New
Federal Antihazing Proposal Needs Input
Point-of-view by Hank Nuwer
A bill has been introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives that
would deny Federal student financial assistance to college students who haze.
Simply stated, the H.R.
1207 bill needs debate at the committee level,
notwithstanding the bill’s good intentions to halt hazing deaths,
injuries, and mental distress.
The title of H.R. 1207 reads: “To amend the Higher Education Act of
1965 to withhold Federal student financial assistance from students who
have engaged in hazing, and for other purposes.”
Little in the bill introduced March 11, 2003, by Rep. Diane E. Watson
[CA-33] resembles hazing laws passed at the state level.
I’d urge lawmakers to be very much in agreement on a definition of
hazing before passing this or any other bill that calls for punishment
of hazers. Evidence presented by Alfred University researchers Norm Pollard
and Nadine Hoover demonstrates that student athletes usually are unclear
when hazing has occurred. The Initiation Rites and Athletics national survey
found that 80 percent of all athletes acknowledged going through hazing
behaviors,
while only 12 percent believed they had experienced hazing.
In the past, at the state level, too much emotion and too little considered
debate have led to hazing laws that fail to measure up when an actual case
occurs.
I would urge all parties associated with this bill to make sure that no
ad hominem appeals to the emotions are allowed. This bill, after all,
follows
on the heels of the drowning deaths of two female pledges in California.
Some of the stronger laws such as New York State’s have come about
because impending legislation was fully debated by legislators and the bill’s
advocates before passage of a workable compromise bill. Right now the 43
states that have hazing laws are about evenly divided as to whether the
apparent willing participation of a hazing victim should be taken into
account when
assessing civil or criminal accountability.
Here is how I feel. If the national hazing bill merely requires schools
to add hazing crimes and disciplinary cases to the list of reportable
campus
crimes, I’m in favor of it. But make that a separate bill and don’t
complicate it with punitive measures involving federal aid.
Any attempt to make all of us more informed on the true risks our collegians
face by posting crimes as Clery legislation mandates is a worthy goal.
Even so, there will need to be procedural questions before a stripped-down
bill
can be passed, but I think those issues can be ironed out with civil discourse
and input from Security on Campus.
However, if the “and for other purposes” clause in the bill’s
title could be interpreted as a legal end-around to shut down Greek collegiate
organizations on state campuses by those philosophically or politically opposed
to fraternities, I’d oppose the bill as infringing on “free association” freedoms.
I attended a State University of New York college at a time when the SUNY
chancellor expelled all national fraternities and sororities from its many
campuses, giving rise to local chapters such as my own that had no guidance
from national headquarters to combat demeaning, and potentially dangerous
hazing activities.
My editorial stance on hazing has been to punish the guilty chapters to
the full extent of the law or the full extent of the school’s legal
recourses, but not to also punish the innocent by throwing all Greek
groups off campus
for the actions of some.
I have problems with a bill that would mandate the Department of Education
(or other federal agency) to deprive young people of financial aid to education
as a punishment for hazing. It unduly punishes students from a lower socioeconomic
class and is unlikely to deter wealthier hazers. It also may punish hazing
victims who consented to some acts of hazing, and it might actually cause
victims to reconsider reporting hazing if they themselves might lose federal
funds.
What would I urge Rep. Watkins to do instead? I’d urge her to find
congressional support for the U.S. General Accounting Office to take a close
and careful examination of inequities, weaknesses and strengths in existing
state hazing laws. That’s been needed for years.
For me, education about hazing is as important or more important than having
laws in place against hazing. Those members and leaders of such student
groups who are forewarned can make the right choices and right judgments
about troubling
issues involving hazing, alcohol misuse, and misuse of power over subordinates
or new/junior members. The law might also punish those honest enough to
admit past hazing, while allowing those who lie about such practices
to skate.
Don’t get me wrong. I support expulsion and suspension for all criminal
hazing at the collegiate level, along with other sanctions doled out to chapters
or individual by national Greek headquarters. But once those hazers have
learned a lesson and become former hazers, do we then deprive them of the
chance to redeem themselves and turn their lives around? I’d remind
all that many of us most fervently opposed to hazing have come to that
position out of firsthand repugnance caused by things we have seen and
done. Reformers
with a Greek background were instrumental in getting antihazing legislation
passed in Nevada, Arizona, New Hampshire, and Colorado.
Across-the-board deprivation of federal aid for a scavenger hunt in which
no one was hurt is nothing less than a Draconian measure. Taking federal
aid away
from those who participated in a ritual where someone died may, upon debate,
be found to have merit. Taking federal aid away from a hazing victim may
cause more harm than good.
Whether you agree or disagree with my stance, please let your views be
known. Discuss this bill with others: your Greek adviser, your coach,
your college’s
administrators, your family.
Write your local Representative. <http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm>
Send copies to Security on Campus http://www.securityoncampus.org/aboutsoc/contact.html
and Stophazing.org. info@stophazing.org
