who also knows how to avoid them (Forrest, 2001). Lets think about this last definition and how it may apply to becoming the campus expert on hazing. By this definition, a campus expert on hazing would know the absolute worst hazing practices and how to avoid their manifestation on campuses where he/she works. While many in our profession may be well-versed in the worst hazing practices either due to their personal fraternity or sorority experience or their observations while on the job, experiencing hazing is not the most desirable method of becoming an expert on hazing. The second part of Forrests definition - knowing how to avoid hazing on campus - is the area that we all are currently working toward, but cannot yet guarantee. Therefore, let us consider the other definitions of expert to create the following definition of the campus expert on hazing: The person at XYZ university who is recognized as having a high level of combined education, experience, and skill in dealing with hazing, and who has demonstrated ability to deal with hazing much more efficiently than most people. In reality, you are probably a campus expert in fraternity and sorority life already because you are educated, experienced and skilled in fraternity and sorority life, policies, procedures, and trends, and hopefully you have demonstrated your ability to deal with fraternities and sororities much more efficiently than most people. You are probably also the campus expert on fraternity and sorority life because others perceive you to have more knowledge than they have. So how can you become the campus expert on hazing? Read on. Commit to Becoming the Campus Expert on Hazing The first step is actually the most difficult. If you are going to commit to becoming the campus expert on hazing, you will have to commit to that area of expertise above all others. You must exert a great amount of energy and time into becoming an expert, therefore it is important to take some time and reflect on your priorities. Becoming a campus expert on hazing will require that you spend time developing relationships with campus professionals both at your university and

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


across North America as well as faculty members on your campus. It can also help you to advance in the profession by proving that you can develop campus coalitions to address serious problems. Sounds like something that a future Dean of Students might do, doesnt it? Becoming an expert in one area also means that you may have to give up being a generalist with knowledge in several areas. Re-read the definitions of an expert. You will have to know more and demonstrate your ability to deal with more sophisticated hazing than most of the people on your campus to be the expert. The need for experts on hazing important enough for many to take up the challenge. If you are in a position where you have responsibilities in many areas of student affairs, it may make it more difficult for you to devote the time needed to become the expert. However the positive changes you may be able to create on your campus should make the struggle worthwhile. Get Experience The second step is to get experience on the topic. Tom Carpenter, senior consultant and communication skills trainer with Sysedco contends that as an expert, one should utilize the 90/99 rule (n.d.). This means that as a campus expert on hazing, you should know more than 90% of your colleagues when it comes to matters related to fraternity and sorority life (your general area of expertise) and more than 99% of your colleagues as it relates to hazing (your specific area of expertise). In order to achieve this level of knowledge on the topic, one must read books, research websites, attend training, and talk to international experts. If you can develop a sound relationship with the international experts, when you face an issue or a question that is beyond your expertise, you will still have a network to help you with the issue. Sometimes the expert knows how to get information better than anyone else. If you are just beginning to educate yourself about hazing, you may want to take the advice of Elizabeth J. Allan (n.d.), as excerpted from You might consider reading a book about hazing. Next, help build awareness about hazing by talking with your friends, family and others about the issue. Help others to redefine hazing as a social problem not simply harmless jokes, pranks, and antics. You could familiarize yourself with the laws regarding hazing in your state. Become a positive role model for by talking with youth about hazing and making them aware of the potential problems. Inform yourself of the laws and policies related to hazing in your community and school/college/university. Identify others in your school or community who are also concerned about hazing - have a meeting talk about what you can do as a team to prevent harmful hazing. Part of getting experience on the topic is to learn from your mistakes. While you are busy educating yourself and learning about the topic, you will inevitably be faced with having to conduct hazing investigations, advise judicial boards through sanctioning, contact inter/national organization staff members about rumors of hazing, and educate students at all levels about membership development without hazing. We all learn best by through experience, and this includes making mistakes. Analyzing them to see what went wrong and what to improve is key. For example, this could mean that when you assess the learning outcomes of your educational

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


workshop for new member educators and the students still cannot identify your campus definition of hazing, you should analyze your method of delivery of the information. Remember that the people who have the hardest time learning new skills are the people who refuse to admit that they made a mistake, so make mistakes and learn from them. Whether you are a novice or an expert in this area, you will also need to trust yourself. Experts know that they do not know everything, but they do know what they know. When an expert is told something that from his own experience he knows to be incorrect, then he has to trust himself to make his own decision and judgment (Forrest, 2001). Experts have confidence in their own judgment. When a faculty member calls to thank you for the coats and ties that freshman fraternity members are starting to wear to her class everyday during the eighth (or tenth or twelfth) week after pledging began, your experience with initiation week traditions and the new member education programs on your campus may lead you to believe that some group or groups may be initiating soon. It is safe to make an assumption based on previous knowledge and experiences of what is happening. You have enough information to make initiate a conversation; trust your instincts. Sell Yourself as the Expert The easiest way to tell your campus colleagues what you know is to put it in writing. This could mean that you maintain the website on campus that hosts the best resources and links about hazing. Write articles for your campus staff newsletter or the Association of Fraternity Advisors, or distribute newsletters to staff and faculty from your office to talk about hazing and its warning signs. Writing articles helps to establish you as an expert. And it can be a simple undertaking- if you have a computer and any word processing software, you can publish a newsletter. The fastest way to gain attention on the local level is to speak before groups and organizations (Ryan, 1999). Anyone can volunteer to speak for free for service clubs and organizations, and we often have a captive audience with the fraternities and sororities on our campuses. Speaking to fraternities and sororities about hazing will also help you to identify your personal knowledge areas of strength and weakness as well as establishing you as an expert. These opportunities will also help you to develop your presentation skills and style, which will help you in other areas of your professional development. If you fear public speaking, look for a local Toastmasters group. The Toastmasters usually meet weekly and are dedicated to helping professionals become better public-speakers. Once you have established yourself as an accomplished public speaker and writer, you may want to contact your campus public relations office to establish yourself as a person that can be contacted about hazing by members of the media. Depending on where you work, media members may contact your campus often to find the local angle on hazing when a big case happens somewhere else in the country. While you may be hesitant to talk to reporters, try to remember that they are writing a story and they need your assistance to be most effective. If you are not willing to go to that extreme, one step you can take into the public media sector is to write letters to the editor, especially in response to letters that you see in your campus newspaper or local paper that espouse the benefits of hazing. A well-written and timely response to an inflammatory letter to an editor could help to propel you to the top of the hazing expert list on

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


your campus. Often, we like to empower our students to write response letters because we feel as it may be more appropriate to have a peer-to-peer response. This is another area where you will have to trust yourself to make the appropriate decision for your campus and your situation. When colleagues across campus recognize you as a knowledgeable professional whose opinions and guidance truly matter, they are more likely to use you as a consultant when they face hazing situations. This means when you write your newsletter, your biography for speaking engagements, or respond to a letter to the editor, you must include a paragraph about your credentials as they relate to hazing. List the number of years you have spent educating college students about hazing and include any special training you have received or any publications that you have authored. It is difficult for many of us to so overtly sell ourselves, but to become a campus expert, this is a necessity. Conclusion In order for you to become the person at your university who is recognized as having a high level of combined education, experience, and skill in dealing with hazing, and who has demonstrated ability to deal with hazing much more efficiently than most people, you will have to complete three basic steps: 1. Commit to Becoming the Campus Expert in Hazing becoming the expert in one thing may mean sacrificing the accumulation of knowledge in several areas that pique your interest within student affairs. Becoming the hazing expert is important and worthwhile, but it will take a commitment. 2. Get Experience remember the 90/99 rule, learn from your mistakes and trust yourself. 3. Sell Yourself as the Expert - utilize your knowledge in writing on websites and newsletters, make public speaking appearances, respond to letters to the editor in your campus and local paper, consider listing yourself as a campus expert for the media, and list your credentials everywhere that might be seen by your colleagues across campus. Heed the professional development challenge to become the campus expert on hazing at your university. The process you will learn in doing so will aid you in the future by teaching you to become an expert in other fields of your choosing! References Allan, E. J. (n.d.) Making changeYou can make a difference! Retrieved July 14, 2004, from Canadian Forest Service (n.d.). Glossary of knowledge management terms. Retrieved July 14, 2004 from Carpenter, T. (n.d.). 3 steps to becoming an expert Retrieved July 14, 2004, from the SYSEDCO Online Library Website: 3StepsToBecomingAnExpert.asp.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Cognitive Science Laboratory (n.d.). WorldNet: A lexical database for the English language. Princeton University: Princeton, New Jersey. Retrieved July 14, 2004 from Forrest, F. (2001). Moving on - Becoming an expert. Retrieved July 14, 2004, from Verloren Hoop Productions. Richards, R.A. (1994). Zeroth-order shape optimization utilizing a learning classifier system. Stanford University. Retrieved July 14, 2004 from sphincsx/bkhm15.htm. Ryan, S. (1999). Becoming an expert to boost your career. Retrieved July 14, 2004, from The Wall Street Journal Executive Career Site climbing/19990126-ryan.html

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Coalition Building on Campus Rebecca Wald Stoker, Director of Student Involvement, Butler University Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed its the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead Although one person can make a difference, it usually takes a group of committed people to change a culture and correct a problem. One such problem is hazing. This is a problem that is evident in colleges and universities, athletic teams, high schools, and the military. Hazing has never just been about fraternities and sororities (Association of Fraternity Advisors, 2003); although this community is often the first group turned to when hazing is mentioned. In an effort to help correct the problem, forming a coalition can be a useful tool in bringing resources together and getting all interested and vested parties on the same path (KU Work Group, 2000). Coalition building does not come easily; a plan should be in place to aid in the building and success of a coalition formed around the topic of hazing. What is a coalition? A coalition is a group of people or organizations coming together to work because of a common goal or purpose; to unite for a common end. Coalitions can be a short-term project, or one that grows into a state or national endeavor. According to the Community Tool Box (KU Work Group), coalition goals are as varied as coalitions themselves, but often contain elements of one or more of the following: Influencing or developing public policy, usually around a specific issue Changing people's behavior Building a healthy community The same is true for coalitions formed because of hazing. Some coalitions may be formed to change state law, or get one in place. Others may be working to educate on hazing and offering alternatives. Whatever the reason or purpose, a coalition can make the work easier because of the increased resources of people, time, and money. Benefits and Difficulties in Coalition Building The advantages and disadvantages of building a coalition should be explored before entering into the effort. Collaborating with other groups is a double-edge sword with both advantages and disadvantagesIf the benefits dont outweigh the costs, coalition building should not take place (Ohio State University Extension). Coalitions offer:
strength and power in numbers, leading to a wider reach added credibility when there is a coordinated plan and a united front consistency of the message

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


improved public image networking and partnership opportunities a pool of resources elimination of duplication improved communication increased availability of resources re-energizing members who are trying to do too much alone creation of long-term, permanent social change

Difficulties in coalition building:

turf protection bad history conflict, because of the variety of people or groups in a coalition and the strengths and

weaknesses, as well as personalities, that they bring to the table

a great deal of time is therefore spent in consensus-building slow decision making (unless the individuals at the table have decision making power for the

groups she/he represents)

coalition management can be time consuming

In addition to understanding the benefits and costs of coalition building, it is important to understand the continuums of commitment in a coalition. The ultimate goal is to get all parties involved to be fully engrossed in the coalition. Cypress Consulting (1997), in A Guide to Coalition Building, lists the stages of the continuum as: Independence Cooperation Coordination Collaboration Coalition Independence: the organizations are all working in isolation on the same issues Cooperation: the organizations are assisting one another on an ad hoc basis Coordination: the organizations always ensure that their activities take into account those of other organizations Collaboration: the organizations work together jointly and continuously on a particular project towards a common goal Coalition: the organizations have an overall joint strategy and function within an ongoing structure, however loose it may be Starting a coalition Coalitions will not form overnight, and once they do form, there are bound to be bumps and setbacks as trusting relationships form and the purpose of the coalition is defined. The next three sections will discuss when a coalition is needed, who should be involved and how to begin, utilizing resources from the KU Work Group, Campus Action Web Center, and the GSA Network.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


