Anit-hazing legislation being considered at national level
 

HR 1207 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1207

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to withhold Federal student
financial assistance from students who have engaged in hazing, and
for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 11, 2003

Ms. WATSON (for herself, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms.
MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. OWENS, and Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to withhold Federal student
financial assistance from students who have engaged in hazing, and
for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Hazing Prohibition Act of 2003'.


SEC. 2. LOSS OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID ELIGIBILITY FOR HAZING.


Section 484 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (51 U.S.C. 20 U.S.C.
1091) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:


`(s) LOSS OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID ELIGIBILITY FOR HAZING-



`(1) SUSPENSION OF ELIGIBILITY REQUIRED- A student who has been
subjected to an official sanction for hazing, or for being an
accessory to hazing, shall not be eligible to receive any grant,
loan, or work assistance under this title during the period beginning
on the date of such sanction and ending after an interval of one year.



`(2) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this subsection:


`(A) The term `hazing' means any assumption of authority by a student
whereby another student suffers or is exposed to any cruelty,
intimidation, humiliation, embarrassment, hardship, or oppression, or
is required to perform exercises to excess, to become sleep deprived,
to commit dangerous activities, to curry favor from those in power,
to submit to physical assaults, to consume offensive foods or
alcohol, or the threat of bodily harm or death, or the deprivation or
abridgement of any right.


`(B) The term `official sanction'--

`(i) means expulsion, suspension, probation, censure, condemnation,
reprimand, or any other disciplinary, coercive, or adverse action
taken by an institution of higher education or administrative unit of
the institution; and


`(ii) includes an oral or written warning made by an official of an
institution of higher education acting in the official capacity of
the official.'.


SEC. 3. REPORTING OF HAZING CRIMES TO STUDENTS.

(a) AMENDMENT- Section 485(f)(1)(E) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)(1)(E)) is amended--


(1) by striking `and' at the end of clause (vii);

(2) by inserting `and' after the semicolon at the end of clause (viii); and

(3) by inserting after clause (viii) the following new clause:


`(ix) hazing;'.


(b) DEFINITION- Section 485(f) of such Act is further amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term `hazing' has the
meaning provided in section 484(s)(2).'.

you beat me to it

so in English...

this only applies to people/chapters who are sanctioned by the school, not the national HQ?

I wonder if the people who submitted the bill were Greek?

That's the way I read it. It takes scholarships/grants/etc. away from individual students who are sanctioned by their college/university.

I posted this on another thread as well, with the intention of posting it here.

That's the way I read it as well.

related question as an aside: has anyone heard of a case/know of university policy where the "hazee" gets sanctioned by the university as well? in other words, are both sides of the 2 way agreement (member will not haze, pledge/prospect will not allow themselves to be hazed) enforced?

Kelli,

Really good question. I have never heard of a "hazee" being sanctioned in any way.

i figured as much. although i do think the legislation is a good idea, i have a problem with the "hazee" not being punished as well. Delta has policy where all involved in hazing, members & those wishing to be, are sanctioned by the organization. but if the university is only sanctioning the members, we're only addressing half the issue.

Since I am in a chapter that is overboard on trying to not haze (having an event when we have pledges where we dress in wacky clothes was struck down.. Hello people, it's not hazing if the whole chapter does it), I would be worried that this would be taken to an extreme, hurting people that it never meant to hurt, and ultimately, keeping people OUT of our organizations.

I mean, how bad would you feel if you were sued by someone's perents because you did soemthing that isn't hazing? Say the actives throw the pledges a party, and you have a tradition of the pledges throwing the actives a party in return. Is that "currying favor from those in power"? Could someone sue you for that? It's possible. I understand this is trying to hold the individuals accountable for hazing, but it does not take away GLO liability, and it does not help people who were involved in hazing get on with their lives.

Also, this law has the potential to scare people who are on federal financial aid away from GLO's and decrease membership.

All in all, I say forget it!
-M

Michelle -

If your HQ puts you on probation for this or that, but the school doesn't enact any sanctions against you, I don't think this law would apply. That's how I read it, anyway. If they passed a national law that dealt with every fraternity or sorority that is on any probation from their HQ, it would take an entire new branch of government to enforce it.

Bill Status Update
 

H.R.1207
Title: To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to withhold Federal
student financial assistance from students who have engaged in hazing, and
for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] (introduced 3/11/2003)
Latest Major Action: 3/11/2003 Referred to House committee. Status:
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

I don't think this is a good idea. Having gone through being sanctioned by both nationals and our university for being caught "hazing". (I put in quotes because the whole thing is very shady - basically we got in trouble for BS like having meetings extend after 11, using the words pledge, etc.) I don't believe the entire chapter including people on financial aid should be penalized when they were not responsible for others actions. I think that this is like comparing apples to oranges, and the punishment is justifiable in terms of the crime.
Who determines the who, what, where, when , and why of the situation?

Courts decide all the 5W's of the situation as they would in any transgression of the law.

Here's what I think is interesting about this though -- a universal definition of what hazing is. Often in this forum we discuss hazing. Many of us have different opinions of what it is. This bill would settle (at least legally) once and for all what hazing consists of.

Doubtful, unless we come up with a universal definition of what's humiliating and what's not. It's like the Supreme Court judge saying he can't say what obscenity is, but he knows it when he sees it. Would things deemed "obscene" 30 years ago still be looked at the same way now?

I appreciate your point, but that's not how the bill reads. It reads "a student" who has been sanctioned, not "a student who is a member of a chapter" that has been sanctioned.

In my experience, I haven't seen many chapters suspended for hazing, unless it's an especially serious case (majority/all of members involved, serious injuries, etc.). I don't think it's highly likely this will get extrapolated into someone not specifically sanctioned losing financial aid because the chapter is suspended, but if it is, I think that student would have a very good appeal case, again, becasue of the way the bill is worded.

BUT, I do agree with you in that it's a VERY IMPORTANT distinction to make because it's very easy to go from 3 or 4 people losing financial aid to the entire chapter losing aid.

actually, the language is much better in this national bill, than the osbcure language that i've seen thrown around for the last 7 years. i wonder if they expressly left out the stuff thats been the real problems and hangups in past discussions, things like "creating durress" or "fostering an uncomfortable environment".