To the Editor:
I appreciated your interest in reporting on the proposed hazing policy, but I am writing to correct an unfortunate mistake and omission in how your coverage described the policy. That mistake may have contributed to the inaccurate and misleading observation in your Feb. 16 editorial that the proposed policy "fails to mention specific criteria" and that "concrete rules of what is acceptable have not been laid out."
Your two articles on the hazing policy inaccurately and incompletely present the proposal's definition of hazing as "any action taken or situation created as part of initiation to or continued membership in a student organization." If that were indeed the substance of the definition of hazing, it would be an understatement, to say the least, to characterize it as vague. But that is only part of the definition proposed by the committee, and the definition is only part of the policy language proposed for the Student Handbook. The complete definition reads as follows:
"Hazing activities are defined as: Any action taken or situation created as part of initiation to or continued membership in a student organization, which 1) produces or could be expected to produce mental or physical discomfort, harm, or stress; embarassment; harassment; or ridicule; or 2) which violated College policy, fraternal/sororal policy, or law. This applies to behavior on or off College or organization premises. (Hazing does not include actions or situations that are incidental to officially-sanctioned and supervized College activities such as athletic training and events."
The proposed hazing policy continues with an extensive "commentary" that goes on to describe in considerable detail the kinds of circumstances and behaviors that might constitute hazing. The commentary also offers a list of "examples of conduct that may constitute hazing, when used to mistreat, intimidate or humiliate the participant, including the following: consumption of alcohol; paddling in any form; creation of excessive fatigue; physical and psychological shocks; inappropriate scavenger hunts or road trips; wearing of apparel likely to subject the wearer to embarassment or ridicule; engaging in public stunts and bufoonery; degrading or humiliating games and activities; activities that would unreasonably interfere with students' other activities or obligations (academic, extracurricular, family, religions, etc.); any other activities devoid of legitimate educational value that subject the participant to humiliation; and any such activities that violate College policy, fraternal/sororal policy, or federal, state or local law."
Draft copies of the proposed hazing policy were distributed fall term to the Coed Fraternity Sorority leadership, the Student Assembly, the Captains' Council, and to representatives and leaders of other student organizations, who were asked for comment which was considered and then reflected in the proposal that was submitted to Dean of the College James Larimore. I would be happy to provide a copy of the proposal, which contains the complete definition of hazing and the commentary, to anyone who would like to read it.