When should you develop a coalition? When dramatic or disturbing events occur in a community. Newspaper stories seem to show up on a regular basis detailing injuries and deaths related to hazing. These events dont necessarily have to be local, but can be events that affect the community. When new information becomes available. The latest survey of incoming freshman to the university show an increase rate of those who have been hazed in the past, motivating the formation of a coalition to deal with educating new students on the myths surrounding hazing. When circumstances or rules change. For example, state laws regarding hazing and university policies may be updated or overhauled. It could be of benefit for a coalition to form to help educate on the new law or policy and keep others informed. When new funding becomes available. Foundations and organizations offer grant money to help in the education and prevention of hazing. To end the excuse that there is not enough money to create resources, apply for grant money and get outside help to end the cycle of hazing. When theres an outside threat to the community. There is pressure to remove recognition of the fraternity and sorority community, athletic teams, or other organizations because of a culture of hazing. A coalition can come together to create a plan on how to change the hazing culture while maintaining the existence of student organizations. When a group wishes to create broad, significant change. Hazing is so complex, and sometimes deeply-rooted, that only major changes in the way the community views things can have effect. In that situation, a broad coalition is necessary to draw all effected elements of the community, and to approach the problem on a number of different levels. When you have not only a good reason, but also the possibility that one can be started successfully. A coalition will only be formed when it can be. Who should be part of a coalition? This is a key step in the development of a coalition. Although a coalition should be broad-based and inclusive, the size must be manageable. In addition, there are certain people or groups whose representation will add validity and help accomplish the purpose:
Stakeholders Community opinion leaders Policy makers

More specifically, for the purpose of building a campus coalition on hazing, a list should be brainstormed of groups and individuals who should be involved. This list could include: administrators, coaches, and volunteer advisors who are working to combat the history of hazing in the groups they are involved in; students who have been affected by hazing; academic advisors who witness declines in academic performance due to the effects of hazing; judicial

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


officers who investigate and hear cases; campus safety service officers who have a 24 hours presence on campus; legal counsel who can assist in law and policy interpretation; and residence hall staff who are on the front-lines living among the students. On each respective campus, a list of possible coalition members could be larger or smaller. How do you start a coalition? When the reasons are in place and there is a list of potential coalition members, it is the right time to start a coalition. There are several steps that will assist in getting the coalition off the ground, as outlined by the KU Work Group (2000). Put together a core group. In most cases you are not the only person on your campus who has concerns about hazing. Find and make direct contact with those individuals to form the core group. A group of individuals should lead the effort because collectively you have more contacts, allow for easier buy-in from potential members since a group has already formed, and it shows the effort has wide support. Identify the most important potential coalition members. Since the hazing coalition has a more narrowed purpose, there are people that should definitely be included. It is important to identify and target them specifically. The outspoken and popular fraternity man, the sorority president working to change years of hazing, or the student who was a victim of hazing. Recruit members to the coalition. Use the networking capacity of your core group to the fullest. Make a special effort to enlist the help and support of the most crucial members. Break down the list of potential members among the core group and approach each organization or individual personally. Most people are likely to be recruited by a phone call, but dont neglect the face-toface meetings for more direct personal contact. Do not hesitate to ask members you are recruiting for other membership suggestions. If you are successful, your membership base could be several times that of your original list. Plan and hold a first meeting. The first meeting of a coalition sets the tone for the organization. There are two things to consider in the planning of the first coalition meeting: 1) the logistics (meeting location, time, etc.) and 2) the content. Make sure that the coalition meeting is held in a convenient location. The date and time should be set in advance to ensure the greatest attendance of the membership. A friendly reminder sent out to all participants the week of the meeting is also helpful. Once the logistics are set, the content needs to be a primary focus. The following items should be included: Introductions Discussion on the structure of the coalition Start the process of creating a common vision and agreeing on shared valued about the direction of the coalition Discuss a procedure for forming an action plan Review the things to be done before the next meeting, and who is doing them Schedule the next meeting time

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Follow up on the first meeting. You have just taken the first step in building a coalition by having the first meeting. Once that is complete, some key things need to be done in order to ensure a second meeting will occur. Distribute the minutes of the first meeting and reminders about the next meeting Follow up with groups or individuals working on assigned tasks If there are committees forming, try to recruit members for them Keep looking for new members Keep track of the fundamental building blocks that are not in place yet (i.e. structure, action plan, etc.) Sustaining the coalition. There are a number of things that need to be accomplished to make sure that the coalition keeps moving forward. Gather as much information as possible about hazing; locally on the campus as well as state and national statistics. The more information that is gathered, the easier it is to define the problem and create a strategy to address it effectively. Finish creating vision and mission statements Complete an action plan Finish the creation of a structure of the coalition Elect officers, or a coordinating or steering committee Determine what other resources you need, develop a plan for getting them, and decide who is going to responsible for carrying the plan through to completion. Maintain the coalition over time Although the steps outlined here are listed to simplify the process, the creation and maintenance of a successful hazing coalition takes work. Just as hazing has perpetuated and rooted itself into our culture over a long period of time, the hazing coalition will need to work just as hard to change the culture. Maintaining a coalition There are some general guidelines that assist in the development and maintenance of a hazing coalition. Communicate. Make sure the lines of communication are wide open. Ensure that everyone feels in the loop, has all the necessary information, and can contribute freely to the group. Be as inclusive and participatory as you can. Work to make the coalition a group that anyone in the community is welcome to join and continue to invite people to join after the first meeting. Network. Let people know what you are doing, invite them to meetings, or educate them about the issue. That person may have connections to people that will aid in getting goals set forth by the coalition completed. Set concrete goals. Success is a major tool that will hold the group together. In the beginning set goals that are reachable, so that success can be celebrated early on. This could help a coalition develop the strength to later spend more time (months and years) to achieve long-term goals.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Be realistic and keep your promises. Acknowledge diversity among your members, and among their ideas and beliefs. Make sure to take everyones opinion and restraints into account, and to use diversity as a spark for deeper discussion, rather than a source of division. Praise and reward outstanding contributions and celebrate success. Every coalitions achievement does not need to be big or flashy. In fact, small victories, in which members of your coalition actively participate, keep people motivated and willing to carry on. Recognition will go a long way, particularly when times get tough and success is harder to achieve. Summary When problems and issues, such as hazing, are too hard for one person to address, a coalition of people working together may be the solution. Just as hazing has perpetuated and rooted itself into our culture over a long period of time, the hazing coalition will need to work just as hard to change the culture. A paradigm shift is necessary to create a culture that is free of hazing. That shift can start with one step, the creation of a coalition formed to fight hazing. References Association of Fraternity Advisors (2003). Hazing: It was never just for fraternities and sororities. Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved, August 23, 2004, from Blimling, G. S., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (Eds.). (1999). Good practice in student affairs: Principles to foster student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Campus Action Web Center. How to build a coalition. Albany, NY. Retrieved, August 20, 2004, from build_coalitions.htm. Cypress Consulting (1997). A guide to coalition building. Ottawa, Ontario. Retrieved August 28, 2004, from Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) Network. Coalition building. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved, August 20, 2004, from Kotter, J.P. (1996). Creating a Guiding Coalition, in Leading Change (pp. 51-66). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. KU Work Group on Health Promotion and Community Development (2000). Chapter 5, Section 5: Coalition Building I: Starting a Coalition. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


National Alliance of Public Transportation Advocates (2003). Legislative advocacy: How to build a coalition. Washington, D.C. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (2004). Your vote, your voice: National campus voter registration project organizing handbook. Retrieved August 20, 2004, from National Coalition Building Institute. Retrieved August 28, 2004, from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. How-to guide to coalition building. Retrieved August 28, 2004, from coalition.html. Ohio State University Extension. Building coalitions fact sheet. Columbus, OH. Retrieved August 28, 2004, from

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Student Development Theory and Hazing Applying the Theory We Know to our Practice Taunia Coe Schulke Most student affairs professionals have had at least minimal exposure to student development theories. What follows is a survey of several theories that can be useful in analyzing hazing and developing intervention strategies. For a more complete review of student development, please consult the major source used in the development of this article: Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice by Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998). Psychosocial Theories Psychosocial theories try to explain the important issues people face as their lives progress, such as how they define themselves and their relationships with others, and how they determine what to do with their lives (Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 32). Psychosocial theories are important to practitioners who would like to develop interventions to promote individual identity development. Both the Chickering and Reisser vectors of development and Josselsons theory of identity development can be used to assess a students developmental status which can then provide the basis for creating a developmentally appropriate intervention strategy. Arthur Chickering is probably the best known of the psychosocial theorists. Chickering and Reisser, in their 1993 revision of Chickerings original theory, identify seven vectors of development that help to form an individuals identity. The seven vectors are: developing competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence, developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity. Students move through these vectors at their own pace, and many of the vectors build upon previous ones. Students may have varying levels of competence within several vectors at one time. Students are constantly learning, developing, and growing, and are therefore always improving their competencies within these vectors (Ziganti, 2003). Chickering also proposed that educational environments affected student development. He specifically cited institutional objectives and size, student-faculty relationships, curriculum, teaching, friendships and student communities, and student development programs and services (Evans et al., 1998). Ruthellen Josselson is known for her work in the area of womens identity development. Josselsons theory identifies four phases of development, in ascending order: identity diffusion, foreclosure, moratorium, and identity achievement (Evans et al, 1998). Josselsons theory seeks to describe how some women manage to resolve their identity crisis while others fail to move beyond their crisis or avoid creating an identity. This theory asserts that in identity diffusion women have not established their identity and are not actively engaged in doing so (Martin, 2000) because of their inability to organize and integrate their experiences into their identity and are therefore viewed as drifting (Evans et al, 1998). In foreclosure, women have identities that others, especially parents, have defined for them (Martin, 2000), and that have never been challenged in their adulthood. Foreclosure women find security in relationships rather than work and tend to emulate the lives and beliefs of their parents (Evans et al, 1998). Moratorium is the state of active exploration (Martin, 2000) wherein women struggle with the idea that there are many different ways to be right - this is a time of experimenting and trying on new identities

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


(Evans et al, 1998). In identity achievement, women have created an identity in their own way after considering whom they were as children and as young adults and looking toward who they would like to become (Evans et al, 1998). Cognitive-Structural Theories Cognitive-structural theories focus on how people think, reason, and make meaning of their experiences (Evans et al, 1998). These theories are important to student affairs professionals because they can be used to help understand how students view the situations they experience and also provide guidance about how to communicate effectively with students. Perrys theory of intellectual and ethical development, Kohlbergs theory of moral development, and Gilligans theory of womens moral development can be used to encourage students to act when faced with situations that require ethical or moral decision making. Perrys theory of intellectual and ethical development has nine positions which are often simplified into four: duality, multiplicity, relativity, and commitment (Evans et al, 1998, p. 131). The dualistic thinker assumes that all questions have a right or wrong answer, that authorities know these answers and should teach them to students. The multiplistic thinker realizes that knowledge is absolute in only a few areas, all opinions are okay, and authorities are just individuals with opinions. The relativistic thinker realizes the need to support opinions with evidence and supporting arguments and no longer believes that all opinions are equally valid (Wilson, n.d.). The committed thinker integrates choices, decisions, and affirmations that are made through the lens of relativism. The student who is at the level of commitment is initiating ethical development in Perrys scheme (Evans et al, 1998). Lawrence Kohlbergs theory of moral development focuses on how people make moral judgments. Kohlbergs theory proposes that moral reasoning develops through a six-stage sequence that can be grouped into three levels. Level I - the preconventional level is where individuals have a concrete and individually focused perspective and have not yet understood societies rules and expectations. Level II - the conventional level - is where individuals identify with the rules and expectations of others, especially those in a position of authority. Level III the postcoventional or principled level is where individuals base their decisions on personal, self-chosen principles rather than the rules and expectations of others (Evans et al, 1998). Carol Gilligans theory of womens moral development was developed based on her perceived limitations of Kohlbergs research which was focused primarily on men. Gilligan conducted research on a group of women and discovered a form of moral reasoning that she believed to be different from that described by Kohlberg. Kohlbergs theory has a justice orientation and focuses on the aspects of understanding rights and rules in developing moral thinking. Gilligans theory has a care orientation where care and responsibility to others emerge as the central themes for a womans moral compass. This theory has three levels and two transition periods. Level I Orientation to Individual Survival is where the individual is self-centered and preoccupied with survival. In the first transition, there is a shift from independence and selfishness to connection and responsibility where the individual begins to consider the opportunity for doing the right thing. Level II Goodness at Self Sacrifice is where the individual becomes more focused on interaction with and reliance on others, often giving up his or her own judgment in order to

