As hundreds of thousands of students prepare to return to college campuses this fall, fraternal organizations across the country will begin welcoming new members through the kinds of structured initiation processes that have defined collegiate life for generations. And at institution after institution, administrators will be watching them.
School administrators, more abundant and challenged than ever before, will be on the lookout for hazing in an effort to safeguard students’ health and wellness while curbing university liability. This is important, but some, in an attempt to find infractions of ever-expanding university codes of conduct, end up deciding that mandatory study sessions, required professional dress, and organized Bible study should be investigated as possible violations.
With wide disciplinary latitude, these administrators can deem practically any expectation a fraternal organization places on its members as dangerous and thus define it as hazing. In doing so, they have watered down the very definition of the word, patently undermining real strides made in recent years to protect students from harm.
This definitional creep is well-documented. Some university policies across the country now define hazing to include anything a “reasonable person” might find “demeaning, uncomfortable, or embarrassing,” regardless of a student’s willingness to participate. Some extend the definition to any activity causing “psychological discomfort” connected with membership — language capacious enough to encompass a dress code for chapter events or participation in study hours. Administrators who classify these activities as hazing alongside actual harms like forced alcohol consumption and unwelcome physical contact are not drawing a brighter line against hazing but instead are erasing the only line that matters.
The Definition Creep of College Hazing
As hundreds of thousands of students prepare to return to college campuses this fall, fraternal organizations across the country will begin welcoming new members through the kinds of structured initiation processes that have defined collegiate life for generations. And at institution after institution, administrators will be watching them.
School administrators, more abundant and challenged than ever before, will be on the lookout for hazing in an effort to safeguard students’ health and wellness while curbing university liability. This is important, but some, in an attempt to find infractions of ever-expanding university codes of conduct, end up deciding that mandatory study sessions, required professional dress, and organized Bible study should be investigated as possible violations.
With wide disciplinary latitude, these administrators can deem practically any expectation a fraternal organization places on its members as dangerous and thus define it as hazing. In doing so, they have watered down the very definition of the word, patently undermining real strides made in recent years to protect students from harm.
This definitional creep is well-documented. Some university policies across the country now define hazing to include anything a “reasonable person” might find “demeaning, uncomfortable, or embarrassing,” regardless of a student’s willingness to participate. Some extend the definition to any activity causing “psychological discomfort” connected with membership — language capacious enough to encompass a dress code for chapter events or participation in study hours. Administrators who classify these activities as hazing alongside actual harms like forced alcohol consumption and unwelcome physical contact are not drawing a brighter line against hazing but instead are erasing the only line that matters.
Related Posts
The Definition Creep of College Hazing
The ‘Toxic’ Male Tradition That Could Be Exactly What Young Men Need