Opinion: Students should be informed of Chi Phi’s hazing history

I n the spring of 2014, the president of UNC’s chapter of Chi Phi appeared before the Interfraternity Council’s Greek Judicial Board to accept responsibility for five violations brought against the chapter by the board.

Four of the policies pertained to alcohol. The fifth pertained to the use of “paddling, whipping, beating, branding and exposure to any form of physical duress” during new member education events. The University would be a safer and healthier place if students could better understand exactly what violation or violations occurred that fell under the purview of this catch-all provision.

Chi Phi’s UNC chapter is currently under investigation by the University’s Standards Review Board, which, unlike the IFC’s judicial board, can consider patterns of action stretching over multiple years. The chapter was also sanctioned by its national and local alumni boards this spring.

Historically, specific information on acts of hazing has been recorded by the IFC Greek Judicial Board and posted to its website, but no hearing files have been posted since 2012.

In response to questions regarding their violations, Chi Phi members referred the editorial board to a national spokesman, who said he did not recall the specific nature of the violations, but believed they would be better classified as “physical duress” than paddling, whipping, beating or branding.

After providing the editorial board with a copy of the outcomes from its May hearing, the Greek Judicial Board referred the editorial board to the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life for further clarification.

Aaron Bachenheimer, director of the office, declined to comment about the board’s hearing because he was not present. He said that clarifying the exact nature of Chi Phi’s offense would perpetuate the pernicious belief that there are gradations in acceptability regarding hazing.

While Bachenheimer is correct that all hazing is unacceptable, his preference for not releasing more detailed information about violations committed by specific chapters is unhelpful.

Those rushing Chi Phi — or any other organization — should have easily available information at their disposal as to what exactly the organization has been found guilty of in the past. This will help them make more informed and safer decisions about the organization they wish to join.

Furthermore, specific information about past hazing violations could benefit members involved in the groups under scrutiny. As long as UNC students cannot easily determine what Chi Phi has admitted responsibility for, the ugly churn of the rumor mill will continue, potentially slandering the members unfairly.

Any institution wishing to improve itself must tolerate the sting of disinfectant that transparency provides. Chi Phi’s members, advisory board and national organization should have publicly announced months ago the details of any violations its members committed. And if they continue electing not to, the University and the IFC should step in to compel them to do so.