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


achieve consensus and remain in connection with others. In the second transition, the individual begins to question why decisions are being made by putting others first and the individuals needs begin to be included in the decision making process. Level III - The Morality of Nonviolence is where the individual realizes the power he or she has over selecting between competing choices and can incorporate individual needs within the mix of moral alternatives (Evans et al, 1998). Typology Theories Typology theories help explain the individual differences in the ways students approach their worlds (Evans et al, 1998). These theories identify the factors that create consistent ways of coping with change and the demands of life. When faced with similar developmental challenges or situations, people will react differently based on their type. These theories are helpful in developing appropriate courses, workshops, training sessions, and other structured educational experiences. Kolbs theory of learning styles and the Myers-Briggs adaptation of Jungs theory of personality type are reviewed here. David Kolbs theory of experiential learning is most utilized for his learning styles, though the actual theory seeks to describe total adult development. Kolbs learning theory is a four-stage cycle where each step provides a foundation for the succeeding one. Concrete experience (CE) is a feeling dimension that forms the basis of observation and reflection (RO) which is a watching dimension. These observations are used to develop ideas including generalizations and theories in abstract conceptualization (AC) which is a thinking dimension. These ideas are used to develop new implications for action in active experimentation (AE) which is the doing dimension. Individuals have the tendency to prefer either concrete experience or abstract conceptualization and either active experimentation or reflective observation. Individuals need to incorporate all four stages in order to become more effective learners. Based on these preferences, Kolb also describes four learning styles: convergers, who apply ideas to practical situations; divergers, who view situations from many perspectives and generate alternatives and their implications; assimilators, who value ideas for their logical value more than their practicality in implementation; and accommodators, who take risks and adapt to changing situations with the most ease (Evans et al, 1998). The Isabel Briggs Myers-Katherine Briggs (Myers-Briggs) adaptation of Jungs theory of personality identifies the different ways that people prefer to take in and process information, how they become aware of the people, things, events, and ideas in their environments, and how they make judgments or conclusions about the information they take in. This theory contends that there are eight preferences arranged along four bipolar dimensions: extraversion-introversion (EI), sensing-intuition (SN), thinking-feeling (TF), and judging-perception (JP). These preferences can be organized into sixteen types (ESTJ, ESFJ, ISTJ, ISFJ, etc). Individuals tend to differ from others in the way they take in information and relate to others in ways that are fairly representative of their types. For example, extroverts tend to draw energy from interacting with objects and people in their outer world, whereas introverts tend to gain energy from the subjective world of ideas and concepts and therefore tend to be reflective and enjoy solitude (Evans et al., 1998, p. 246). Sensing types take in information directly through the five senses and by concretely observing details and facts, whereas intuitive types perceive information based

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


on unconscious processes, relying on symbols, imagination, connections, possibilities, and inferred relationships. All preferences are viewed as positive, and the main benefit of this typology is that it provides helpful strategies for understanding and working effectively with others (Evans et al., 1998). The Myers-Briggs type indicator has been used in many applications from roommate matching to classroom evaluation to retention predictors. Summary of Theories Understanding and assessing where a student is in his or her development is a very important aspect of being a competent student affairs professional. Understanding where a student is in his or her psychosocial development will help practitioners initiate appropriate discussions about how current activities such as hazing could affect the students personal development and relationships with others. Understanding where a student is from the structural-cognitive development perspective can help identify whether a student might be a change initiator or if more one-on-one conversations are going to be necessary before he or she can believe that hazing practices should be eliminated. Understanding a students preferred learning style can assist practitioners as they design educational programs and interventions for their students. How Student Development Contributes to Our Understanding of Hazing Student development plays an important role when looking at both the victim and aggressor in hazing situations. Emerging early in the adolescent years, hazing has become a topic tied to selfworth and desire to belong (Womack & Stoker, 2005). As identified by education consultant Lon Woodbury on his website (Womack & Stoker, 2005): A lack of self-confidence, poor self-esteem, or a negative self-image are terms often used to describe adolescents who feel that something about them is just not right. Most of their self-destructive activities are attempts to conceal or avoid this belief that they are not OK. Many issues relating to college students can be tied to their need to belong and connect with their peers. They experience internal and external pressures that contribute to this need and as student affairs professionals we must be aware of these factors. Woodbury identifies the feeling of not being okay (as stemming) from negative peer pressure (Womack & Stoker, 2005). As students struggle to find their identity within a group, they see what behaviors the group has set and can feel pressure to align themselves with these traditions. Failure to do so can result in exclusion. A few examples will help to illustrate the connection between student development and hazing. Lets examine Gilligans theory on moral development in women. Assume that a woman joins a sorority at Level I Orientation to Individual Survival. Since the characteristic of this level is that of individual survival, she may endure whatever it takes in order to become a full member of the group, even if that includes hazing. As she moves through the first transition, she becomes more focused on the connection to others and therefore may begin to worry about her pledge sisters reaction to hazing and how it is affecting them. In Level II Goodness at Self Sacrifice, she becomes motivated by social acceptance and reliance on others (Gilligan, 1982), and

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


therefore she may begin to believe that hazing is wrong, but is very unlikely to speak out because she wants to maintain the sense of belonging and would be afraid that speaking her mind may jeopardize her membership. During the second transition, she is moving toward the idea that she is important as an individual, and she may question her membership if she begins to realize that she has a moral objection to hazing. In Level III The Morality of Nonviolence, she is most likely to realize that she is morally opposed to hazing and will stand up against all behaviors that could cause harm to herself or others. Using Kohlbergs theory of moral development, we might interpret the acceptance of hazing in a slightly different way. If one assumes that college students begin school with a Kohlberg Level I or Level II, then a newly pledged student does not yet understand the rules regarding hazing or if they do, they may be willing to accept their hazers as persons of authority and accept the hazing as one of the new laws of society for the organization that he or she has chosen to join. Members learn that one of the laws of society is that hazing of new members is required in order to become a leader due to the actual or perceived positions of the people who hazed them when they were new members. Therefore, a young member may become a hazer because of his or her desire to grow and develop according to the laws of society as he or she perceives them and feels as if becoming a hazer is a type of growth experience. This could help to explain why hazing chapters tend to remain hazing chapters. If a student reaches Level III, the postconventional level, then he or she may find conflict with previous behaviors since this level is associated with human rights and social welfare as the overriding concerns. (Evans et al., 1998). He or she may begin to believe that the practice of hazing is morally wrong. In Perrys theory of intellectual and ethical development, a new member may be thought of as a dualistic thinker. The key to whether this student will participate in hazing or allow himself to be hazed depends on the students view of the authority figure in the situation. If he believes his parents to be the authority figures, then he may be opposed to hazing. If he associates the hazer as the authority figure, he will be much more likely to allow himself to be hazed. As the student moves toward a more multiplistic perspective, opinions of others become more important and if he realizes that his peers in other organizations are not being hazed, he may become confused, still wanting to trust that the authority figures in his own organization are authentic. When the student begins to move toward relativism, he may begin to seek support for the opinion that hazing is right or wrong, and if the right kind of hazing education is introduced during this phase of development, he may begin to believe that hazing is not appropriate and may actually be inspired to create change in his organization. Applications of Theory The final example above leads us to the ultimate value of student development theory to our practice. If we presume that students who are farther along in their development are more likely to resist hazing and/or become a part of the process of eliminating hazing, our ultimate purpose as professionals - advancing student development - becomes paramount. Utilizing theory and our understanding of the students with whom we work will allow us to design effective interventions that can begin the process of eradicating hazing. Intentionally designed and planned interventions will have greater impact on the issue of hazing than several programs that look great on paper but do little to affect the attitudes and beliefs of the students that we serve.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Integrating theory into practice may sound like something from a class syllabus, but it truly is the foundation for effective educational strategies. Chickering and Reissers Vectors of Development Programming can be targeted to address specific vectors of development as illustrated by the examples below:
If we assume that most of the information that new students know about fraternity and

sorority life either comes from the media or is non-existent before they arrive on our campus, then we realize it is up to the student affairs professional to help them to develop competence about what the ideal fraternal experience should be. Marketing materials and publications from governing councils, individual chapters, and universities should be examined to ensure that a consistent message is being distributed to incoming students. Perhaps a story about the ideal first year in a fraternity/sorority could be written by council officers to be included in publications distributed by them. If we inform our incoming students that the ideal first year does not include hazing or any degrading activities, then we are helping them to develop competence about what to look for and when to know that they may have made an inappropriate choice in a chapter if their experience differs from the ideal.
Managing emotions is difficult for many individuals when the issue is hazing. One of the

ways to allow students to work through their emotions and therefore hopefully begin to control them would be to provide the opportunity for an open forum to discuss hazing policies or hazing programs especially when the students perceive them to be new or newly enforced on campus. The key to making this productive to the attendees is to have a panel of experts who are truly able to answer questions factually without getting defensive. The students on campus will also have to be able to trust that their questions will not be used against them at a later time, so balancing factual information and credible panelists may be a challenge depending on the campus. Many of these panels are best done by students only. It may mean that the student affairs professional will have to spend more hours preparing the panelists, but the ability to get the issues on the table and for the students to work toward managing their emotions about the subject will be worth it.
First year students who stay on campus on weekends report higher levels of autonomy than

students who leave campus (Evans et al.). Therefore, in order to facilitate development along the vector of moving through autonomy toward interdependence, student affairs departments could make efforts to specifically provide weekend programming, especially during the first several weeks of the semester, to ensure that new students can make the campus connection. Also, workshops can be conducted by the student affairs professional for the new member educators/intake coordinators to ensure that teambuilding exercises are conducted with each new member class as well as larger segments of the chapter (perhaps the entire chapter where logistically possible). Processing points for some of the teambuilding activities could include the importance of seeking academic assistance from older members of the chapter, sharing the new members perspective of the chapter through recruitment/intake, contributing individual strengths and skills to the success of the chapter, participating fully throughout the undergraduate experience as well as throughout life, and realizing that individual actions now

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


reflect on the entire chapter and fraternity and sorority community instead of just the individual (and how the chapters actions reflect on the individual). Utilizing these activities can help the individuals realize the reciprocal nature of fraternities and sororities and help them move toward interdependence.
Another activity that may be helpful in illustrating the need to move through autonomy

toward interdependence is Win as Much as You Can or a similar activity that illustrates the importance of winning as a group instead of as an individual. Win as Much as You Can is available through the North American Interfraternity Conference.
Often, freshmen who are highly driven are assumed to be developmentally superior, but it is

important to note that students entering college with a strong sense of purpose may actually be students in "foreclosure," having accepted externally directed goals also known as their parent's expectations (Martin, 2000). These highly motivated and directed students may have a huge setback as they attempt to develop competence in areas that their parents have specified for them, so career and self-exploration programs are very important for first semester new students, and this is also important to them later as they attempt to establish their identity and determine the areas in which they are personally more interested.
Knowing oneself is an important aspect of establishing identity. Therefore providing

activities such as values clarifications, personality inventories, small leadership opportunities, and effective mentors could all be keys in allowing the students to have a better understanding of themselves, their abilities, interests and personalities, and could be more important than activities directed toward acquisition of specific knowledge (Martin). Many of these activities could be incorporated into chapter retreats, new member education programs, and council or chapter officer transitions. Discussions between students about values clarification exercises can be extremely beneficial for any group of students who have just begun to work together, and if the discussion is well facilitated and respectful ground rules are established, these discussions can provide a powerful opportunity for students to explore and establish their identity. Josselsonss Theory In trying to implement Josselsons theory, student affairs professionals should attempt to provide opportunities for women to develop identity achievement:
Degree of activity has been shown to be the most useful factor in predicting identity

achievement in women (Evans et al., 1998) which indicates that programming efforts directed toward connecting freshmen women with campus organizations for involvement could help them in their identity development. Perhaps the sororities of the governing councils on campus (i.e. NALFO, NPHC and Panhellenic) could sponsor an involvement fair early in each fall semester that includes all organizations on campus or provide a brochure that is cosponsored by those councils that is distributed to all incoming female students during orientation.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Awards for involvement in campus activities could be implemented if they do not already

exist on campus. If they do exist, realize that campus involvement could be impacting individual student development and focus more heavily on the importance of the award.
Because women students heavily involved in campus organizations appear to have already

accomplished identity and participate because it is a reflection of their true self rather than using involvement to search for identity achievement status (Evans et al., 1998), campus involvement could be weighted more heavily as a selection criterion when choosing women in high-profile, role model positions such as council officers and recruitment counselors.
It should go without saying that student affairs practitioners should eliminate harmful

circumstances that might produce psychological difficulty for all students. If there are practices that are creating this kind of situation but are supported as tradition on campus, practitioners should intervene. One example of a campus-accepted practice that could be perceived as a harmful circumstance would be the mass distribution of bids in a public environment where women are expected to joyously accept the invitation of a sorority without hesitation. With a small amount of reflection, one can easily see how this high pressure situation could produce difficulty for a woman who feels forced to accept a bid from an organization she did not truly wish to join because of the intensity of the situation. This seemingly innocent activity could snowball into a wrong choice, a poor fraternal experience and a negative impact on the personal development of the student. Perrys Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development To best affect the intellectual and ethical development according to Perry, determine the structure that is appropriate whether it is a high degree or low degree of structure that should be implemented into the curriculum (Evans et al., 1998) when planning workshops and educational programs.
Students in the early stages of cognitive development, especially dualistic thinkers, are more

in need of experiential learning with concreteness, directness and involvement such as case studies, role plays and exercises that facilitate reflection on and application of the material (Evans et al., 1998). A hazing workshop for new members might best be filled with actual examples of hazing practices that have occurred on a campus presented as case studies, resources to use in the instance that hazing is observed or experienced presented through role plays, and possibly a self-assessment to measure personal feelings toward hazing activities.
If chapter presidents and new member educators are the audience there are probably more

multiplistic and relativistic thinkers present, and therefore a lower degree of structure for the program would be better received, as would providing more opportunities for discussion between peers. Possible agenda items for this group would include a discussion of the problems that can be brought about by hazing, such as the apathy that occurs in chapters when pledgeship is seen as the time to prove yourself which leads to members tuning out after initiation - and the success stories of chapters who have replaced hazing activities with other activities and how they accomplished that challenging task.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


