1

Assignment 5: Legal Memo

Citlali Yanez Sanchez

Seattle University

SDAD 5800: Higher Education Law

Dr. Brendon K. Taga, Ph.D., J.D.

March 9, 2022
2

Introduction
Hazing has, wrongly, been a common practice in higher education, used mainly within
student organizations. According to Stop Hazing (2020), hazing is defined as an activity that is
expected of something to join or participate in a group or organization. These activities can lead
to humiliation, abuse, or harm of the individual. Most often, these are done without the
individual’s willingness to participate. Although institutions have policies surrounding hazing,
there are many issues and misleading information in these policies. This legal memo will identify
these issues and analyze proposed bills that are still in progress.
Summary of the Problem
Hazing overall is a problem in institutions of higher education. Nonetheless, hazing can
be eliminated if laws and policies were stricter with the consequences and provided the correct
support and education. Even when institutions have policies on hazing, the problem continues to
be present and neither the state nor the institution emphasizes the importance of these policies
and the consequences that can come if hazing is practiced. Why do institutions not emphasize
hazing and its consequences for all students?
After years of having hazing policies, it continues to be used by students in higher
education. In November 2019, Sam Martinez was a freshman at Washington State University
who was looking into joining a fraternity but doing so led to his unfortunately death (Mikkelsen,
2022). Martinez’s death was the result of alcohol poisoning, caused by hazing to become part of
the organization. Even after hazing caused the death of an individual, the students involved only
received a couple of days in jail and probation, which shows that hazing isn’t taken seriously by
the institution or the law. Fortunately, this led to action and the introduction of two House Bills
that could make a difference.
Summary of Analysis
Based on the analysis I have done on the institutional policies and two new House Bills,
there is a lot more to hazing that needs to be done. I have concluded that institutions of higher
education need to continue formulating a hazing policy that is clearer and hoping the state passes
these bills that can make an action plan for institutions and include true consequences regarding
hazing. The development of these House Bills can better target hazing policies and contribute to
the elimination of hazing in a more educational way. However, if the institutions and
administrators don’t contribute, we will not see any changes.
Overview of the Law
Context of Current Law and Policy
Currently, there are not many laws surrounding hazing in higher education, but most or
all institutions have policies on their websites. Taking for example the University of Washington
(2021) campus hazing policy, it clearly states that hazing is prohibited, defines hazing as
activities with a list of characteristics, and the approach taken if student organizations and
members participate in hazing. Most higher education institutions will have a similar hazing
policy stated on their website. The wording of each is different and they all have their strengths
and weaknesses. Many are unclear, causing confusion for students and others reading through
the policy.
Proposal and Analysis
Recent Legal Developments
As previously mentioned, there are a few working laws and policies regarding hazing in
higher education institutions. From the hazing situation at Washington State University, House
Bill 1751 and House Bill 1758 were proposed (Washington State Legislature, 2022). HB 1751 is
3

an act related to hazing prevention and reduction at higher education institutions. This HB has
recently passed both the House and Senate and is currently waiting for the Governor’s action. On
the hand, HB 1758 is still in the House Committee, meaning it has not moved forward much and
still in the introduction stages. If passed, HB 1758 would increase the penalty individuals receive
for practicing hazing.
Analyze the Current Law or Policy and the Legal Development
As stated, there isn’t an enacted law concerning hazing but rather institutional policies.
These policies have strengths and weakness, as well as do the new bills that in progress. Using
the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) method, I will focus my analysis
on the HB 1751 because it is the one that has the most information as it has further progress and
is close to being enacted in Washington State.
The strengths with HB 1751 are many, starting with it being a bill that will state clearly
what hazing is and what institutions of higher education need to be doing to better support anti-
hazing policies. For starters, HB 1751 states in detail the activities that would be considered
hazing. Another strength is that it will prohibit hazing on campus and outside of campus, if the
students and organization are part of the institution, all hazing will be punishable. The bill will
also pertain to both private and public institutions regardless of their own policies. A third
strength with HB 1751 is the educational programs for student and parents on hazing and its
danger. There are many students who might not be able to identify hazing and consider the
actions severe. Having an educational program on hazing can lead to students being more aware
in case they experience it; it can be more encouraging to report.
A major weakness with HB 1751 is that it includes all student organizations within the
definition of hazing, but in other sections only refers to social fraternities and sororities as the
ones practicing it. It can be misleading when a law or policy says one thing and then another.
Although the bill does include all student organization, only fraternities and sororities are
required to provide specific requirements to the institution, as if only they participate in hazing.
Even when hazing is most often seen in fraternity and sorority activities, hazing can happen
within other organizations and groups of students. Therefore, it is important to use the right
wording in policies so it becomes clear, otherwise it can become a threat for the institution if a
student outside of Greek organizations practices hazing.
HB 1751 provides the opportunity for higher education institutions to establish a more
clear and strict policy regarding hazing. It also brings in the opportunity to educate students,
family members, staff, faculty, and other campus stakeholders that can benefit from learning
more about the danger behind hazing. Through a hazing educational program, students and
parents are given the chance to learn and identify hazing circumstances if it ever happened. In
educating staff and faculty and other campus members, there is opportunity to understand and
provide better support, which can lead to the elimination of hazing.
The threat with HB 1751 is that by reporting the accident, the institution might be
violating other policies. What happens when the student(s) that are involved in such incident
don’t want to be known or are too traumatized to deal with the repercussions this could bring?
Reporting and making the organization’s name public isn’t the issue, but rather the students
within it being harassed or threated for taking part in these actions which can lead to mental and
physical harms. As for the student(s) who experienced being hazed, they might not be in the right
state to be put through more. There is a lot to take into consideration when it comes to making
these issues public, because although it would be good for others to know who practices hazing,
it might also affect the health and wellbeing of those and other students.
4

Conclusion
As we can see, there is a lot of work that can be done concerning hazing policies in
higher education. Although there are bills that hopefully become start in action this upcoming
academic year, they might bring issues for the institution but there also a lot of prominent details
to consider and put into practice. Hazing is a topic that most students don’t touch on and usually
aren’t educated on, which can lead to not recognizing when it happens. Even when professionals
should be aware of the dangerous of hazing, there shouldn’t be such expectation when the
institution isn’t doing their part to better prepare their employees. Reconsidering hazing policies
and educating everyone on campus can be the start to the elimination of hazing.
5

References
Mikkelsen, D. (2022, January 13). 'Sam's law,' named after WSU student, would strengthen
penalties for hazing-related deaths. King5.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/sams-law-sam-martinez-wsu-student-alcohol-
poisoning-penalties-hazing-related-deaths/281-8b52b5d9-4e4d-4cd2-a1a2-756cc951e690

Stop Hazing. (2020, November 10). Washington anti-hazing law.

https://stophazing.org/policy/state-laws/washington/

University of Washington. (2021, January 7). Hazing.

https://hub.washington.edu/get-involved/sao/rso-benefits-training-policies/rso-policy-
guide/hazing/#:~:text=The%20University%20of%20Washington%20prohibits,values
%20to%20compromise%20or%20ridicule.

Washington State Legislature. (2022, January 4). House Bill 1751.

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/Biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1751.pdf

Washington State Legislature. (2022, January 4). House Bill 1758.

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2021-
22/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/1758.pdf?q=20220312150022