Punish hazing justly

Four groups at Duke are currently under investigation for allegations of hazing infractions and, of those four groups, only one—Delta Tau Delta Fraternity—has been identified. While the surge in reported incidents means that University has done something right, the University should not be naïve enough to think that hazing practices are drawing to a close.

In taking action against these four groups, the University is setting a valuable precedent that the mistreatment of students is not tolerated. More investigation and subsequent punishment will send a strong message and disincentive hazing in the future.

But as the University handles these cases, it needs to make sure that the punishment not only fits the crime, but strikes at the root of it as well.

First, administrators must recognize that hazing is a systemic problem. This means that the focus of investigation and punishment should be on groups and the environments they generate—not on individual leaders. The new student leader accountability policy leaves leaders vulnerable, but the administration should address organizational deficiencies first. In extreme cases where one individual is clearly responsible for a hazing violation, he should suffer additional punishment.

Second, administrators should ensure that the punishment fits the crime. Instating universal punishments to the four groups would be unjust. Not all hazing is equal in action and consequence and thus not all retribution should be equal.

The Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life’s hazing policy recognizes that there are varying levels of infractions. While the hazing policy does well to outline types of infractions that could occur, from “personal servitude” in level one to “branding” in level three, it fails to outline potential repercussions. We suggest that the Office of Student Conduct augment this list. An OFSL policy is not enough: a policy put forth by a more general University group would recognize that not all hazing occurs from Greek organizations. This updated document should include a detailed list of violations and ensuing punishments. Offenses need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, according to context, but a codified framework would allow for more methodical punishment processes and clearer expectations about what offenses will be met with serious punishment. And, make no mistake: genuine hazing—like the sort found in level three—should be met with strong punishments.

Finally, the University should be cautious in declaring a victory against hazing—the battle has only just begun. In dealing with the groups, administrators must resist the temptation to make scapegoats of the accused. Victimizing specific students only continues the cycle of injustice and perpetuates the very reasons for which these students are in trouble in the first place.

As a final note, we commend Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta for sending a cautionary email to parents of freshmen boys earlier this semester. Moneta’s efforts to involve parents—while perhaps a sad last resort—probably contributed to the increase in reports this year, as some of this year’s 20 reports came from parents.