The spring tumult of fraternity pledge-ship came to a halt 6 p.m. Sunday — the deadline the University set, with little warning, for Inter-Fraternity Council organizations to end pledging activities and initiate new members. The University requested Thursday that fraternities make new members full brothers by 6 p.m. Saturday. The school later granted a one-day extension. But many fraternity men, if past initiation trends hold, would have liked an extension of 24 days, not 24 hours.
Dean of Students Allen Groves, in an April 4 letter to fraternity alumni, wrote that the early termination of pledge season was part of an attempt to address a “systemic problem of hazing in the IFC community at Virginia.”
Virginia law defines hazing as actions that “recklessly or intentionally endanger the health or safety of a student or students or … inflict bodily injury on a student or students in connection with or for the purpose of initiation, admission into or affiliation with or as a condition for continued membership in a club, organization, association, fraternity, sorority, or student body.” Hazing, we can all agree, is a vulgar practice incompatible with respect for human dignity — not to mention the ideals of brotherhood, mutual support, leadership and service that fraternities supposedly espouse. Hazing has no place at the University of Virginia. And those who seek to defend inflicting physical or psychological harm on fellow students by appealing to “tradition” are on shaky moral ground.
Nonetheless, the University’s decision to impose an early end to new-member initiation with just a few days’ notice raises several questions about the school’s uneasy relationship with its Greek-letter organizations.
One question concerns the tension between student self-governance and student safety. In a Friday news release, University officials said that the request for fraternities to initiate members this weekend is not in response to “allegations of criminal misconduct.” How sharp is the distinction between criminal misconduct and the “inappropriate behavior” the news release refers to? If the University’s action is not in response to allegations of criminal misconduct, its intervention in fraternity proceedings could mark an intrusion into student self-governance. For if the fraternities’ conduct (or alleged conduct) was merely inappropriate, not criminal, the course of action that would best uphold student self-governance would be for University officials to refer accused parties to the University Judiciary Committee — which they may have done; confidentiality rules bar us from finding out.
On the other hand, if University officials believe fraternities committed crimes in the course of new-member activities — and hazing, lest we forget, is a crime — for the school to explicitly state that its request for speedy initiation is not in response to allegations of criminal behavior marks a deplorable lapse in transparency and honesty.
Criminal allegations, however, would provide ample justification for the University to shut down the initiation processes of the accused fraternities. The University could also consider filing criminal charges to hold violent or harmful students accountable for endangering fellow citizens.
Another question is why the University chose to issue a blanket directive instead of targeting the organizations accused of wrongdoing. The IFC governs 31 groups. The University’s news release stated that as of Friday one fraternity was under investigation, and “additional investigations will be initiated in coming days.”
One ongoing investigation plus investigations, plural, to come means at least three fraternities have been accused of wrongdoing. But why penalize all 31 groups? Though public perception might hold otherwise, the IFC is far from monolithic. Groves makes the excellent point that April 6 marks nine weeks of new member pledging — a sufficient span of time for new members to learn about their organizations. Nine weeks is indeed more than enough if fraternities can plan in advance for this time frame. It is likely, however, that several fraternities, guilty of no wrongdoing, were prevented from unveiling certain traditions and practices to new members because of the abruptly abridged initiation period. While the possible benefit of these new-member activities shrinks in contrast to the possible harm of ongoing hazing, the University should have limited its request to the fraternities guilty of inappropriate behavior. By implementing systemic sanctions that affect all fraternities, not just the guilty ones, the University encourages a code of silence among IFC groups — if one fraternity knows that another is breaking hazing policies, that group will be disincentivized to speak out for fear that it, too, will be punished.
Though hazing draws more attention than philanthropy, Greek life at the University is more than leaky kegs, foam-soaked floorboards and the scrum and tussle of pledging. One of the University’s most attractive features is its combination of rigorous academics and a colorful social life. Students should not be quick to judge all fraternities by the dishonorable conduct of a few less-than-brotherly groups. Neither should the University.
Read More
LETTER: Medical students stand in support of transgender youth
By Rachel Rezabek , Russell Hawes , Ishaan Rischie , Elianna Dunster , Kaile Maske , Zain Ahmad and Zoe Ziff | 5 hours agoAs future physicians, we cannot remain silent, especially since U.Va. Health is one of the most comprehensive gender health centers in the country.
HUYNH: The Supreme Court must support civil rights litigation in Virginia and beyond
By Viet Huynh | 10 hours agoThe Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | YesterdayIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
