|
Opinion Guest
Column
Reprinted
with Permission of author from Oct. 20 NCAA News
Why NCAA Faculty Reps Should Loudly Ban Hazing: A Friendly
Nudge
By Hank Nuwer, Franklin College and Indiana University
School of Journalism (IUPUI)
Thanks to the
NCAA and Alfred University in 1999, the public and educators
such as myself who write about hazing have a clearer idea
of how prevalent hazing is in the culture of student athletes.
Nearly 80 percent of all athletes admitted submitting to
some sort of initiation ritual, and numerous athletes said
that alcohol, nudity, sexual simulation, hitting, and even
improper sexual touching were part of their rookie experience.
The term “initiation,” of course, was the euphemism
that was used far more often than the term “hazing,” but
that study gave a clear definition of hazing. To wit], hazing
is "any humiliating or dangerous activity expected of
[athletes] to join a group, regardless of [their] willingness
to participate.”
That study was
groundbreaking, and it has had an impact. Long resistant
to any survey that revealed the extent to which fraternities
and sororities in their midst, national Greek organizations
now have permitted a University of Maine professor to conduct
a survey similar to the NCAA’s
to assess how problematic hazing is in Greek groups. The
only way to effectively combat a problem is to know how big
or small that problem is. All else is unacceptable speculation
and guesswork.
Moreover, the Greek world, under the direction of such
educational entities as the Association Of Fraternity Advisers,
has taken the unprecedented step of organizing a task force
composed of its most senior members to brainstorm ways to
end the hazing activities that have seen at least one death
(often many deaths) every year from 1970 to 2004.
And, on November
9, the AFA and partner groups sponsored a National Hazing
Prevention Symposium at Purdue University. Invited participants
included Mary Wilfert of the NCAA and Elliott Hopkins of
the National Federation of State High School Associations.
In effect, what we had was the first attempt for fraternal
groups to partner with athletic groups, antihazing activist
groups, educators and hazing researchers to see if there
is common ground to attack hazing’s
more lethal practices in an attempt to end the degradation,
abuse, and occasional carnage.
I am, at this
time, asking NCAA faculty representatives to do three things,
and I am asking this as a faculty member in the spirit
of collegiality. You’ve got a split infinitive
in the first part of this sentence.
The first is to find a way to authorize a follow-up study
to the 1999 NCAA study to give the public a comparative study
to let hazing researchers know whether hazing is on the rise,
decline, or has stabilized. The immediate pressing need for
such a study is for researchers and the public to gain insight
into the 70 or more incidents of sexual hazing allegations
and/or convictions that have tarnished high school athletics
since 1995. (College sexual incidents have been far less
numerous, but still problematic due to their traumatic effect
on victims).
The second is for faculty athletic reps to find a way to
authorize the NCAA to act in the best interests of collegiate
education by launching anti-hazing educational programs on
a national scale.
Such a campaign would include 15 or 30-second public announcements
by prominent NCAA coaches and athletes that send the message
that hazing is all about abuse, not discipline. In the 1920s,
deaths caused by freshman-sophomore physical hazing activities
were the most common form of hazing death. At that time,
the voices of prominent college athletes such as Branch McCracken
(later Indiana basketball coach) made it clear that hazing
was wrong and cowardly. Following the 1920s, only one freshman-sophomore
death ever happened again.
Public announcements by high-status athletes would not
only be heard by other collegiate athletes and coaches, but
also by Greeks and high-school athletes who might heed such
a clarion call for an end to hazing abuses. Such a message
certainly is absent in professional sports where, reinforced
by sensational media coverage, non-criminal but silly hazing
initiations are perceived by the public to be the norm, if
not actually the reality. (No survey of professional athletes
has ever been attempted, of course).
The third is for
a collective statement by NCAA faculty representatives
that hazing is at best unethical, and at its worst, criminal
or potentially malicious—particularly
when alcohol is consumed during initiations. The alternative
to hazing, recommended by the NCAA-Alfred study in 1999,
is that each school find welcoming and positive ways to bring
first-year players into the fold. Such schools as the University
of Michigan now incorporate anti-hazing educational programming
into larger educational programming aimed at team captains.
What’s
NCAA faculty reps need offer now is not only guidance but
action. Hazing policies alone won’t end
the problem. What’s needed is a collective societal
push to say that hazing has no place in our schools, and
by extension, in our sports programs.
What I would hate
to see happen is another scenario: that a highly regarded
male or female athlete in high-profile program will die “accidentally” in
an initiation. As a cautionary red flag, let us recall that
in October 2004, two Sandwich High School (Mass.) football
players are facing felony charges after a rookie teammate
lost his spleen in a hazing. Under the intense media pressure
now facing the University of Oklahoma and University of Colorado after
alcohol-related pledging-related deaths, the NCAA will be
forced to respond to public and media pressures by banning
hazing.
That scenario need not take place.
The NCAA has enough power
and status to lend its collective faculty voices to back
its individual member institutions and fraternal groups
now partnering to end hazing.
Let us keep three past incidents
in mind.
When University
of Vermont hockey players clutched each other’s genitals and drank beer their teammates had
dipped testicles into, the blame focused on UVM’s president
and arguably was a contributing factor to her departure.
When Minnesota-Duluth rookie rugby player Ken Christiansen
died, literally dead drunk, after falling into a creek en
route home, the buck of blame stopped with three officers
of the rugby club there. When the University of Oklahoma
female soccer team, in the presence of a coach according
to court documents, required a player allegedly and graphically
to simulate oral sex, the matter wound up in the courts.
But sooner or
later, the public and media almost certainly will eventually
decide, should an egregious hazing incident or high-profile
hazing death occur, that blame should settle on the NCAA
because a criminal or willful act occurred on the NCAA’s watch. All it will take is the hardly unlikely
spectacle one vocal outraged and grieving parent to ask the
media to assess what NCAA faculty representatives have actually
done to prevent hazing for the NCAA’s lack of a truly
comprehensive anti-hazing risk management to become abundantly
clear.
Don’t believe it? Eventually, military hazing
ended up square on the gold-barred shoulders of the Pentagon’s
brass. Eventually, scores of deaths in individual fraternities
ended up with the governing National Interfraternity Conference
(NFC) head facing hard, hard questions from microphone-bearing
national reporters from all the evening news programs.
Right
now, absolutely no media or public pressure is on the NCAA.
The
right thing can be done quietly and with the satisfaction
of all faculty reps knowing that they’ve done so out
of a sense of sportsmanship and fair play and a concern for
student-athletes, not because of outside pressures.
In the
NCAA’s Mary Wilfert, you have a dedicated
professional who works hard to educate herself on such matters
as hazing research. In your 1999 study, you have contributed
immeasurably to hazing research.
But you can do more, honorable
Faculty Reps.
In my opinion, you MUST do more.
Athletic hazing can end.
The buck, and abuse, can stop with your help.
|