University of Virginia Library

Hazing Must Go

It was not very long ago that fraternities,
having almost total control of the University's
social life, were able to inflict brutal demands
on their pledges in return for allowing them
membership. The stories of grotesque beatings,
obnoxious foods and punishments
bordering on depravity were fairly common.

Happily, much of that has changed in the
past few years. Many fraternities no longer
make their pledges eat rotten eggs or animal
parts; many have shortened their "Hell
Weeks" to "Hell Nights," condensing the fun
into one evening. But las month a pledge died
as the result of over-exertion during a
shape-up session at his Maryland Fraternity;
while Maryland chapters are not subject to
strong legal action against them, Virginia's are.

Should a University fraternity cause the
death or severe injury to one of its neophytes,
its members would all be liable to legal
punishment. The law relevant to the situation
states clearly "to haze or otherwise cause
bodily injury"; hence, hazing itself, not
merely bodily injury or death, is illegal.
Fraternities should proceed on that assumption,
for if caught, any or any combination of
the following could occur.

— Any and all persons involved in the
hazing could be fined from $50 to $500 or
given up to a year in jail, unless there was
sufficient injury to make the offense a felony,
in which case each participant would face
prosecution for willful injury.

— The president of the University, as
required under the law, would expel all
students participating in the hazing, and
report to the state Attorney General's office.

It is not a pleasant prospect, especially
since the fraternity would be closed down.
Yet many fraternities will still run the risk of
hazing their pledges, either for the enjoyment
the members derive or for more 'rational'
purposes such as building a sense of pledge
class unity. Even if they consider dropping the
harsher elements of their pledge programs,
they face the definition problem: what
constitutes hazing?

Attorney General Andrew Miller, at the
request of the Inter-Fraternity Council, is
studying the legal implications of the hazing
law. He has said he knows of no such case
actually coming to court, so the interpretation
is still ambiguous. The problem is, of course,
that no clear-cut definition exists, just as there
is none for obscenity or virtue. But in this
case the most likely incident is self-defining: if
a pledge is injured in the course of hazing,
even if by accident or even if he has signed a
waiver freeing his house from responsibility,
the fraternity has "otherwise caused bodily
injury" in the course of hazing.

The legal problem is a strong incentive for
dropping hazing, but of perhaps more
importance is the moral problem of the
fraternities themselves. Most have evolved into
a system of fraternal living and brotherhood, a
far cry from earlier days of mere status
consciousness; in today's environment, physical
harassment is an anachronism. There is
little justification for requiring the hundreds
of push ups that Hell Weeks include when one
is trying to build understanding among equals.
Furthermore, the fraternity brothers to whom
the pledges entrust their well-being during
initiation should not require what might be
dangerous or degrading activity. The responsibility
is too great to be taken so lightly by
the fraternity's members.

Aside from the legal and moral questions,
there are political implications. College
students are now more educated, usually more
mature and less gullible when they enroll here
than they were, say, ten years ago. Fraternities
are also no longer the only adequate
channels of social life at the University. With
coeducation, the growth of communes, and
the possibility of residential colleges all in the
wings, fraternities may be fighting for their
survival during rush indeed, this year's
pledging statistics showed a downturn from
past years. Hazing, on the other hand, is a
bygone characteristic that turns off many
prospective members. It has remained as much
from absent-mindedness as from calculation,
and fraternities would do well to re-evaluate it
and, if possible, come up with new programs
that fit present day needs. They should not
continue their present dangerous course for
lack of imagination.

Just as there are sadistic reasons for hazing,
there are rational ones, at least in the eyes of
many practitioners. Many fraternity men
believe it builds a strong fraternity. One
obvious question is whether physical exertion
and degradation build character and brotherhood
or whether they are basically irrelevant
attributes of an otherwise successful scheme
of initiation. Fraternities have the talent to
change their methods, possibly with greater
results. They should make that change
themselves, before the President of the
University, the IFC and the state government
enter the picture, for none of them can long
continue to look the other way as they do
now. The maturity and security of the
fraternity system are at stake, and the
members of that system must now face their
responsibility.