As students progress through their cognitive development from relativistic toward

commitment thinking, they will benefit best by exposure to a diversity of alternatives and perspectives that are presented and encouraged (Evans et al., 1998). If a small group of chapter officers who are attempting to understand and eliminate hazing are paired with officers from chapters who have been successfully eliminating those practices from their chapters and possibly officers of chapters who have never experienced hazing, conversations and questions between the participants can be helpful for all parties involved. These kinds of conversations are often best moderated by a well-trained student leader to ensure there are no boundaries to the discussion that might be created by having a student affairs professional present. Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Development & Gilligans Theory of Womens Moral Development These theories attempt to lead students to a point where they are making decisions based on their own morals and perceptions of what is right and wrong, and provide for some challenging educational opportunities.
One strategy for aiding in the development of students according to these theories is to present

reasoning at a stage higher than the one exhibited by the student (Evans et al., 1998). Therefore, in a new member workshop, presenting arguments against hazing that focus on the expectations and acceptance of respected individuals can be very effective. Perhaps a workshop run by the council presidents about their support of the campus zero-tolerance policy on hazing would be an effective way to challenge the students to change their views on hazing. Allowing interaction between members of different organizations can also be helpful if some students realize that their peers are not being hazed in order to become members.
Real-life situations rather than hypothetical situations are more effective in educational

programming (Evans et al., 1998), therefore utilize examples from your campus or a campus well-known to the students at your university. If you need help, you can search the AFA Newsclips listserv for real-life situations covering almost all situations from a variety of campuses.
Introduce cognitive conflict or disequilibrium with situations that arouse internal

contradictions in students moral reasoning structures through opinions or reasoning (Evans et al., 1998). This is probably best done in one-on-one conversations when a student presents you with the opportunity to discuss his or her views on why certain things should not be considered hazing. Unfortunately, there are many examples on the AFA Newsclips listserv of tame hazing practices that got out of control and caused injuries or death. Providing a student with these stories can be very effective in helping him or her to have a serious change of heart. If examples are not available, brush up on those counseling skills and let the student tell you how a parent, a professor, or a university president might perceive that activity and let him or her tell you what the press would likely to do if they received pictures or a video of the activity.
Since role taking and moral decision-making skills appear to be more effective as teaching

strategies (Evans et al., 1998), incorporate what would you do if scenarios into workshops

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


and educational programs for your students. Pull examples from your campus or from recent events in fraternity and sorority life. Kolbs Theory of Experiential Learning Assume all learning styles are present in groups when developing programs and workshops and incorporate activities to meet the needs of the different members of your audience (Evans et al.):
Concrete Experiencers (CE) prefer games, role plays, peer discussions and feedback, and

personalized counseling.
Reflective Observers (RO) prefer lectures, observing, seeing different perspectives, and tests

of their knowledge.
Abstract Conceptualizers (AC) prefer theory readings, studying alone, and well-organized

presentations of ideas.
Active Experimenters (AE) prefer to practice with feedback, small group discussions, and

individualized learning activities. Therefore, a great workshop agenda may start with a small lecturette, followed by the individual reading of case studies taken from activities from your campus, followed by small group discussions and presentations of those case studies to the rest of the group, followed by critiques from other groups about alternative ways to handle the situations presented, followed by a wrapup discussion of lessons learned. In order to meet the needs of everyone in the audience, high quality written materials and visual aids are equally important. Myers-Briggs Theory of Personality Personality inventories can be used to accomplish some of the goals touched upon in the theories presented above (such as establishing identity and identity achievement). The examples that follow are ideas for using them for other purposes. Facilitate personal and professional growth among staff and students by completing assessments (one temperament sorter that is available for free online can be found at: and discussing the similarities and differences between staff members or students who are working together on a project. The differences in preference for details or big picture when developing ideas can be very frustrating for team members and educating students about the differences can be helpful. A temperament sorter can also be useful when helping leaders to understand the members of their organizations and methods necessary for persuasion, especially when attempting to initiate a cultural change such as eliminating hazing. Knowing whether certain members are thinkers or feelers can be very helpful when trying to decide between appealing to their sense of logic or to their hearts when convincing them to abandon old ways for new ones.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


References Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Martin, L. M. (May/June 2000). The relationship of college experiences to psychosocial outcomes in students. Journal of College Student Development, 41(3). Retrieved May 2, 2005 from Wilson, M. E. (n.d.) Cognitive development outline - Perrys theory of intellectual and ethical development. Retrieved April 13, 2005 from perry.htm Womack, M. & Stoker, D. (2005). Student development primer. Unpublished manuscript. Ziganti, S. (2003). Student development theory: Putting theory to practice. Retrieved April 13, 2005 from april_03_student_dev_posting.pdf.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Learning Opportunities: Understanding Students Definitions of Hazing 3 Chad William Ellsworth, Student Activities Advisor for Greek Affairs, University of Minnesota In the 1990s, at least 95 people died from hazing activities (Hollmann, 2002). In 2000 alone, 18 people perished as a result of such activities. In addition, an untold number of students suffered emotionally, physically, and psychologically because they participated in dangerous and reckless rites of passage in order to become members of student organizations (Nuwer, 1999). Although fraternities are blamed most frequently for the deadly outcomes of reckless hazing activities, sororities, military organizations, athletic teams, and marching bands have received considerable attention as well (Crow & Rosner, 2002; Hollmann, 2002; Hoover, 1999; Hoover & Pollard, 2000; Novak, 2000; Nuwer, 1990, 1999; Shaw, 1992; Wegener, 2001; Winslow, 1999). As the number of deaths and injuries from such activities continues to grow, institutions of higher education are becoming more and more likely to be held responsible, in part, or sued because they failed to take appropriate and necessary action to combat hazing (Crow & Rosner, 2002; Hollmann, 2002; MacLachlan, 2000). As Hollmann recognized, there is a considerable amount of inconsistency among institutional policies and state laws with regard to the definition of hazing. In addition to the fact that different entities create different definitions of hazing, there is confusion and dispute with regard to what causes and perpetuates hazing and what could be done to stop it. According to (2003), 42 states have laws against hazing. However, as Nuwer (1999) reported, some states recognize only physical hazing, whereas others also recognize psychological hazing. It is difficult for administrators and authorities to effectively take action against hazing until it is more thoroughly understood. Theoretical Background While authorities have sought ways to stop hazing activities, scholars have sought ways to understand them. The literature with regard to hazing activities includes legal, psychological, and sociological perspectives, as well as a long history of such behavior in fraternities, sororities, military organizations, athletic teams, and marching bands, among other groups and student organizations. Psychological Perspectives There are a number of psychological perspectives, which apply to both the victim and perpetrator of hazing activities. One of the foundational theories associated with hazing activities was brought forth by Aronson and Mills in 1959. The severity-attraction hypothesis states, in general, that the more effort an individual puts toward reaching a goal or object, the more the individual will rationalize the goal or object as being worthy of such effort (Aronson & Mills in Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 1999). Thus, as an individual puts more and more effort toward a goal or

This article was originally published as: Ellsworth, C.W. (Winter 2005), Learning Opportunities: Understanding Students Definitions of Hazing. Perspectives. Indianapolis, IN: Association of Fraternity Advisors.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005

object, the more desirable the goal or object will become. Aronson and Mills hypothesized that individuals rationalize the goal or object as being worthy of such effort in order to reduce cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when an individuals actions are incongruent with the individuals feelings and thoughts. A similar hypothesis known as the severity-affiliation-attraction hypothesis also was proposed (Schachter in Lodewijkx & Syroit, 2001). According to Schachter, when individuals face stressful or threatening situations, they will identify with other individuals, especially those who have gone through similar situations. As the situations become more stressful or more threatening, the bond between the individual and others who have gone through similar situations will become stronger. In 2001, Lodewijkx and Syroit tested both the severity-attraction hypothesis and the severityaffiliation-attraction hypothesis. Although the results of their research study suggested a general initiation-affiliation-attraction relationship, which supports the theory that general initiation conditions bring together people involved in such situations, it did not show significant support for either of the earlier hypotheses of Aronson and Mills and Schachter, thus continuing to complicate and confuse researchers and practitioners understanding of hazing. However, they remain some of the most relevant psychological theories about the phenomenon of hazing. Sociological Perspectives Although it is useful to describe the psychological influences and relationships involved in hazing activities, it is impossible to ignore the sociological perspective, which describes the relationships among the victim, perpetrator, and organization. In 1962, Schopler and Bateson examined the effects of severe initiation conditions on interpersonal relationships. They suggested that such situations fostered relationships characterized by interpersonal dependence, in which both the victim and perpetrator held some power over the other, which contributed to the continuation of such situations. That is, the perpetrator controlled a range of outcomes, both positive and negative, for the victim, while the victim controlled a range of responses, which included complying with the perpetrator and/or rebelling against the perpetrator. Hoover and Milner conducted a research study in 1998 and reported that hazing may be linked to love and belongingness. They remarked that hazing forged bonds through shared, secretive experiences, and such experiences actually could increase commitment to organizations. Butler and Glennen (1991) went a step further and said that sanctioned initiation rituals could increase involvement in institutions of higher education. Finally, Jones (2000) and Sweet (1999) analyzed the sociological and symbolic implications of hazing activities, giving insight into ways in which such activities are functional for organizations and fulfill students needs for initiation rituals and rites of passage. Legal Perspectives In addition to the theoretical foundations that give insight to hazing activities, legal perspectives demonstrate that hazing has become and remains an important issue for institutions of higher education. According to Crow and Rosner (2002), colleges and universities have been found

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


responsible for more and more as hazing activities become increasingly common and dangerous. Hollmann (2002) remarked that, since 1990, more alcohol- and hazing-related deaths have occurred on campuses throughout the United States than throughout the rest of the recorded history of higher education. Thus, the seriousness and urgency of the situation are well documented, and it has become imperative for administrators and student affairs practitioners to take strong stands against dangerous and deadly hazing activities. In 2000, MacLachlan remarked that the recent court decisions could be troublesome for colleges and universities. Like Crow and Rosner, MacLachlan said institutions have a duty to protect students against criminal acts of other students. Institutions, the author said, are more likely to be held responsible when such acts are deemed foreseeable. Because colleges, universities, and organizations have acknowledged hazing through policies, rules, and statements, courts have argued that hazing-related tragedies are foreseeable acts, and institutions could be held responsible for such tragedies. MacLachlan said that, through recent decisions including Brueckner v. Norwich University, Alton v. Texas A&M University, Knoll v. Board of Regents of the State of Nebraska, and Coghlan v. Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, it is likely the trend toward university and organization responsibility will continue. Problem Statement and Rationale Fraternities, sororities, military organizations, athletic teams, and marching bands are commonly associated with hazing activities. However, even though authorities have acknowledged the role of such organizations in hazing activities, the fact that there is no common definition of hazing has hindered any real effort to challenge and combat these dangerous and even deadly rites of passage (Hollmann, 2002). The purpose of this research study was to investigate if the activities students define as hazing activities differ among student organizations. This research study also investigated how those activities differed among fraternity members, sorority members, Reserve Officer Training Corps members, student athletes, and members of the marching band. Despite all of the evidence that suggests colleges, universities, and organizations should take stronger action against dangerous hazing activities, authorities continue to face confusion, myths, and misperceptions with regard to hazing. Hollmann (2002) argued that the lack of a common definition of hazing limits the effectiveness of anti-hazing action, legislation, and policies. Results and Discussion The null hypothesis that guided this research study was: the activities students define as hazing activities do not differ among fraternity members, sorority members, Reserve Officer Training Corps members, student athletes, and members of the marching band. As such, this research study was approached from a quantitative perspective, with a descriptive, cross-sectional design. This design facilitated a comparison of activities students defined as hazing activities among the selected student organizations, in order to describe how different student organizations at the institution have different definitions and perceptions of hazing activities.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


