University finds UA guilty of hazing, alcohol violations

The Undergraduate Assembly has been found to have violated the University’s Antihazing and Alcohol and Drug policies, the UA’s executive board announced in a statement Saturday evening.

In late October 2011, UA President and Engineering and Wharton senior Tyler Ernst referred the UA to Penn’s administration and the Office of Student Conduct. He said he asked the OSC to “look into” allegations of hazing that took place during a new member initiation event earlier that month.

The UA’s executive board learned of the investigation’s findings within the last week, Ernst added.

In its investigation, the OSC found no single member to be guilty of hazing or alcohol policy violations, but rather the whole UA body.

The Penn community was alerted to the hazing allegations in a Daily Pennsylvanianguest column published on Nov. 3 by College senior and former elected UA member Mo Shahin.

Though Shahin did not personally attend the events in question last October, he wrote that he learned from fellow UA members that “this year’s festivities included a scavenger hunt, blindfolds, pledge names, multiple drinks in rapid succession and being tied to a chair, yelled at and locked in a small closet with other freshmen.”

While the OSC’s investigation affirmed the existence of a scavenger hunt with blindfolds — along with “quizzing new members on parliamentary procedure” and “verbal confrontation” — it cleared the UA of allegations related to “forced consumption of alcohol and the binding of students to chairs,” according to the statement.

“I trust that the UA members and the UA have learned from this experience and more fully value the privilege and responsibility of student leadership,” Executive Director of the Office of Student Affairs Karu Kozuma wrote in an statement.

Kozuma wrote that he was unable to provide details about the UA investigation. He also declined to answer specific questions.

“As a University community, we take allegations of hazing by any students or student groups extremely seriously,” Kozuma wrote in the statement. “Hazing is inconsistent with the goals and purposes of the University and, in accordance with state law, is explicitly forbidden.”

The consequences

While Wharton senior and UA Vice President Faye Cheng declined to say how many of the UA’s new members attended the October event, she added that “not all eight” of the freshmen representatives were present.

As a result of the OSC’s conclusions, the UA will be required to participate in educational sessions on alcohol and hazing.

One goal of these workshops — which will be specifically tailored to the UA — is to reset the norms of the organization, Ernst said.

“We’ll be asking who thought this was hazing, who thought it wasn’t, giving members an opportunity to debate it amongst themselves,” he said.

While all other elected UA members will be required to participate in the anti-hazing and alcohol education programming, the eight freshman UA members — as well as associate members — will not have to attend.

In addition, according to the statement, the UA will also have to “join other campus partners to help lead and support efforts to educate students and the Penn community about hazing and alcohol,” as well as “submit any plans for programs or events involving welcoming or educating new members to the OSA for consultation and approval.”

Mixed reactions

Some UA members have expressed concern that the OSC’s corrective measures will apply to the entire UA body.

“The executive board should have been held more accountable because they are the ones who plan these hazing events,” said College sophomore Ernest Owens, a UA representative and Daily Pennsylvanian columnist. “Why is it that the whole general body has to go through these alcohol seminars? Everyone has to take time out of their day to become educated on the hazing and alcohol policies, when most of us did not even participate.”

The UA’s executive board consists of the positions of president, vice president, treasurer, speaker and secretary.

On Nov. 3 — the same day that Shahin’s piece ran — Owens wrote an accompanying column in which he addressed October’s new member event, as well as a similar event that allegedly occurred in Oct. 2010.

Though Cheng acknowledged that the executive board is “definitely the leadership of the organization [and is] held to a higher standard for that reason,” she said it made sense for the entire UA to be held accountable.

“This was an event that was planned by multiple members of the body,” she said. “I wouldn’t say that there’s any one person planning-wise who could take all the credit or burden.”

Ernst added that, when he informed non-executive members of the UA of the OSC’s decision at a retreat on Saturday, everyone “took it very maturely, and was quick to reaffirm their confidence in us.”

For UA Speaker and College senior Cynthia Ip, however, the fact that the initiation activities were considered hazing was unexpected.

“I [had] never heard of people being uncomfortable with the initiation event on the UA until the DP columns,” Ip said. “If I had, we would not have done the initiation at all. It was a surprise for all of us.”

Cheng, though, acknowledged that she “can definitely see why there would be elements [of the events in question] that would make people uncomfortable.”

Looking back, looking forward

Though Shahin said he raised individual concerns about the UA’s new member events with the executive board in October — as well as with the OSA — some freshmen who attended offered different accounts of what happened.

