[hoosier]

Hazing allegations go overboard

By Zach Musgrave
November 16, 2004
On Friday and Monday, The Daily reported that the Pi Beta Phi sorority could face disciplinary action from the UW in response to allegations that it hazed new recruits in September. According to the article, Beta Theta Pi fraternity members were allegedly forced to kneel with pillowcases over their heads while scantily clad sorority women poured flavored syrup and whipped cream on them.
Normally I steer clear of the scandals in the Greek community for the same reason that I chose not to rush in the first place: I have enough drama in my life without it being "institutionalized." Today, however, I make an exception. The Office of Student Affairs seems determined to push its definition of hazing even farther into the realm of absurdity. In punishing the sisters of Pi Beta Phi for hazing, the administration will overextend its reach into students' lives and far overstep the intended scope of hazing rules.
The UW student conduct code defines hazing as an initiation procedure that "causes, or is likely to cause, bodily danger or physical harm, or serious mental or emotional harm." This matches the definition of the state law (RCW 28B.10.900) to the same effect. But unless the food fight involved whole pineapples and coconuts hurled fastball-style by the fraternity men, which I seriously doubt, so far the sisters are in the clear. The UW, however, adds "such conduct as humiliation by ritual act and sleep deprivation" to its definition. Apparently, a food fight in a revealing outfit is humiliating.
I wonder if anyone in the Office of Student Affairs has taken a stroll down 17th Avenue on a Thursday night lately, or ever for that matter. The female partygoers do not dress for warmth. Revealing outfits are the rule, not the exception. It doesn't take attendance at many parties to figure that out.
I have no way of knowing how eagerly the pledges donned their short shorts and threw their food, but one thing is certain: The hazing investigation started not because any aspiring sister blew the whistle, but because a member of the fraternity, Beta Theta Pi, posted pictures of the event on his Web site. No one from the sorority complained -- it is entirely possible that none of the pledges had serious misgivings about their treatment -- but they are still in trouble. Surely these young women have the ability to decide for themselves when an activity conflicts with their moral convictions and surely they would take action, such as moving out or notifying authorities. No one did. But they didn't have to, since the UW adds yet another clause to state law's definition of hazing: "Consent is no defense to hazing."
Never mind the broad grins across faces of friends who have told me about being shut in closets with bottles of alcohol or being locked out of their house after being kept up all night. Never mind that they thoroughly enjoyed these practices, which, had they been discovered by the UW, would have resulted in hazing charges against their fraternities. When the University calls "hazing," the supposed victims' feelings matter not at all.
In early 1996, when the UW withdrew its recognition of Delta Chi fraternity because of hazing, one anonymous pledge defended his house to The Daily, saying, "I joined so I could do stupid s*** like this, so years later I could have stupid fraternity stories and make a bunch of friends in the process." He and his brothers had to close their house and leave because of the charges.
As a state institution, the UW has a responsibility to uphold state law regarding hazing. However, it can also choose to exercise discretion when common sense dictates. Hopefully, the UW administration will, for once, make the right choice and let the sisters of Pi Beta Phi off with a warning.