This research study asked members of fraternities, sororities, Reserve Officer Training Corps, and the marching band, as well as student athletes, to complete a researcher-designed Web-based survey, which consisted of 49 items. For 42 of these items, students indicated to what degree they agreed that each of the 42 items was a hazing activity. Their responses were made according to a five-point Likert scale. The remaining seven items asked for demographic information. Although this research study made meaning of the collected data, these findings must be interpreted with great caution because the response rate was only 26%. In addition, the response rate for some of the groups was even lower, so these findings may not be representative of the respective groups. Through this research study, a number of statistically significant differences were discovered. Such differences were evident between sorority members and Reserve Officer Training Corps members for the composite variables physical hazing activities, both physical and psychological hazing activities, and other hazing activities, as well as between Reserve Officer Training Corps members and student athletes for a physical hazing activity and one other hazing activity. Physical hazing activities where significant differences were present between sorority members and Reserve Officer Training Corps members included do calisthenics for excessive amounts of time or to excessive levels, both physical and psychological hazing activities included perform feat of strength or physical activity for excessive amounts of time, and other hazing activities included participate in drinking games, where sorority members more strongly agreed that such activities were hazing activities. The physical hazing activity and other hazing activity where significant differences were present between Reserve Officer Training Corps members and student athletes included march, walk, or run for excessive amounts of time or for excessive distances, and participate in drinking games, respectively, where student athletes more strongly agreed that the activities were hazing activities. In addition, a number of statistically significant differences were present between women and men, including significant differences in four of the five types of hazing activities, including physical hazing activities, psychological hazing activities, both physical and psychological hazing activities, and other hazing activities. Such activities included: do calisthenics for excessive amounts of time or to excessive levels; and march, walk, or run for excessive amounts of time or for excessive distances; perform in public, such as dancing or singing; subjected to verbal abuse or harassment; perform feat of strength or physical activity for excessive amount of time; blindfolded during activities; perform chores or tasks for others were significant; participate in an activity against your will; shave ones head or other part of ones body; and stand in line for excessive amounts of time. For all of the variables, women more strongly agreed that the activities were hazing activities. Discussion Although there has not been a tremendous amount of research studies in this area, this research study served to corroborate and underscore a number of the research studies of other researchers. For example, Novak (2000) and Wegener (2001) concluded that fraternity and sorority members demonstrated considerable knowledge about hazing activities. Likewise, this research study showed that, for the hazing activities where statistically significant differences were present, the mean scores of sorority members, which measured to what degree they agreed that the activities

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


were hazing activities, were higher than the mean scores of the members of the other selected student organizations. On the other hand, the mean scores of Reserve Officer Training Corps members, for the activities where statistically significant differences were present, were lower than the mean scores of the members of the student organizations to which they were compared. But, this research study also demonstrated other differences among the selected student organizations. In some cases, activities that were identified as hazing activities may be necessary components of the culture of some of the organizations, so those activities might not be considered hazing activities. For example, to do calisthenics in the Reserve Officer Training Corps or to perform in public for members of the marching band may be necessary parts of the culture of those organizations, and the members of those organizations were less sure that those activities were hazing activities, as evidenced by the mean scores for the respective activities and student organizations. Likewise, some activities are not parts of the culture of some of the student organizations. For example, the mean scores and standard deviations for forced to consume excessive amounts of alcoholic beverages and drink or eat substances not intended for normal consumption for members of the marching band suggested that those students identified such activities as hazing activities, and that those activities may not be part of the culture of the organization. However, for other activities and student organizations, there was greater variance. For example, participate in drinking games for fraternity members and stranded alone or with other newcomers for student athletes, the respective mean scores and standard deviations showed significant variance in the students perceptions of those activities. On the other hand, this research study also demonstrated that there are some activities that were identified as hazing activities in the selected student organizations, as evidenced by the grand mean scores. Beginning with the activities students most strongly agreed were hazing activities, they included: forced to consume excessive amounts of alcoholic beverages; struck by an object, such as a ball, baton, fist, or paddle; handcuffed or tied to a building or structure; receive a brand or tattoo, drink or eat substances not intended for normal consumption, deprived of beverages or food by others; perform sexual acts, participate in streaking or other activities while naked, deprived of sleep by others; and steal an item. Probably most notably, this research study demonstrated there are significant differences between women and men with regard to hazing activities. For the composite variables physical hazing activities, psychological hazing activities, and other hazing activities, as well as a number of the individual activities, there were significant differences between women and men. However, such differences should not be surprising. According to Gilligans theory of womens moral development (1982), the care orientation and the focus on relationships and responsibility suggest that, for many women, moral thinking is different from mens, which relies on individual rights and justice. In such a way, the moral thinking and ways in which women relate to others may explain differences between women and men with regard to perceptions of hazing activities. Although this research study demonstrated there are significant differences of the perceptions of hazing activities among the selected student organizations, it also showed that there were a number of activities that students agreed were hazing activities. In addition, this research study

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


showed that there were significant differences between women and men in the activities they identified as hazing activities. By offering more information about the culture of the student organizations and providing insight into the differences in perceptions of hazing activities, this research study has contributed to our understanding of hazing practices, and will help us continue to combat and confront these phenomena. References Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (1999). Social psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers. Butler, E. R., & Glennen, R. E. (1991, April). Initiations rituals: Sanctioning rites of passage rituals to increase involvement. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Association for Counseling and Development, Reno, NV. Crow, R. B., & Rosner, S. R. (2002). Institutional and organizational liability for hazing in intercollegiate and professional team sports. St. Johns Law Review, 76, 87-114. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hollmann, B. B. (2002). Hazing: Hidden campus crime. In C. K. Wilkinson & J. A. Rund (Eds.), Addressing contemporary campus safety issues (pp. 11-23), New Directions for Student Services, 99. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hoover, N. C. (1999). Initiation rites and athletics: A national survey of NCAA sports teams. Final report. Alfred, NY: Alfred University. Hoover, N. C., & Pollard, N. J. (2000). Initiation rites in American high schools: A national survey. Final report. Alfred, NY: Alfred University. Jones, R. L. (2000). The historical significance of sacrificial ritual: Understanding violence in the modern Black fraternity pledge process. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 24, 112124. Lodewijkx, H. F. M., & Syroit, J. E. M. (2001). Affiliation during naturalistic severe and mild initiations: Some further evidence against the severity-attraction hypothesis. Current Research in Social Psychology, 6(7), 90-107. MacLachlan, J. (2000). Dangerous traditions: Hazing rituals on campus and university liability. Journal of College and University Law, 26, 511-548. Novak, K. (2000). [Texas A&M University campus assessment on hazing]. Unpublished raw data. Nuwer, H. (1990). Broken pledges: The deadly rite of hazing. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing, and binge drinking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Schopler, J., & Bateson, N. (1962). A dependence interpretation of the effects of a severe initiation. Journal of Personality, 30, 633-649. Shaw, D. L. (1992). A national study of sorority hazing incidents in selected land-grant institutions of higher learning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 1077. (2003). Educating to eliminate hazing. Retrieved December 1, 2003, from Sweet, S. (1999). Understanding fraternity hazing: Insights from symbolic interactionist theory. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 355-364. Wegener, C. J. (2001). Perceptions of hazing among Greek and ROTC students at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska. Winslow, D. (1999). Rites of passage and group bonding in the Canadian Airborne. Armed Forces & Society, 25, 429-457.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Appendix A State Penalty Failure to Report AL X AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA ID IL IN IA KS KY LA X X X X Consent not a Defense X

Hazing Laws by State 4 Statue not Criminal X Loss of Funding X Public Institutions only #8 Individual Expulsion #1 Bodily Injury Only #3 Loss Of Recognition #2 X Physical Injury Only #3 Death or serious injury X Bodily Injury Only #3 Felony for Extreme Cases Comment



X #7 X X X X #7 X X X X

Physical Harm Only #3 #5 State Institutions Only #4 College- Fraternal Organizations Only Elem. & Secondary #5 Institutional Policy Only #6 Physical Injury Only #3

Prepared by Judge Mitch Crane June 6, 2005 and revised February 6, 2006. Not to be reprinted without permission.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005

State Penalty Failure to Report MS NE NV NH NJ NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC TN TX UT VT WA WV WI X X X

Consent not a Defense X X

Statue not Criminal

Loss of Funding

Felony for Extreme Cases


Physical Harm Only #9 #11 Physical Injury Only #3 Physical Injury Only #3 Individual Expulsion #1 X


X X X X X X X #10 X X

State Institutions Only #8 Professionals Must Report #9

Physical Harm Only #3

Comment Notes: #1 In Arizona and North Carolina individuals guilty of hazing can be expelled by the institution. #2 In Connecticut organizations guilty of hazing can lose recognition on campus. #3 In these states hazing is criminal only if there is the physical injury or harm. #4 The Kentucky law is not criminal, but administrative, law and applies only to the state institutions. #5 The Louisiana law as written applies only to fraternal organizations in colleges and universities. The August, 2004 amendments also criminalize hazing in elementary & secondary schools. Kansas law applies only to social and fraternal organizations. #6 The Maine law is not criminal in nature, but is institutional policy only. #7 The Minnesota law is not criminal in nature but prohibits hazing in public institutions. #8 The Arizona and South Carolina laws apply only to state institutions. #9 The Utah law requires those in professional positions to report hazing allegations. #10 The Vermont law is civil in nature but allows fines for violations. #11 New Hampshire criminalizes knowingly submitting to hazing.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Appendix B Generic Agreement of Responsibility Office of Fraternity Sorority Affairs, University of Pennsylvania XYZ Fraternity Agreement of Responsibility Date The spirit of this agreement is for the University of Pennsylvania, the National Office of (XYZ) Fraternity, the University of Pennsylvania undergraduate chapter of (XYZ) Fraternity and the local (XYZ) alumni/trustees to partner to create a future for (XYZ) and to contribute positively to the Greek system at the University of Pennsylvania. This Agreement is entered for the purpose of resolving the (date) charges against the Penn chapter of (XYZ) Fraternity (the "Chapter") for violation of the following University policies: the Alcohol and Drug Policy, the Anithazing policy, the Code of Student Conduct, and the policy on the Recognition and Governance of Undergraduate Social Fraternities and Sororities. The charges are attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A." By entering into this Agreement, the Chapter and its members express their sincere regret and apologies for the events of (date), described in the attached charges, and make a binding commitment to the University that they will in the future abide by the terms and conditions and the spirit of this Agreement, as well as all University policies and regulations, as a condition to maintaining (XYZ)s recognition as a fraternity at the University. The Chapter acknowledges and agrees that the University has the right to release publicly the terms of this Agreement or information about the charges against the Chapter or the incident upon which the charges are based, subject to the University's policy on the confidentiality of student records and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. In keeping with this, the Chapter, (XYZ)Fraternity, and the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs (OFSA) will release a joint statement to the Daily Pennsylvanian regarding the charges and this Agreement. In light of violations of the University policies noted above, the Chapter is placed on Probationary Recognition status for a two-year period, commencing on the date this Agreement is fully executed. The University reserves the right to suspend the Chapter's recognition immediately upon any violation of the terms of this Agreement. The parties' agreement to this sanction is based upon recognition by the University of Pennsylvania (the University), and (XYZ)s national office (the National Office) that the Chapter has acted inappropriately and intends to make every effort to reconcile the