When Shahin reached out to members of the executive board, he said he received a response along the lines of “it’s not your concern — this is the executive board’s concern.”

Wharton freshman and UA representative Christian Cortes, who participated in October’s event, said that “in no way were my individual rights compromised.” He added that he is thankful that “the punishment was not as bad as it could have been.”

“Obviously there is reason for the investigation, but from my personal opinion, we’re just paying for the academic consequences,” Cortes said. “In the more moral sense, it’s not fair to the UA because hazing occurs in other organizations on campus.”

When other student groups are found guilty of hazing, they risk losing funding from the Student Activities Council, University recognition and the use of campus facilities, according to the University’s anti-hazing regulations.

The UA, however, is in a unique situation, because it receives its funding from Penn’s Board of Trustees, and allocates a significant portion of those funds to SAC.

“Even though our organization might not be fully deserving of the punishment, it sets a precedent and a warning to outside organizations that hazing is unacceptable,” said UA representative and College freshman Willie Stern, a former Daily Pennsylvanian contributing writer. “Any organization that put its freshman members in jeopardy will face the consequences.”

UA Treasurer and College junior Jake Shuster added that, looking forward, the UA will reconsider how it welcomes new members.

College and Wharton sophomore Abe Sutton, the UA’s academic affairs director, agreed, adding that he “believes 100 percent that the UA initiation process will change as a result of these findings.”

College sophomore Dan Bernick — a former Daily Pennsylvanian columnist and current Civic and Philadelphia engagement director of the UA — sees the workshops as “a way for the UA to learn about alternatives to hazing.”

“Moving forward, as an organization we should look for more ways for having programming without antagonizing or objectifying [new members] or making them feel uncomfortable in any way,” Cheng added. “It is a challenge for all of us moving forward, on how to bring benefit to new members without costs. And the costs can be very great.”

University anti-hazing regulations

University alcohol and drug policies

Mo Shahin | Seeing through the haze

Editorial | Clearing the haze

Ernest Owens | A campus-wide pledge to change

Your Voice | Responses to UA hazing allegations

Students sound off on hazing across campus

Penn investigates alleged hazing in UA

Amid hazing allegations, UA reviews alcohol policy

Comments (32)

blindfolding, quizzing and verbal confrontation… the UA is so lame it can’t even haze properly

The next time I take opinions from people who have failed to be re-elected (Mo Shahin, in this case), I’ll look to the DP for their selectively censored version of the truth. No freshman have stepped forward to corroborate this ‘hazing’ and your chief source is a pathological sore loser. I hadn’t even known those existed until now.

I think the key phrases here are ‘former’ and ‘did not personally attend’. Sorry guys, if you wanted to coddle freshies and keep them at arms length from any kind of fun, you came to the wrong campus.

Thanks for your input, Tyler. I’m glad the President of the UA has resorted to name calling after being found guilty. It sounds to me like someone was concerned about the safety of the freshmen so he came forward, you were found guilty, and now he’s being attacked on the comments section of a public website. It sounds like the only pathological sore loser here are the people found guilty (in this case Tyler Ernst and Jake Shuster). Grow up.

And I’m pretty sure if none of the freshmen stepped forward to corroborate anything with student conduct, you wouldn’t have been found guilty. That’s kind of their job. Or are you trying to suggest this is some sort of conspiracy against you between this kid and student conduct?

And, finally, for the record, the key words are actually ‘hazing’ and ‘guilty.’ Dress it up however you want, but you can’t disguise your disgusting behavior.

“The UA is currently in the process of working with Penn’s alcohol policy review committee to review and make proposed changes to the University’s Alcohol and Drug policy, which it was found to be in violation of by the OSC.”

That line pretty much makes the article for me. I mean, come on. Still with the reforms to alcohol policy? Give it up, UA. No one will take you seriously anymore because you’re not an impartial third party when it comes to alcohol policy. If you really want reforms, start by reforming yourselves and your actions.

This is probably the most messed up piece of news the DP has printed in a long time. The University knows they are hazing and is doing absolutely nothing about it besides making them attend sessions on hazing? This is really wrong, considering the crap Greeks are put through when a chapter is caught hazing by the University or what they’d try to do if they think we put on a scavenger hunt? This just reeks of favoritism.

