The Daily Pennsylvanian :: Editorial

Allegations that the Undergraduate Assembly hazed new members caught students off guard last week.

Not only does the University ban the practice, but the state also deems it illegal. Both entities define hazing as “any action or situation which recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student … for the purpose of initiation.” This prohibition is not to say that all initiation rituals are inherently illicit; many campus organizations welcome new members in legitimate manners. But sometimes these initiations are taken to extremes and cause undue discomfort upon their members, entering into the realm of hazing. Unfortunately, the reality on this campus — and on many others — is that hazing occurs within a number of organizations, both Greek and non-Greek.

It is particularly troubling that hazing was alleged to have occurred within the UA. Its members are expected to uphold a higher standard of behavior; as elected representatives of the student body, they have been chosen to act and speak on behalf of undergraduates and serve as the student voice in front of the administration. It reflects poorly on the entire student body when this voice is instead heard yelling at blindfolded new UA members.

The occurrence of hazing within the UA is so unexpected that there hardly exist avenues to address it. Under University rules, non-Greek organizations found hazing “are subject to sanctions including loss of University facility use privileges and loss of Student Activities Council recognition and funding,” presumably leading to the group’s disbanding. But the UA, whose existence is mandated by the Statutes of the Trustees, is an indispensable organization that cannot be threatened with dissolution. Having been given this privilege and responsibility, UA members do not have any room to disappoint.

The discovery of hazing within the UA inhibits its policymaking abilities, especially at a time when it’s pushing for a reform of the alcohol policy — which is already a very sensitive initiative. The finding tarnishes the reputation of the organization and lowers its credibility. The UA’s ability to act as a responsible advocate for any undergraduate cause is diminished when it violates students’ and the administration’s trust in such a manner. By hazing new members, the UA did a disservice not only to its own organization, but also to the students whom it is tasked with representing.

In response to the allegations, the Executive Board apologized, took responsibility for its mistakes and turned itself in to the Office of Student Conduct. The repercussions will hopefully compel it to change the institutional problems that gave rise to such behavior going forward. The past actions of UA members are regrettable, but the best course of action now is to shift the discussion toward the larger issue of hazing. Now is the time to expand the conversation and work toward eliminating hazing throughout the University — removing it from the initiation rituals of the UA and every other organization that practices it.

Comments (8)

I wonder if the DP will stop its own initiation rituals…

How did the executive board take responsibility for its actions? By “turning itself in?” The Vice-Provost said it was actually the Office of Student Affairs that went to Student Conduct, not the executive board. And while going through the pomp and circumstance is nice for PR (“yay, we’ve reformed!”), it is hardly useful when the DP itself acknowledges that “there hardly exist avenues to address it” on an official level.

It’s funny how you not only deter from the major point of this column but even in your own statement you do not have the balls to even call their initiation rituals hazing. NOT ALL INITIATION RITUALS ARE HAZING, and you should know this. This editorial, as well as many others, especially Owens, make this very clear. You on the other hand must be a UA exec member or someone in stud gov who is trying to point fingers rather than address the major issue. This is not just a UA problem but a campus issue. Hazing is illegal and rather than speculate and create irrelevant distractions look at the big picture. The UA is basically in control of everything. They write rules that they can break and write policy that can keep them safe from breaking them. In all honesty the only way justice will be served is if these leaders, especially Ernst and Shuster, step down. Ernst, because as the president he, unlike Matt and Webley, had the opportunity to reverse the constant cycle of freshman hazing. Shuster, because not only has he done this behavior with Tyler for two consecutive years, but he actually acknowledges as hazing even before he does it. That was a year ago, and with new freshman speaking out about it shows even more how corrupt and devious these individuals are. THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE. They don’t represent the views of our campus, I don’t feel comfortable with them making policy on my behave, especially with the alcohol policy. If there was a petition to ask for their removal, I would sign it in a heartbeat and not regret it. According to the rules currently in place, they could do this again and again and again without being seriously penalized. The only way that we can honestly ensure that such behavior does not continue is that the aggressors be called to step down.

so are you going to stop forcing alcohol in/on people too?

What’s sad is that normally, when the administration wants to put on something like Hazing Awareness Week, they go to the UA to help organize and publicize it. Let’s see Ernst try to promote that when it’s time for it to happen. I’m surprised the DP hasn’t said more about the Vice-Provost’s comments on Hazing Awareness Week.

Care to back up your allegations?

I want to know what actions are being taken by the University to punish the students if they are found guilty??
Tomorrows DP has already dropped the issue. Has anyone at the DP tried to interview the administration to find out what they plan on doing?? We haven’t heard a thing from them….

Because of the status of the UA, nothing more than a slap on the wrist (probably a warning, a probation period, and a mandatory anti-hazing seminar). Unfortunately, because the Office of Student Conduct’s confidentiality policies, the administration won’t even be allowed to say what the punishment will be. If you were to ask anyone in the administration about what the punishment would be if the UA “leaders” are found guilty, they would say something along the lines of “the severity of the sanctions will depend on the specifics of what we find.”

Because of their status as representatives, the only people who can truly hold them accountable are the people they represent. Unfortunately, because of the process’ rules on confidentiality and limitations on addressing issues within the UA, they will probably get away with this one.

Then, it’s on to winter break and pretending this never happened when they get back to campus! It’s sad how the rules don’t apply to those with privilege.

Comments are closed for this item.