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


situation, and that a collective commitment is necessary to achieve that reconciliation. The University acknowledges the commitment already demonstrated by the National Office and believes this Agreement will further those efforts. The following are the terms and conditions of the Chapter's Probationary Recognition: Letter of Apology 1. The Chapter must submit an open letter of apology to the University community apologizing for the actions of its members in violating the University alcohol and antihazing policy on (date). In addition, the letter should discuss the need for organizations to be collectively responsible for adhering to University and national fraternity policies and promoting responsible and legal use of alcohol when and where appropriate, and expressing a need for mutual support and care in these issues among all fraternities and (XYZ)s willingness to take the lead in these efforts. This open letter must be submitted to and approved by OFSA no later than 9:00 a.m. on (date), with a copy to the National Office. 2. The (XYZ) fraternity house at the University of Pennsylvania will be alcohol free for the entire probationary period. This includes any formal or informal events or activities at the current fraternity property at (address) and at any subsequent or other property acquired or occupied by the fraternity. Any events where the Chapter is permitted to have alcohol must be held at a commercial establishment that meets the criteria of a Third Party Vendor, as defined by University guidelines. Further, a written addendum to the effect of this paragraph will be incorporated into the current dormitory agreement between (XYZ)House Corporation and the University of Pennsylvania regarding the current Chapter house at (address). All occupancy agreements between the University and any occupant of the house or subsequent properties inhabited by the Chapter will include a clause regarding the alcohol free status of the property. 3. The Chapter and the (XYZ) House Corporation must secure a live-in advisor for the house and, by (date), discuss with OFSA its progress towards having the advisor in place by the beginning of the fall (year) semester. The live-in advisor will be responsible for monitoring both formal and informal chapter activities and serving as a resource and support for the Chapter and the property. In this role, said advisor shall not be deemed an agent or employee of the University for any purpose. Appropriate accommodations within the house, including a private room and private bath, must be made for the live-in advisor. OFSA facilities staff will work with the live-in

Alcohol Free

Live-in Advisor

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


advisor, the House Corporation and house manager of the Chapter to run the property day-to-day and to plan short term and long-term maintenance and renovation. The House Corporation should conduct periodic review of the live-in advisors performance. Officer Transition 4. The Chapter must outline a comprehensive officer transition program that will communicate the direction of the Chapter and the content of this Agreement of Responsibility to at least the next three generations of Chapter and alumni officers. This outline must be provided to the Director of OFSA no later than (date). The Director of OFSA may suggest modifications to the program, subject to mutual agreement. The outline will then be incorporated into the Chapter by-laws document. 5. The explicit role and commitment of the inter/national Organization to this Chapter and this Agreement of Responsibility must be outlined in writing and submitted for record to the Director of OFSA no more than 10 days after the execution of this Agreement. This document must outline the exact areas of Chapter operations and the activities in which the inter/national Office will be engaged for the next two years, including the expectations of the role of the alumni board once it is established. Once established, it is expected that at least one alumnus will make best efforts to be in attendance at two brotherhood meetings per month, and one executive board meeting per month; and that the inter/national Office staff will oversee the preparation, activities and implementation of the initiation for the next two years and will be onsite for these activities as much as possible. This is to insure that the values and ideals of the inter/national Organization and the University influence those activities and are clearly communicated. Finally, at least one alumnus will physically be in attendance at all official social events (defined later in this Agreement) held during the probationary period. 6. The Chapter must appoint a full-time member of the standing faculty of the University or a full-time administrator of the University, to serve as an advisor for the Chapter. This appointment must be in place by (date). Within ten days after the appointment of the faculty/administrative advisor, key personnel from the Chapter and OFSA shall meet to outline the relationship between the faculty/ administrative advisor, the Chapter and OFSA. If it is not possible to fulfill this obligation, the Chapter must secure the approval of the Director of OFSA regarding alternative arrangements for faculty involvement with the Chapter. The Chapter must show that it has used its best efforts to secure a regular faculty/administrative advisor. Should it become necessary to change the faculty advisor,

Inter/National HQs Role defined

Faculty Advisor

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


the Chapter must consult and involve OFSA in the transition. Alumni Advisory Board 7. The Chapter and the National Office will work together to establish an Alumni Advisory Board for the Chapter with a minimum of four alumni (not necessarily all from the Penn Chapter) to advise the Chapter. Members of this Board should have specific responsibility for various functional areas of the Chapter and/or advisement for specific officers on the Chapters executive board. Regular and frequent communication must take place between the Chapter, the inter/national HQs and OFSA regarding the progress in establishing and training this board. 8. The officers of the Chapter will design a peer education program suitable for presentation to other fraternity chapter officers at Penn outlining the fraternity education and hazing policies of the University and the IFC and relating to the problems and issues the Chapter has faced (including but not limited to risk management, alcohol, hazing, social management, and house management) and potential solutions and resources. The design of this program should be completed by (date). The program, which should be between 60 and 90 minutes in length, must be presented to the OFSA staff for approval prior to the presentation to the IFC presidents during the Fall (year) term. 9. The Chapter will work with the Director of OFSA and the Universitys Alcohol Initiatives Coordinator to assist in appropriate alcohol education to the (freshman) Class of 0X at Penn. The Chapter will create a position on the executive board, which will serve as the Chapters liaison to the Alcohol Initiatives Coordinator. This liaison will remain in contact with the AIC and ensure that the Chapter provides assistance to the AIC on the Class of 0X project. Additionally, his responsibilities will include, but not be limited to, registering parties that involve alcohol. 10. The Chapter will develop written minimum standards for prospective members, new members, and continuing brothers and will constitute an internal standards board to enforce these standards and address any behavioral problems within the Chapter. An outline of the standards and a description of the composition and procedures of the standards board must be submitted to the Director of OFSA on or before (date). These minimum standards should address grade point average, campus involvement, community service, chapter attendance and contribution, financial obligations, and any other area that the Chapter, the National Office or the alumni advisors deem appropriate.

Develop Peer Education Program

University Alcohol/Drug initiatives

Minimum Standards & Internal Standards Board

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Recruitment Planning

11. The Chapter will register its entire rush/recruitment schedule with OFSA prior to the close of each fall semester during the probationary period and provide OFSA specific details regarding each event planned. These requirements apply to all events, including open, closed, and by invitation only events. Once the alumni advisory board is established, at least one alumnus will be physically present at each of these events. Further, all events must be carried out in accordance with policies of the inter/national Office and applicable requirements and policies of the Interfraternity Council (IFC) and the University.

12. New Member Education with the Chapter shall be in complete New Member accordance with the goals, ideals and regulations as presented in the Education program model new member program from (XYZ) Fraternity, including a maximum length of six weeks before full initiation of brothers. All related activities must fully comply with the National model program and University policies, including the following policies: Antihazing; Alcohol and Drug; Recognition and Governance of Undergraduate Social Fraternities and Sororities; and the Code of Student Conduct. Any deviation from the required model without prior written consent from the National Office or without communicating any approved change to OFSA will constitute a violation of this Agreement. The Chapter and Alumni Advisory Board must document to OFSA the completion of that full initiation by 5:00pm on the business day after full initiation has occurred. Risk Management Education 13. The Chapter will be required to sponsor at least one major risk management seminar each semester for the entire Chapter (at least 90% of the Chapter is expected to be in attendance and attendance records must be kept and available for inspection by OFSA upon request). These seminars may be open for other fraternity and sorority officers as well. Risk management refers to all areas of risk management and not just alcohol related issues. These seminars may cover house maintenance, hazing and new member programs. The Chapter should try to bring in outside experts on risk management to present these seminars. 14. (a) For the purposes of this Agreement, the following definitions apply: *social event is any event attended by anyone outside the undergraduate chapter (initiated brothers and new members/pledges). *formal events are those that are in any way planned, advertised, financially supported, and/or otherwise sponsored by the Chapter. [Note: Formal events may appear on the Chapters calendar and may be referenced in Chapter and/or executive board meetings and the

Social Restrictions

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


minutes of such meetings. Formal events may, but need not, involve the use of Chapter funds and may, but need not, involve printed invitations or advertisements.] *informal events are events that are not planned ahead by the Chapter or any of its officers or members, but which resembles a brothers-only event or a social event. (b) All social events and brotherhood-only events, whether formal or informal, on or off campus, must be conducted in accordance with University policies and may not include any alcohol whatsoever unless otherwise specified in this Agreement. Official and formal events of the (XYZ) alumni, for which the Alumni Advisory Board takes complete control in planning and execution and where the overwhelming majority of attendees are alumni, are exempted from this requirement. (c) The Chapter is placed on social review status through the end of spring (YEAR) semester. This means that Chapter social events will be restricted and, in advance of any event, the Chapter must negotiate social management plans with OFSA. The Chapter may not hold any social events for the balance of the spring (year) semester and is restricted to one non-alcoholic social event during academic year (years). Further, the Chapter may not hold any social events during any summer session or recess during the probationary period. (d) If the Chapter remains in compliance with this Agreement, it will be permitted to host a spring formal in (year) and it may include alcohol at this event, provided that the event is held at a location under the control of a third party vendor and complies with all applicable University policies. If the Chapter is permitted to have this event in (years), the ratio of non-brothers to brothers attending the event may not exceed a 1:1 ratio -- that is, there may not be more than one non-brother for each brother in attendance. (e) Provided that the Chapter complies with all applicable requirements while under social review as determined by the Director of OFSA, at the end of the social review period the Chapter will transition to social probation status for a period of one year. During the social probation period, the Chapter will have less restrictions on the number of social events, though all event plans must still be negotiated and approved for third party vendors at least 14 days prior to the event with OFSA officials and the Chapter must adhere to all applicable risk management policies, alumni notification and involvement requirements and programming details. If the Chapter fails to comply with any condition of its social review

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


or social probation status, the review or probation period may be extended, at the discretion of the Director of OFSA. Further, any violation of social probation conditions may subject the Chapter to a resumption of social review status. (f) If at any time there must be a determination of whether an event constitutes a social event, or a formal or informal event, that determination will be made by a majority decision of the Chapters alumni advisor, the Director of OFSA and the Chapters faculty/administrative advisor. Until a faculty/administrative advisor is in place, the Vice Provost for University Life will serve as a decision-maker in the faculty/administrative advisors stead. (g) It shall be a violation of this Agreement if any officer(s) or a significant number of (XYZ) brothers or new members plan, significantly contribute to, or in any way organize any party or other social event at any off campus location at which alcohol is present in any form -- regardless of how the Chapter or its individual members characterize the event. It shall also be a violation of this Agreement if someone outside the Chapter hosts a party for the Chapter or its members--for example, if there is an event to which only Chapter brothers and/or new members are invited or which only Chapter members and/or new members attend. Further, the Chapter may not in any way fund, promote or advertise any such event. A determination of whether an event violates this paragraph will be determined in the same manner described in paragraph 15(f) above. (h) The alumni organization and National Office will assist the Chapter in communicating these restrictions to all alumni of the Chapter as well as parents of members so that alumni and/or parents do not drop in at the house and unwittingly engage in impromptu parties or social events or any events that include alcohol. Community Service 15. The Chapter membership must provide at least 350 total hours of community service and/or philanthropic activities each semester as approved in advance by Director of OFSA in consultation with other appropriate University offices. The Chapter's community service chair shall submit documentation of these hours to OFSA and the inter/national Headquarters during the last week of classes each semester through the duration of the probationary period. Progress Reviews 16. On a monthly basis, the Director of OFSA or his designee will review the progress of the Chapter with the top six officers of the Chapter. These reviews will include discussion and update on each section this Agreement of Responsibility for which the deadline has not passed. In addition, copies of the correspondence between the

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Chapter and the inter/national Office relative to this Agreement of Responsibility must be provided promptly to the Director of OFSA. Attendance Obligations 17. Once a local alumni organization is established, the (XYZ) alumni must fulfill their obligation to attend meetings of the Greek Alumni/Advisory Council, as outlined in the University policy on Recognition and Governance of Undergraduate Social Fraternities and Sororities. 18. An officer of (XYZ) must be in attendance at all regularly scheduled Interfraternity Council meetings. 19. (XYZ) must volunteer to assist in the planning and execution of at least three Expanded Social Programming (alcohol-free social) events before the completion of the (years) academic year, either on the Chapters own initiative or in conjunction with the Tangible Change Committee through the Office of the Vice Provost for University Life. Documentation of (XYZ)s involvement in such events should be submitted to OFSA and the National Office within one week of each event. 20. The (XYZ) Fraternity will keep in effect a two million dollar umbrella liability policy indemnifying the University of Pennsylvania, its trustees, officers, administrators, and employees in relation to any activities of the University of Pennsylvania chapter of (XYZ) Fraternity, and will name the University as an additional insured in said policy. 21. The Fraternity and Sorority Advisory Board, (FSAB) will conduct semesterly reviews until this Agreement is fulfilled and the probation is lifted. These reviews will take place during the months of December and April. In preparation for the reviews, the Chapter shall prepare comprehensive written documentation verifying compliance with the terms of this Agreement of Responsibility 30 days prior to the scheduled review. Upon request of the FSAB or OFSA, representatives of the inter/national Office, the local alumni and/or student leadership will be required to provide any information needed for the review or to provide a verbal presentation to the Board or to respond to specific questions. 22. Following the each review, the FSAB will determine if the Chapter has met all of the requirements specified in this Agreement and an acceptable level of conduct. The FSAB may recommend to the Director of OFSA that the Chapter: 1) continue in probationary recognition status; 2) be granted full recognition; 3) have its recognition withdrawn; or 4) such other action with respect to the