Actually, this is good news for us. This was a very public case- that’s why they had to put out a statement to the DP. This was the University’s opportunity to make an example out of those who are caught hazing and they simply didn’t do it. Now, any person or group caught hazing will have a concrete example to point to and say anything stricter than a hazing educational program is unfair. By letting the UA off the hook with nothing more than a slap on the wrist, they’re showing that while they can’t officially endorse it, they really don’t care if students haze each other. If they do impose stricter punishments on sororities and fraternities, it’ll just be hypocrisy.

It’s a damn shame that everyone, even people who probably did the hazing is now going to have to attend those sessions. I have a friend who is in the UA that doesn’t even drink and now she is going to have to waste precious time of her life to go to some crappy meetings that she already know about. Tyler should be the one held responsible and anyone who coordinated the event. Class of 2014, 2013, and 2012 member basically more than 20 people all will have to be schooled on something that their leaders did. Bullshit. If I was Tyler, I would step down.

GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! and this is why no organization on campus can be held to a higher standard. Tyler, Jake and all the rest of you hazers you have no place on this campus to disrespect other students because you feel so powerful to do so. People like you make a mockery out of the administration and this is unfair to the people you represent. That alcohol policy should not be written by the people who break it. That is hypocrisy.

@Another Greek- We all know they won’t care. They’ll punish us much more than the UA. I just think it’s really wrong that the UA is held to a lower standard than the rest of us. If you’re caught hazing, you’re caught hazing. Period. I don’t care what the specifics of the case are because I’m sure they did things that didn’t come up in the investigation. The UA should be punished in some way. Administrators should at least try to be coy when they show favoritism.

to all the greeks bitching about hazing: you are so much worse than anyone else on campus. you’ve actually made me more angry than the original article.

you guys force your new members to drink, eat disgusting stuff, live in basements for weeks at a time and in some cases you BRAND them. in contrast, BOOO HOO the UA blindfolded some kids.

i think it’s stupid that the UA did this but seriously, let the punishment fit the crime. “Hazing” is such a great buzzword and all but let’s remember to look at what they actually did.

diet consisting of solely dogfood 530am runs being someone’s “bitch” for 3 months who knows what else…… or “quizzing.” penn greeks, stop acting like this is some huge injustice and stop YOUR wrongful behavior before you point fingers anywhere else.

Can you really trust what they said about the specifics about being found not guilty of binding people to chairs or only being found guilty of scavenger hunts, verbal confrontations, quizzing, and blindfolds? Because of the University’s privacy policies, Student Conduct isn’t allowed to disclose the results of the investigation to anyone besides the people being investigated and anyone enforcing any punishments (the people enforcing are then also not allowed to speak about it). The only people who have the facts and are allowed to speak about it is the UA board, and they can say whatever they want in their statement knowing that everyone else either 1) doesn’t have all of the information, or 2)isn’t allowed to comment on any results (outside of what those under investigation admit to). I think they pretty much had to admit to being found guilty of hazing. It was fairly obvious they did it, especially since multiple people came forward, so no one would have believed them if they said they were found not guilty. Other than that, they were pretty much free to say whatever they wanted. In this case, I think they’re trying to minimize the damage by saying something along the lines of we got caught hazing but it wasn’t really that bad. I’ve seen how conniving Tyler Ernst and Jake Shuster can be and I simply don’t trust them.

when was the last time someone was caught branding? please stop exaggerating.

part of what bothers me, though, is that the greeks who get caught hazing and breaking the drug/alcohol policy aren’t the ones who are re-writing said policy on behalf of students.

also, you say “to all the greeks bitching about hazing: you are so much worse than anyone else on campus. you’ve actually made me more angry than the original article.” why would the article make you angry? i mean, unless you’re one of those ua members who was caught hazing, now has to attend those sessions and feels a need to defend the ua on this forum. really makes you think about the importance of watching your words, doesn’t it?

to clarify: the stupid crap that the UA did made me angry from the original article, not the fact that they got in trouble for it… i’m not on the UA. although for full disclosure: i joined the SPEC concerts once freshman year (didnt stay on long enough to get any free tix boo :( ), so if you think im in cahoots with them i guess its guilty as charged.

bottom line: not everyone who thinks this whole situation is stupid is on the UA. all of penn does not agree with your holier-than-thou handing down of judgment and while tyler versus ernest is like being between a rock and a hard place, in terms of truth i’d cast my lot with tyler before that wakko. so if the uni didnt find them guilty of that i bet they’re actually not guilty of that.

also dont feel like searching all that hard on the intarwebz but here’s a little case of branding on our own campus: http://thedp.com/index.php/article/2006/04/student_sues_alleging_hazing_at_frat. it happens quite frequently on other campuses; what makes you think it cant here?

