Imagine being stripped down to your underwear and having all of your blemishes and insecurities pointed out to you. Imagine being forced to partake in household duties and treated like a personal servant. Or even imagine being forced to drink alcohol until you are not physically capable anymore. It is hard to believe that someone would do these things to their worst enemy, let alone their fraternity brother or sorority sister. Since 1000 CE, the act of hazing has been a tradition held by numerous different organizations to help build the unity of the group as well as differentiate the weak members from the strong ones. While hazing can oftentimes be excused as a rite of passage, the alcohol and harmful pranks forced upon pledges sometimes leads to hospitalization and even death. It can be argued that while the members of these organizations doing the hazing are the ones mainly at fault, the university policy makers and government officials who make laws pertaining to hazing are the ones that primarily prolong the vicious cycle. By looking at university rules and state laws for Greek organizations, we see that the policies are oftentimes vague and unproductive, which tells us that the only way to put an end to hazing in Greek life is by concretely defining hazing at the university and state level as well as strengthening the policies and laws to have definitive consequences.

While it seems like a pretty well known topic, it is important that we thoroughly define what hazing is before we can really understand the enormity of the issue. The textbook definition of hazing according to Dictionary.com is “to subject (freshmen, newcomers, etc.) to abusive or humiliating tricks and ridicule.” (Hazing) Even though this seems like a pretty accurate description of what hazing is, it is actually a lot more than that. Often times the pledges are not just physically abused but also mentally.  Hazing is generally thought of as harmless pranks used to embarrass pledges in public settings, but sometimes these harmless pranks escalate to be much more than that and become dangerous. There is a wide range of things that are considered hazing in the Greek community. Examples can go from a range of being called on at any time of the day or night by the older members to being required to finish a handle of alcohol before you are allowed to do anything else. Other examples of hazing can be mandatory study hours, physical abuse, prohibiting of a pledge to go somewhere or do something, and even sexual abuse. While it may not be as common, the first recorded incident of hazing involving sexual abuse occurred in 1983 and other hazing incidents involving sexual intimidation, nudity or stimulation, have been increasing in their frequency since 1995. (Allan) Another activity that is common in fraternities is called weekly lineups/drills. Cornell University interviewed a current member of an unidentified fraternity and he states that during lineups “most of our activities involve mind games that teach pledges valuable lessons about our brotherhood and what it stands for… Other activities are demeaning such as getting ice thrown on you.” (Zwecker) Another, less sinister, task that is a common occurrence is giving a pledge a certain task for the length of the pledging process. Examples can include a “mullet pledge” where the pledge is required to have a mullet at all times. Some are less humiliating, however, where they are required to have candy on them whenever a brother asks for it. Overall, hazing is different for every university, and every chapter, so the definition can be difficult to specifically pinpoint. 

Because the definition of hazing is so broad, it can lead to misinterpretation when it comes to prosecuting these wrongful crimes. From state to state, the way that hazing is defined differs within the judicial system. For example, in the state of South Carolina, hazing is classified as “the wrongful striking, laying open hand upon, threatening with violence, or offering to do bodily harm by a superior student to a subordinate student with intent to punish or injure the subordinate student, or other unauthorized treatment by the superior student of a subordinate student of a tyrannical, abusive, shameful, insulting, or humiliating nature.” (Mikell) This leaves room for a problem because the definition narrows the idea of hazing to mainly physical when it can be much more than that. This would make it more difficult for someone to be proven guilty in an incident of hazing that had to do with emotional hazing not physical. In the state of California, their jurisdiction of hazing can be defined as “Intentional, knowing, or reckless act by a person acting alone or acting with others that is directed against an individual and that the person knew or should have known endangers purpose of office in, or the physical health or safety of the individual, and that is done for the pledging, being initiated into, affiliating with, participating in, holding maintaining membership in any organization.” (Mikell) Because these laws differ in how they define hazing; it would be hard to prosecute a person because not everyone has the same idea of what hazing is or looks like. Especially if the prosecutors had never been in that position before. Not only are the laws at the state level vague, the policies and bylaws of the organizations are as well. A current fraternity member recognizes the inconsistency when he states that “the national constitution says we are a non-hazing fraternity, but the definition of hazing is ambiguous” (Zwecker) which gives the members a bit of wiggle room when it comes to what they can get away with making pledges do. With these statements in mind, it is understood that policy makers who do not make the definition of what hazing is defined as are giving the older members a chance to continue hazing.

Since hazing has been around for several centuries, we must first understand the reasoning behind why it has been kept a tradition for so long in Greek life. It is a common belief that hazing joins the organization members together by creating a strong bond. While borderline torturing pledges with cruel acts, the new members are able to bond over the journey from suffering to success. It is also argued that hazing separates the weak from the strong members and serves as a rite of passage from boyhood to manhood. By weeding out the people who are not as committed to the chapter as the others, it helps the organizations create the most elite and devoted pledge class possible. John Talty, a writer for the International Business Times and an alumni Greek member, confirms that these speculations are true when he states “I grew extremely close to my fellow pledge brothers through the adversity of it all, as well as learning extreme life skills such as the importance of time management.” (Talty) While these assumptions could be true and also effective, there are several other ways to create bonds between the members of the organizations that do not include the physical, mental and emotional abuse. For example, the members can go on retreats for team building exercises, or have the group participate in community service projects. By substituting these activities for hazing, the group will gain just as much bonding opportunities with their future brothers or sisters therefore making the act of hazing obsolete. Another reason that people are pro-hazing within Greek life is because the older members believe that since they got hazed, the new members deserve to be hazed as well. According to Georgetown University, people who were hazed are more like to haze someone else. (Georgetown) This prolongs the cycle of hazing. However, this cycle can be broken by ending it through one pledge class. Another reason that the idea of harshening up the laws against hazing can be argued against is because the liability it forces. University offices can decide to keep their distance from fraternities because in the act of something bad happening, the school would be much more liable than if they pretended as if they didn't know the hazing was going on behind closed doors. Scott D. Schneider, a former associate general counsel at Tulane University, states that “Colleges have little incentive to exert more authority over their Greek systems, says because when they take an more active role in the monitoring of these organizations, they can expose themselves to a greater risk.” (Berrett) While this argument could make sense, it is only valid to a certain extent because once a pledge get seriously injured or dies, they are much more liable than they would've been if they would have gotten involved in the first place. While there are several arguments as to why not to harshen up the laws that pertain to hazing, it is ultimately a necessary action in order to ensure the safety of the pledges in these Greek organizations.