Attendance Obligations Alcohol-free programming

Liability Insurance

Formal Reviews

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Chapter's recognition status as the Board deems appropriate, including the amendment of this agreement and its existing restrictions. 23. Based on each review, if the University determines that the Chapter has not made sufficient progress (e.g., deadlines have not been met, Chapter members have not fulfilled their responsibilities), or that any term of this Agreement has not been honored, the University reserves the right to suspend the Chapter for the balance of that semester and to extend such suspension beyond the Spring (year two years out) semester. Any finding by either (a) the Judicial Inquiry Office/Office of Student Conduct, in consultation with OFSA and/or the Chapters alumni advisor or faculty/ administrative advisor, or (b) the FSAB that the Chapter or its members have violated this Agreement or any University policy may result, at the sole discretion of the University, in immediate suspension of the Chapter for up to a period of two years without further process. Any individuals involved in further violations may be held accountable with the Chapter and individually. Agreement 24. By signing this Agreement, the Chapter and each individual officer and member agrees to be bound by all of the terms of this Agreement, as well as the terms of the documents incorporated into this Agreement and those documents to be developed and approved by the University pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. By signing this Agreement, the Chapter, its officers and members also waive their right to a hearing under the Fraternity and Sorority Advisory Board Judicial Charter on the charges pending against the Chapter and agree that in the future any finding by the Judicial Inquiry Office/Office of Student Conduct, in consultation with the Director of OFSA and/or the Chapters alumni advisor or faculty/administrative advisor, or by the FSAB that the Chapter has violated this Agreement or any University policy may, in the sole discretion of the University, result in immediate suspension of the Chapter's recognition as described herein, without the necessity of proceedings under the Fraternity and Sorority Advisory Board Judicial Charter. This Agreement also confirms the Chapter's and its officers' and members' commitment to producing an effective community that reflects the ideals and values of (XYZ) Fraternity and the University of Pennsylvania.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


In witness whereof, and intending to be bound hereby, the parties duly execute this Agreement as of the date noted. SO AGREED: XYZ National Executive Director Chapter Advisor Chapter President Chapter Vice President Director, Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs Date Date Date Date Date

And the brothers of (XYZ) Fraternity at the University of Pennsylvania [NOTE: Any brother who fails to sign this Agreement will be regarded by the University of Pennsylvania and (XYZ) Fraternity as having renounced his rights as a member of the Chapter]: Name (Print) Signature Date

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Appendix C 100 Ways to Create Good Members Without Hazing Allison Swick-Duttine, Coordinator of Greek Affairs & Leadership Development, Plattsburgh State University of New York 1. Attend and/or send students to the National Hazing Symposuim. 2. Participate in a Ropes Course 3. Teambuilding Activities (can be facilitated by new member educator or campus professional there are hundreds of these activities that you could use) 4. Participate in and/or plan a Community Service Project 5. New Member Surprise Party hosted by members 6. Have a Resume Writing Workshop presented by Career Development Center 7. Attend Educational Speaker of new members choice and discuss as a chapter 8. Leadership Book-of-the-Month/Semester Club facilitated by new members 9. Invite Faculty Advisor to lunch with new members 10. Have a Discussion about the Relevance of the Creed today 11. Study Skills Workshop presented by the Learning Center 12. Successful Alumni Speaker to talk about how his/her fraternal organization gave skills to succeed 13. Arts and Crafts for a Cause 14. Participate in a Recruitment Workshop 15. Invite Council Officers to Speak about Community Governance 16. Invite Coordinator of Greek Affairs to speak about lifetime membership 17. Dinner and a Movie 18. Shadow an Officer and assist in planning of a program/event 19. Create a vision and goals for the organization 20. Plan a fundraiser to pay for initiation fees 21. Include new members in chapter meetings 22. Include new members in regularly scheduled chapter activities 23. Discuss fraternal values and how they apply (or dont apply) 24. Plan and present a speaker on a health/wellness topic 25. Require active membership in at least one organization outside the group 26. Evaluate the process during and after new member education 27. Host a Family Weekend activity 28. Have consultant or inter/national visitor talk about national programs 29. Discuss what national does for us with dues money 30. Attend a Panhellenic or Interfraternity Council meeting 31. Participate in all-Fraternity/Sorority events (e.g. Fall Fiesta, A Week to GIVE, Up til Dawn) 32. Review parliamentary procedure and its purpose 33. Ask leadership experts to discuss issues such as motivation and group dynamics 34. Have new members take the Meyers-Briggs Personality Type Inventory and discuss 35. Ask a faculty member discuss ethical decision making 36. Ask a faculty member to facilitate a conversation on diversity in fraternities and sororities 37. Ask campus health educator to do a presentation on eating disorders or depression, etc. 38. Ask university police to discuss the prevention of violence against women

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


39. Ask campus fraternity/sorority advisors to describe what the college offers fraternities/sororities 40. Plan a philanthropy project for a local charity 41. Have a contest for who can recruit the most new members to join and reward the winner with a fully-paid membership badge or initiation fee 42. Members and new members make secret sisters/brothers gifts for each other 43. Discuss risk management and liability with the university counsel 44. Brainstorm ways to recruit new members to present to chapter 45. Have an all-campus or all-fraternity/sorority community Meet Our New Members Picnic 46. Have new members play on the chapter intramural team 47. Plant a new member class tree 48. Sponsor a big/little academic challenge with free textbooks to the winner 49. Have a candlelight/pass the gavel ceremony about what fraternity means to me 50. Have a senior student affairs administrator talk about history of fraternities/sororities at the institution 51. Brainstorm ways to improve scholarship (other than study hours) 52. Attend theatrical production or athletic event of the new members choosing 53. Ask the library to give a lecture on effective research methods 54. Attend a program or event another organization is sponsoring 55. Have a discussion about membership standards and expectations 56. Have a chapter goal-setting retreat 57. Ask new members to accompany members to regional leadership conferences 58. Attend the campus leadership conference or workshops 59. Deconstruct past hazing activity to determine intent and brainstorm alternatives 60. Write a letter to the founders to thank them for the opportunity (not to be shared) 61. Attend an Executive Board meeting 62. Have new members help Executive Board develop an icebreaker for each meeting 63. Develop a leadership wish list or time line of chapter and campus activities 64. Invite the fraternity/sorority awards or standards program chairman to speak about the program 65. Invite the Learning Center or Career Development Center to explain their services 66. Develop a faculty advisor appreciation gesture 67. Chapter and new members collaborate on a house improvement project. 68. Develop an event with a non-Greek organization that requires new members to ask student government for additional allocations or to apply for a campus grant. 69. Have new members develop a list of ways to end chapter motivation issues. 70. Ask the Mayor to discuss city issues and how the group can help. 71. Ask the Elections Commissioner to discuss politics in the city/county/nation. 72. Require members to register to vote. Give an incentive to those who do. 73. Require members below a 3.0 to attend a study skills program. 74. Develop a program that allows you to begin calling them new members rather than pledges. 75. Discuss the founding of the group and how the organization has evolved over time while maintaining the vision. If it hasnt, how can the group return to its roots? 76. Attend diversity programming offered by university and follow up with a reflection exercise to begin a dialogue on this important topic.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


77. Review the history of hazing, the evolution of new member education and the direction recruitment is headed. 78. Discuss the old way of pledging versus the new way with a panel of alumni, administrators and council officers. 79. Develop or co-sponsor a program or event with another sorority if youre a womens groups or a fraternity, if a mens group.. 80. Have a professional discuss the Millennial Generation and how groups can better recruit based on this research. 81. Offer a discount or reimbursement of part of the initiation fee if a new member completes Alternative Winter or Spring Break. Extra money if completes Fraternity/Sorority Alternative Spring Break. 82. Give highest new member GPA recipient a plaque or $25 gift certificate to nice restaurant. 83. New member who develops best recruitment plan (or scholarship plan) gets a free ____. 84. Ask Undergraduate Interfraternity Institute (UIFI) graduates to speak about lessons learned and opportunities to attend. 85. Do a chapter fundraiser to send a new member to the North-American Interfraternity Conferences FuturesQuest Program or UIFI. 86. Have a discussion about why new members wear pins and not members. 87. Attend New Member Workshop with the campus fraternity/sorority advisor. 88. Check a book out of the Fraternity/sorority life office resource library to read and have a chapter discussion about. 89. Allow new members time for themselves to do and be what they want. Dont monopolize their time. 90. Have a weekly forum for the new members to discuss their feelings. 91. Invite another group to develop a program to benefit the entire fraternity/sorority community. 92. Invite a Campus Fitness Specialist or Dietician to discuss dietary fads pros and cons. 93. Ask each member to list the offices/chairs they would be interested in. Have them list five things they would do differently about each. Compile results without names attached and have a constructive conversation. 94. Develop one memento of the new member class to present to the campus. 95. Eliminate the creation of new member class paddles, no matter their use. Theyre symbolic of hazing. Come up with an alternative. 96. Ask a professor to do a workshop on etiquette. 97. Have lunch together once a week in a dining hall with the entire sorority/fraternity. 98. Invite faculty advisor to new member meetings. 99. Visit the inter/national organizations headquarters. 100. Question each activity and evaluate the program each semester with the help of the advisor and campus fraternity/sorority advisor.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Appendix D Hazing Scenarios The scenarios below depict various possible hazing incidents and a variety of ways in which those incidents could be dealt with or responded to. These scenarios are provided for training purposes only, not to imply the right way to handle a hazing allegation. They can be used to facilitate discussions or create more detailed case studies to train students and staff members on hazing matters. It may be more useful in some campus communities to use these generic examples rather than a real incident from that campus. Using scenarios or case studies can be helpful tool in educating students and staff about what is or is not considered hazing, appropriate ways to respond to hazing allegations, and creative sanctions to hazing.
Organization NPC Sorority Allegation Dining Services contacts Office with printout that verifies new members are stealing food from dining hall the week before initiation. Dining Services contacts Office with printout that verifies 21 of 23 new members were at dining hall and claims when they were seen stealing food a week before initiation. Dining Services contacts Office with printout that verifies new members were seen stealing food a week before initiation. Investigation Method Intake meeting with Chapter President; President then meets with the New Member Class President and shares information. Although all deny any involvement, stealing stops. Intake meeting with Chapter President. President denies directing new members to do this, offers to meet with new members. New m embers pay for stolen items and write apology note. Intake meeting with Chapter President. President denies directing new members to do this, offers to pay for stolen food, have responsible new members perform community service, and review chapter code of conduct at next meeting. Intake Meeting with Chapter President. Regional Officer calls immediately to discuss and share concerns. Outcome Documentation of incident sent to President, Advisor and HQ; no sanctions.

NPC Sorority

Incident documented and copied to President, Advisor and HQ. No sanctions issued.

NIC Fraternity

Incident documented and copied to President, Advisor and HQ. No sanctions issued.

Latin Fraternity

Staff members at Dining Hall contact Office and inform us of new members seeing in uniform marching on line. New members are positively identified by using a print out of their meal card usage.

Regional Officer works with chapter to develop sanctions, which are approved by the office, so no further sanctions are created. Incident documented to President, Advisor and HQ.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Latin Fraternity

The Librarian contacts Office and asks Deans to come to library where new members are observed walking on line and in uniform. Residence Hall staff report that women are wearing uniforms.

Intake meeting with Chapter President Chapter admits responsibility

NPHC Sorority

Chapter is suspended by Regional Officer upon learning of allegation and conducts an internal investigation. Information is shared with Office.

Multicultural Sorority

Another member of the fraternity/sorority community observes new members marching on line in uniform across campus.

Chapter President denies all allegations.

Multicultural Sorority

Multicultural Sorority

NPHC Fraternity

A women pledging the sorority contacts Office and explains that she has been kicked out for not paying her dues. Woman states she dropped out of the new member program after having been hazed by members from another chapter. Office receives anonymous phone call alleging new members forced to exercise until 3:00am, not speak to others, dress alike and sleep in same room during pledging. Former New Member brings complaint that he was hazed with photographs of bruises.