i agree with you- i think the situation itself is stupid. and i don’t think everyone who sides with the ua is a part of the ua. but i do think that people who post ad hominem attacks that try to shift away from rational thought and debate by attacking a person instead of the claims he made (like the person who posted the second comment) are angry and upset about the situation. those are the people that are more likely to be ua members/leaders.

what i and probably a lot of other people find frustrating (and this may just be what comes across as holier-than-thou judgement from the post you’re responding to) is that they’re still “reforming” alcohol policy despite being found guilty. i really don’t want those students who did this to speak on my behalf when it comes to alcohol policy, but it seems they’re going to do it anyway whether their “constituents” likes it or not. if i were them, i wouldn’t continue to force myself onto a policy reform if i can’t say with absolute certainty that the people i’m claiming to speak on behalf are okay with me speaking on their behalf. if that sounds like a holier-than-thou judgment to you, so be it.

as for your point about being between a rock and a hard place, you’re entitled to your own opinion about trusting tyler over ernest and i think it’s actually probably a fair decision (i don’t have the same experiences that you may have with them and i don’t know which side i’d find myself on if there wasn’t an official investigation). but that’s only if it was just the two of them saying “yes you did” and “no i didn’t.” however, it’s more than that. there was an entire investigation going on that lasted several months and found them guilty of hazing. it’s not two students anymore; anyone saying they didn’t actually haze is debating the finding of a neutral third party (the university).

i do, however, agree with your point that greek hazing is probably worse than ua hazing. but i also think the last post before you makes a good point when it says the greeks who are caught hazing don’t then go on to re-write the policies they’re found guilty of breaking. and, at the same time, this case is from several years ago (meaning all those involved have graduated and you can’t hold a guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality when it comes to things like hazing about the current members) while the ua hazing happened just a few months ago.

…that any freshmen who felt that they were hazed (and there had to be freshmen who admitted to it, or else student conduct wouldn’t have found the ua guilty) don’t feel empowered to admit it in public while those freshmen who feel that the punishments were not completely deserved are encouraged to come forward. It just makes me skeptical about how much will really change if this is the atmosphere after the investigation.

Although I’m new at Penn, I witnessed hazing at my undergrad school. What struck me most was that the pledges who allowed themselves to be hazed seemed to be seriously lacking in self-confidence and self-esteem. I know that there are fine, fun, and honorable Greek organizations, but stooping to street gang recruitment and initiation tactics by some to command allegiance is barbaric, isn’t it?

idk. i think the UA is stupid and yeah, this it that bad but they have less room for error than all of us because they’re our representatives, you know? like if penn crew were to blindfold their new members fine, no one’s going to die, but the UA is supposed to be held to a higher standard and set an example.

but what i’m STILL weirded out by is how this all played out. mo shahin (who everyone says did the hazing in the past, right?) doesn’t get re-elected to the UA and then, before going to the authorities (OSC or w/e it is) or even talking to anyone on the UA, he publishes an article in the DP blasting them. he happens to work in conjunction with a DP writer, who will absolutely benefit from the massive hits his post is going to get and is known to crave attention (stop me if at any point i’m wrong here).

regardless of the issue at hand, i think that this could’ve been handled less sensationally by mo, ernest and the DP. if people were actually interested in making sure these freshmen are not traumatized (the public wringer is probably not good for their mental health) and that the hazing culture actually changes, they would treat this less like GOTCHA journalism and more like a chance for constructive dialogue. idk. maybe other people are having constructive dialogue and im not, but thats the bitter taste left in my mouth from all of this.

After reading this article and all the featured stories on the tab, I think I get a pretty good picture of what happened. I think it is no question that Mo may be spiteful in his attempt to take down the UA, but if you really think about it, it really is not his fault.The UA exec They should never have been doing this to begin with and mind you that this has been going on even after Mo was in office and would probably keep going on. The only person who I feel has some degree of validation in the story is Ernest. Let me first clarify that I do find that in many ways it was a business move on his part to release his column on the same day—-but who says that is wrong? According to his column, Ernest and the Class of 2014 went through the same procedure just as the freshman. So two classes as we know it are in some sense impacted by these hazing methods and perhaps that is what probably angered Ernest the most to publish the damn thing in the first place. It really concerns me that people are too busy caught up in the blame game of the whistleblowers rather than the actual people who were accountable for this. The OSC found them guilty…even previous victims, which is the saddest part. If I were Tyler Ernst, I would step down. It reflects poorly on the university to have someone who knew better than anyone else to encourage and support this kind of behavior. It was an abuse of power and obviously disregard for human safety. The fact that there are freshman on here trying to qualify their experience disheartens me. Kids, you do not have to kiss ass to keep a position on the UA. Have some humility, do the right thing.

