Opinion: New methods are needed to address hazing on campus

I t is too soon to opine on allegations that the football team hazed a player, but now is the perfect opportunity for all University stakeholders to engage in a broader dialogue on hazing.

The University should convene a working group modeled after its sexual assault task force to catalyze this conversation.

Such a task force would need to tackle the Herculean feats of reviewing and reforming the procedures for handling hazing complaints and of issuing recommendations on changing the campus culture that too often tolerates the crime.

Currently, multiple bodies, including the police, the Office of Student Conduct, the Honor System and the Greek Judicial Boards exercise concurrent jurisdiction over hazing allegations.

North Carolina’s definition of hazing myopically concentrates on physical acts. Given this and the difficulty of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, hazing is underreported to legal authorities.

Both the Honor System and the Greek Judicial Boards can hear hazing complaints, yet it is not clear that either is equipped to do so. They sensibly define hazing as an act “that causes or permits an individual, with or without consent, to engage in activities that subject that individual or others to risks of physical injury, mental distress or personal indignities of a highly offensive nature...”

The Honor System offers extensive due process protections to groups accused of conduct violations and has the flexibility to impose a broad array of sanctions on offending groups. Harsh punishments alone will not prevent hazing, which in all its gradations runs from inappropriate bonding to a violent crime. The court should signal that the University will not tolerate hazing by opting for the most strident sanctions warranted.

It should also capitalize on the fact that groups are not protected by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and announce its findings on convicted groups with the names of individuals redacted. This transparency will make for a safer University. Ultimately, the University should consider if it is appropriate for the Honor Court to hear hazing cases at all.

Hazing is not exclusively a Greek issue, but almost twenty percent of the student body is Greek, and hazing is a habitual concern within Greek chapters.

Their boards do many things well. Their lower evidentiary standards are well-suited for handling complaints that are often made anonymously or by concerned third parties, and the Interfraternity Council judiciary board has started more consistently and appropriately sanctioning offending members.

But has the board accelerated the evolution of its member chapters fast enough? If not, how can the University help it eradicate hazing faster? Furthermore, can an institution composed solely of elected representatives from its constituent parts ever be a neutral arbiter of justice? These are questions for the task force to answer. Meanwhile, the path for Greek students eager to enhance the safety and well-being of their members is clear: they must unequivocally oppose hazing.

The task force could spend years reviewing and altering its procedures for handling hazing cases, but such reactive action will never be sufficient. To eradicate hazing the University must eliminate the vestiges of traditionalism and cruelty that permit its continuation. For more input on how to do so, it should solicit the perspectives of experts from other universities and from all walks of campus life. Such a cultural shift would reap huge dividends elsewhere on campus, likely augmenting ongoing efforts to mitigate binge drinking and end sexual assault.

Students need not wait to stop hazing. Groups contain individuals, and all Tar Heels must take full responsibility for their actions.