Intake meeting with Chapter President. Chapter denies all allegations.

Educational program on hazing for all chapter members. Chapter placed on probation for a year. Documentation sent to President, Advisor and HQ. Both Regional Officer and Office conclude women were wearing step show uniforms. Chapter is cleared of any wrong doing, no sanctions are assessed. Incident documented to President, Advisor and HQ. Student who witnessed hazing agrees to participate in the Fraternity/Sorority Review Board Hearing as complainant. The Review Board was not able to determine if new members were being hazed or not so the chapter is found not responsible. Incident is documented to all parties. Complainant decides she does not want to file a formal complaint, so the issue is documented in writing to the sorority advisor and HQ, but no sanctions issued.

Intake meeting with Chapter President. President denies allegations, states she believes they are made by someone who recently quit new member program. Chapter President denies all allegations, states that the bruises were from Football.

With no complainant, incident is documented and sent to President, Advisor and HQ. No sanctions issued. Student drops complaint and transfers. Regional officer not responsive. Chapter placed on warning. Incident documented to all parties.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


NPC Sorority

NPC Sorority

NIC Fraternity

NPC Sorority

While speaking to a mother whose daughter recently dropped out of new member program, Office learns that new members had to do "interviews" had a curfew, had to all pass weekly exams or be forced to repeat new member education. New Member brings complaint to Office about hazing but is reluctant to serve as formal complainant. Office interviews woman who also turns over all her new member materials (calendar, handbook) which all prove allegations are true. New members inform office that they've been hazed by chapter and agree to participate in university hearing if necessary. Allegations include use of alcohol, loss of sleep, running errands, etc. During routine fire inspection by City Officials, Office called to sorority house. Upon inspection it is clear all new members are living in the basement prior to initiation.

Intake meeting with Chapter President. President states didn't know any of the activities were "real" hazing. Future meetings held to change program, worked in conjunction with Regional Advisor to get program back on track. Office contacts Regional Officer and shares all information with her. Office works with HQ to determine best way to proceed. Chapter members are interviewed, deny accusations, and are then shown how stories are inconsistent when interviews are compared. Chapter President/Officers deny all responsibility. Case is taken to university judicial board. Chapter and individual officers found responsible for hazing. Intake meeting with Chapter President and Regional Director present. Chapter accepts responsibility for violating numerous portions of Hazing Policy and offers sanctions.

Mother and daughter refused to file formal complaint. No sanctions are filed due to the swift action taken by the Regional Advisor to set the program in the right direction. Incident is documented to President, Advisor and HQ. Chapter given last opportunity to admit responsibility. Officers admit responsibility and then offer sanctions. Sanctions are determined in conjunction with the HQ, chapter is placed on probation for a year. Incident documented to all parties. Sanctions determined by judicial board include probation; sanctions for individual officers include probation and service. Incident documented to all parties. New Member program was immediately suspended upon discovery. Sanctions are agreed to by Regional Officer and Office. Sanctions are educationally based and force chapter to work more closely with Regional Officer. Chapter placed on probation for a year. Incident documented to President, Advisor and HQ.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Appendix E Hazing-Related Resources BOOKS

Be My Sorority Sister-Under Pressure by Dorrie Williams-Wheeler, Dorrie Wheeler; (November 2003) Black Greek 101: The Culture, Customs, and Challenges of Black Fraternities and Sororities by Walter M. Kimbrough, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press; (August 2003) Black Haze: Violence, Sacrifice, and Manhood in Black Greek-Letter Fraternities by Ricky L. Jones, State University of New York Press; (February 2004) Broken Pledges: The Deadly Rite of Hazing by Hank Nuwer, Longstreet Press, Inc.; (August 1990) Bullies and Cowards: The West Point Hazing Scandal: 1898-1901 by Philip W. Leon, Greenwood Press; (1999) College and Society: An Introduction to the Sociological Imagination by Stephen Sweet, Pearson Education; (January 2001) Contains an excellent chapter on hazing in colleges. Courtney's Legacy: A Father's Journey by George Cantor, Cooper Square Press; (2001) Dogs are Barking by Mark Taylor,. Irrepressible Press; (February 2001) - Hazing in the Australian military. Examining Hazing Edited by Hank Nuwer Collected edition of essays by top hazing experts, educators, sociologists, and psychologists. Goat: A Memoir by Brad Land, Random House; 1st edition (February 2004) The Hazing Reader edited by Hank Nuwer, Indiana University Press; (September 2003) High School Hazing: When Rites Become Wrongs by Hank Nuwer, Scholastic Library Publishing; (March 2000) New Challenges for Greek Letter Organizations: Transforming Fraternities and Sororities into Learning Communities New Directions for Student Services Series by Edward G. Whipple (Editor), John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; (March 1998) The Pledge by Rob Kean, Warner Books; (July 2000) Pledge Brothers by Walter "Big Walt" Anderson, Milk & Honey Publishing; (2001) Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities by Alexandra Robbins, Hyperion; (April 2004) Torn Togas: The Dark Side of Campus Greek Life by Esther Wright, Fairview Press; (July 1996) Wrongs of Passage by Hank Nuwer, Indiana University Press; Reprint edition (January 2002)

AFA Newsclips This listserv distributes news articles and press releases relevant to fraternity/sorority issues. This is an AFA members only resource. Stop ( Athletes Abusing Athletes - Athletic Hazing takes place in high schools and colleges all around the country

Demythologizing the Animal House The Real Meaning of Greek Life Will Keim address the freshmen pledges at Oregon State University. He provides statistics, facts, and opinions of the Greek System as a National Organization. He sites alcohol, sex, and hazing as the three barriers to the success of the Greek System. No longer available for sale. Frat Daze Frat Daze is a shocking tell-all FEATURE-LENGTH MOVIE about friends that possess a burning desire to pledge a glorified fraternity - all inspired by actual events! To order, go to

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


Friendly Fire by Beck & Co. Discusses the consequences of hazing and appropriate alternatives. This video takes a very hip and eclectic, yet dramatic approach to this serious topic. Available in both male and female versions. Hazed and Confused Changing the Varsity Initiation Culture To order this video, contact Jay Johnson at 905-5225365 or email for more information. The Hazing MTI Home Video, the leading independent home entertainment studio, along with their Studio Partner, Redrum Entertainment, will release THE HAZING, about a group of college students who plan to initiate new frat members in a possessed home with other plans! THE HAZING will be available on VHS and DVD on September 14, 2004 (prebook August 26, 2004). Available at Hazing: A Greek Tragedy with Eileen Stevens. Listen to the moving words of a mother whose son died in a fraternity hazing incident. Eileen Stevens, a leading authority and speaker on hazing, relates her story to a group of college fraternity and sorority members. Available at Unless a Death Occurs Created by Mountain Lake PBS. Available at AFA members receive a discount use order form on AFA website.

Position Statements, Resolutions & Expectations of Hazing: AFA FEA NIC under About the NIC NPC NPHC Information on the subject of hazing: a comprehensive website on the topic of hazing. - Informative site promoting sound risk management polices and practices for member organizations and all Greek letter groups. - Menstuff has compiled information, books, and resources on the issue of hazing in high-school and college. - Hank Nuwers unofficial clearinghouse to track hazing deaths and incidents. - This is a website created by the Hazing group of Interactive Media (Journalism 451) at the University of Nevada, Reno. Provides information on the topic of hazing in various groups. Resources - US Coast Guard Hazing Awareness Training Tool - Provides links to hazing resources. - Provides listing of anti-hazing resources. - Doug Fierberg is a partner in the firm of Bode & Grenier, LLP specializing in trial and appellate matters, using his expertise and the extensive resources in his firm to successfully resolve claims nationwide involving wrongful death, personal injury, hazing, sexual assault, commercial and other civil disputes. Studies

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


National Survey: Initiation Rites and Athletics for NCAA Sports Teams, Published by Alfred University, August 1999 - Initiation Rites in American High Schools: A National Survey, Published by Alfred University, August 2000

Judge Mitch Crane Perception vs. Reality: Risk Management for Greeks Stop Hazing, Build Lifelong Friendships A Tort is Not a Cake Building Better Brothers and Sisters Dr. Mari Ann Callais Between Me and You: The Importance of Fraternity and Sorority Ritual in Our Lives New Members: Do They Really Get It How Does Hazing Happen in My Chapter T.J. Sullivan Confronting the Idiot in Your Chapter Rick Barnes Values in Action: Improving Your Greek Community Hazing: When Will it End
The above

speakers are available for booking through CAMPUSPEAK (;; 303-745-5545) Elizabeth Allan, Ph.D and Brian Rahill Cofounders of They can be contacted at Douglas E. Fierberg An attorney who speaks on the legal aspects of hazing and liability issues related to hazing. He can be contacted by email at or 202-828-4100 voice/ 202-828-4130 fax. Will Keim Speaks on a variety of issues facing college students. He can be contacted by email at or 800-848-3897 / 541-758-5658 fax. Hank Nuwer Author of numerous books on hazing. He can be contacted through representative, Jayne Moore, at Contemporary Issues Agency at 800-843-2179 or Dr. Thomas Sparky Reardon Dean of Students, University of Mississippi. He can be contacted at or 662-9155056. Rita Saucier Started the anti-hazing organization, Cease Hazing Activities and Deaths (C.H.A.D.), after the death of her son, Chad, as a result of hazing. She can be contacted at Richard B. Sigal Retired professor of Sociology that taught in colleges for 37 years. Offers anti-hazing workshops and presentations to colleges and high schools in New Jersey. He can be contacted by email at or 201-317-8164 or 973-729-7441. Dave Westol Attorney and Executive Director of Theta Chi Fraternity. He can be contacted by email at Dr. John A. Williams Founder and Executive Director of the Center for the Study of Pan-Hellenic Issues. He can be contacted at or or 610-399-2386.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005


CAMPUSPEAK - FACILITATED CAP (Campus Anti-Hazing Program) This day-long retread is designed to help students and administrators openly talk about hazing. The goals of the program are to provide a safe atmosphere for students and administrators to discuss hazing, to provide a setting in which to explore perceptions and evaluate how they impact the community's ability to effectively deal with this problem on campus, and to provide resources, and a starting point, for campus community members to work together within their organizations as well as the larger campus community to stop hazing. NIC - FACILITATED IMPACT (Influence*Motivation*Purpose*Action*Community*Trust) A campus-based leadership institute for fraternity & sorority leaders that encourages participants to take responsibility for planning their future, addressing community issues, renewing their fraternal spirit & commitment, and learning the leadership skills necessary to accomplish their goals. UIFI (Undergraduate Interfraternity Institute) A program helping fraternity & sorority leaders transform their communities through values based action for 15 years. NIC - EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES Beginning as a Community New Member Program A complete workshop guide for developing a new member program for the entire community. Everything that you need to host a successful program is included in the resource. A must have for IFC New Member Officers, Traveling Consultants, and Campus Advisors. Breaking Down Hazing and Building Up Brotherhood This hazing resource offers four main components to combat and address hazing. It offers definitions of hazing and helps address why it is wrong. It contains a workshop outline to help leaders hold discussions about eliminating hazing. It provides activities that replace hazing activities in a chapter. Brotherhood Building Ideas; (1st & 2nd ed.) How can you build trust, rapport, respect and unity without hazing? Proven answers are found in each booklet containing over 50 non-hazing, meaningful and fun activities for brotherhood development. Our Chapter, Our Choice Our Chapter, Our Choice (OCOC) is a peer-facilitated program designed to empower fraternities to examine and redefine individual and chapter norms. Several modules of OCOC exist for various areas of chapter operations including alcohol/other drug misuse and abuse/risk management, facility management, hazing, recruitment, motivation, scholarship, and violence. Our Chapter, Our Choice Complete Training Set Includes 2nd edition video, one manual for each module, an OCOC program overview manual and 10 buttons. NPC -FACILITATED Something of Value The Something of Value program is an initiative solely of the National Panhellenic Conference. It is a values-based approach to risk management education for collegians. The day-long program is led by a traveling team of NPC representatives and an attorney with NPC affiliation. Program format includes group discussions of values, a mock trial, and teaching confrontation skills. Participants identify risky behaviors such as abusive relationships, substance abuse, academic dishonesty, eating disorders, financial mismanagement, hazing, harassment, personal safety concerns, and other issues specific to their campus environment. Action plans are developed and collegians are empowered to followthrough.

Association of Fraternity Advisors, Issues in Focus August 2005