In the cases that involve hazing, the majority of them do not involve serious injury or death. However, it is the few times that the hazers go one step too far that causes the life of not just the pledge, but also the lives of their friends and family members to be changed forever. Hank Nuwer, an expert in the area of hazing, claims that since the year of 1970, there has been at least one death per year on a college campus due to hazing. (Allan) The neglection when it comes to overseeing hazing can be seen at Clemson University. In September of 2014, Tucker Hipps, a member of the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity, was on a mandatory pledgeship run with his 27 pledge brothers but he was the only one that did not return. He was found the next morning floating in the lake with blunt-force trauma to the head, chest, and palms caused by a 20-foot head-first fall. (Berrett) It can be noted that Clemson’s Greek-life office is staffed inadequately. Their staff includes eight people who oversee over 4,600 sorority and fraternity members. Additionally, five of these eight staff members are mere graduate assistants. The size and characteristics of this office is common in universities of Clemson’s size. However, the office was privy to the underground hazing that was going on that semester. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, the Clemson administrators had a growing sense of alarm when, within the first month of the first semester, there were fifteen complaints about fraternities coming from parents and students. Five of the fifteen had been hazing related.  The inability of the office to quickly and adequately put in policies that would decrease the amounts of hazing on campus ultimately led to the death of Tucker Hipps. Since Hipps’ death, Clemson had invoked a new plan to try to eliminate another instance like this. Their plan calls for the hiring of more staffers and oversight; more training of chapter heads, members, and advisers; stronger disciplinary procedures; stricter sanctions for violations; and a requirement that security guards check IDs at parties. With these measures, the university aspired to change campus culture around hazing. (Berrett) However, Clemson is still caught between their wishes to trust Greek-life, and giving them stricter rules. Since 2014, the fraternities of Sigma Pi, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, Psi Upsilon, Sigma Phi Upsilon, and Phi Kappa Tau have all since been suspended for hazing. The University of South Carolina is also not unfamiliar with acts of hazing in Greek-life. The fraternity of Pi Kappa Alpha was suspended in March of 2015 by their nationals after a pledge died from alcohol poisoning. They were reinstated by the end of the year. In addition, Kappa Sigma was suspended in November 2014 until 2019 for hazing, alcohol, and drug violations. However, they were granted with reduced suspension and their chapter reopened in January. (Cope) When these universities give these fraternities probations, they are not fixing the problems of hazing, they are only stopping them for a short period of time. The organizations are likely to just become more careful with how they haze than actually stopping it all together. It is important that we don't just create a quick fix for these deep rooted issues, but that we change the way fraternities and sororities operate wholly.

There are several ways that we can eliminate hazing within the Greek-life system, and they require the stepping up of university officials. One way that hazing can be eliminated is by requiring open disclosure by the university as well as the chapter. It is rare that a university openly discloses the truths of the hazing that goes on behind closed doors. At summer orientations they display pictures of smiling people in their letters hugging their sorority sister or fraternity brother while doing some sort of community related project. Officials will also claim that they are a non-hazing campus. These statements often mislead potential new members and parents as well of what they are getting themselves into when they sign up. For example, the Cornell University website insists to parents that their Greek community does not reflect the stereotypical "negative images portrayed in popular media." While this was posted on the university Web site, however, complaints about hazing incidents were increasing, from 15 during the 2006-7 academic year to 31 in 2009-10. (Fierburg) By putting the sanctions that fraternities and sororities commit on the university websites, the organizations will be less likely to commit these crimes because potential new members will not want to join their chapter if they know they are going to get hazed. Another policy that college campuses could enforce to prevent hazing is requiring alcohol free housing. Hank Nuwer, an expert on hazing, states that 82% of deaths from hazing involve alcohol. Edward G. Whipple, former vice president for student affairs at Bowling Green State University, studied Greek organizations that had alcohol-free housing and concluded that there was a 64% reduction in the number of claims related to student injury or death. By eliminating the main cause of death in Greek-life, the members will be offered with a safer environment and will reduce the types of dangerous hazing dramatically. Another way to drastically reduce hazing is by abandoning the idea of self-governance. Greek organizations follow the belief that members should be in charge of electing their inexperienced peers to the positions that will control what the chapter does. While this is a good idea in that it teaches responsibility and leadership to the chapter members, it leaves the chapter in the hands of inexperienced college students. By getting rid of self-governance and bringing in experienced and more mature leaders, the members would be much less likely to be exposed to hazing. With these reasonable possibilities in mind, it can be seen that hazing is just a few changes away from being eradicated forever.

By looking at the facts of hazing, it is clear to see that the students that partake in hazing are definitely not cleared from blame university and state wise. However, when we look at how hazing is handled, both definition and consequence wise, it can be determined that it is really the people who make the policies that pertain to hazing that can really be put to blame. Hazing has been around for hundreds of years and will not be changed unless a more forceful strategy is put in place. The people who make these policies must ask themselves which is more important: portraying a false image of a guilt free Greek community or saving the mentality and well-being of the students.