what really leaves a bad taste in my mouth is how the people who came forward are demonized. that perpetuates a culture of hazing and encourages those who are guilty and others like them to continue in their behavior. honestly, i don’t think we can speak about how it played out because no one knows the events of how things played out. in the article he says he approached the ua board. tyler himself said the same thing (he said they had heard hazing concerns from the authors when this happened) in the letter he wrote way back when this first became an issue. and i don’t know who “everyone” is that is saying mo hazed last year or ernest hazed this year. my guess is it’s to detract from the merit of their statements and (guess what, kids) based on your comments, it’s working. i’d be more sympathetic to those saying that mo and ernest are also at fault if osc had found them guilty. but neither one of them was found guilty of anything and i’m sure osc wasn’t just like “oh hey, it’s cool that you hazed but we’ll just punish the ua and pretend you didn’t do anything.”

and let’s be realistic about whistleblowing— standing up to a group mentality isn’t the easiest thing in the world. i really can’t say what i would have done in that situation and i don’t think any of you can either. leave the whistleblowers and the freshmen alone. i think it’s the ua leaders who are at fault here.

Yes, let’s all get in a room and “debate” whether there was hazing or not. What a load of crap. None of this would be happening if there was no hazing, the UA is just getting the easy way out.

just my two cents, but what is your proof that ernest was only after a story? what is your proof that the first step that was taken was going to the dp? i don’t believe that someone who went through the hazing process himself would use it as a means of just creating a story. i actually believe that he wants to see change.

as for mo, “whistleblowing” makes a pretty good point. claiming that mo participated in the hazing last year isn’t the type of thing that would be glossed over in an investigation that lasted several months. i have no doubt the ua members who are making these accusations had no problem making them to osc and since he isn’t going to be attending any of these sessions with the rest of the ua, i can’t get on board with the accusation that he did anything that broke the policies last year or this year.

all of that aside, the fact that we’re even debating his involvement displays a major problem in the debate and shows how much of a skew there is in power dynamics. even after the ua is found guilty, the conversation still seems to find its way back to baseless allegations about the two people who came forward (one, accused of being a hazer and the other, accused of not caring about the well-being of others and only caring about creating a story). those of you making comments about them should be ashamed of yourselves.

i’m particularly disgusted by the fact that the leaders haven’t decided to step down. how effective can they honestly expect to be? or is this just a “fuck you” to the people who disagree with them and the student body they supposedly represent?

I agree with you. Too much is being focused on the whistleblowers rather than the people at actual fault. The president and vice president should have know better. This is bad leadership at its finest and the fact that they continue to sit at the highest level of power on this campus shows how much our culture for hazing is not taken seriously. Will someone have to die or be severely injured in order for us to all learn from all this. I feel sorry that Ernest cannot get the proper respect he deserves for putting his reputation and social standing in the UA on the line to come clean on the insiders. I doubt he was looking for a story, he writes more juicier topics every week (i.e. virgins). There is obviously a greater cause for his message and the fact that he crossed that boundary shows that he cares more for people than the rest of them. For those who stay in silence, you are just as guilty the exec that hazed you. This is a serious issue and an even larger one than you can imagine. Mo S. may be bitter about no longer being on the UA, but you cannot discredit those e-mails, Jake Shuster knew a year ago as he did last fall that this was hazing and the fact that he still represents us is hypocrisy. Tyler Ernst, you are a disgrace to the system and if you had a soul you would step down immediately.

When the DP got the cops called on them for their initiation, which by these standards is hazing since they force their new board to get covered in champagne and stand soaking wet out in the cold.

DP and lauren Plotnick, turn yourselves into osc! #hypocrites

I was genuinely excited to read this article until I realized it was not only badly copy edited, but that NO WHERE in the article does it state what school this is about…. After searching through your sit I found out, but to someone from another school – I have no idea what the Undergraduate Assembly is.
One of the best journalism schools in the country should at least know to have location in their lead or headline…

Take home lesson is that the “law” doesn’t apply equally to the “rich and powerful”, even here at something as silly as student government. If they had any decency they’d stepped down when the investigation started. Embarrassing that the university decided to turn a blind eye to this one.