|
December 4, 2000
To: Jim Larimore, Dean of the College
From: Dan Nelson, Senior Associate Dean of the College
The attached proposal for a new hazing policy for Dartmouth College reflects the work of a committee you asked me to convene in response to a directive from the Trustees as part of the Student Life Initiative. In their April 15, 2000 statement about the Student Life Initiative, the Trustees wrote, "The Board insists that there be no hazing of new members nor any abusive or demeaning initiation rites and charges the administration to develop a hazing policy that is more stringent than current College policy."
No one knows for sure how much hazing exists at Dartmouth or what forms it takes. If Dartmouth at all resembles other colleges and universities in this regard, hazing is poorly understood and significantly under-reported. We were pleased to take on this important task because we believe that hazing has dangerous potential to harm individuals, to corrupt organizations and teams, and to undermine the educational mission of the College and its fundamental values of respect and community.
The hazing policy committee included the following members: Dan Nelson (Chair), Senior Associate Dean of the College; Deb Carney, Assistant Dean of Residential Life; Cassie Barnhardt, Acting Assistant Dean of Residential Life; JoAnn Nester, Associate Director of Athletics; Linda Kennedy, Director of Student Activities; Marcia Kelly, UJAO; Brian Kunz, Assistant Director of Outdoor Programs; Sean Gorman, Associate General Counsel, Legal Affairs; Bob McEwen, College Proctor; Sylvia Langford, Dean of Upperclass Students; Leigh Remy, Assistant Dean of First-Year Students; Brian Mann '02, Andrew Sonnenborn '02, Elizabeth Super '02, E. Ashley Dean '02, Mitsuko Gardner GRLS. Julie Bell, Administrative Assistant, Dean of the College Office, provided administrative support. We met six times over the summer and fall terms. A draft of the hazing policy was shared with a variety of colleagues and student groups for discussion and feedback before the committee reached consensus about the final version we are submitting to you. Although any individual committee member might have drafted the language of this policy somewhat differently, reflecting our own perspectives and understandings about how hazing should be defined and addressed, we unanimously agree that our proposed policy is appropriate for Dartmouth and represents a significant improvement over the current policy, which simply recapitulates the very narrow definition of hazing articulated in New Hampshire state law. The proposed policy follows the format of descriptions of other significant policies recorded in the Student Handbook.
The policy language we are recommending was informed by, and draws upon, some excellent hazing policies in effect at other colleges and universities as well as policies adopted by a number of fraternity and sorority national organizations. For example, one of the several models we consulted was the one developed a number of years ago by FIPG (formerly known as the Fraternity Insurance Purchasing Group) and which has since been adopted and modified for use by many national fraternities and sororities. Ironically, the current hazing policy at Dartmouth is significantly less rigorous than the national fraternity/sorority hazing policies governing some of the organizations recognized by the College.
As is the case with other Dartmouth standards of conduct, the policy we are proposing would apply to all students (undergraduate and graduate) and to all student organizations, including athletic teams and clubs. In fact, the committee's work was also informed by an important Alfred University national survey and study of hazing in athletic teams, as well as by a local survey and analysis of possible hazing in women's athletics conducted by a Dartmouth student (recently graduated) as part of an academic project.
Our committee feels strongly that the adoption and articulation of a more stringent hazing policy at Dartmouth, although much needed and overdue, is in itself not a sufficient response to the issue of hazing. We very much endorse the education/prevention recommendations in the report from the hazing working group, which we understand you have accepted and directed various College departments to implement. Student organizational leaders and members need information, clear definitions, and guidance related to hazing and to inappropriate vs. appropriate new-member activities. In particular, we support the recommendations that College departments responsible for working with student organizations continue and intensify their educational efforts regarding hazing, especially efforts to help organizations distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behavior and to help organizations develop positive rites of passage for their new members.
We also support the recommendations of the group adjudication committee (some of whose members overlap with this committee) for a more consistent and centralized system of responding to reported violations of College standards, including the hazing policy. Similarly, we recognize and support the need for a more centralized coordination and support for departmental education and prevention work regarding hazing. The Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Office, which would administer the group adjudication process, would be the appropriate department to provide that support and coordination and to bring other departments together to implement recommendations through joint efforts. Of course, the office will require appropriate resources to carry out that expanded role. Funding for collaborative efforts could encourage more creative approaches for reaching students in their multiple roles and activities on campus.
It is important for the Dartmouth community to receive one clear message about hazing, rather than different or potentially conflicting messages. We think it would be very useful for members of the COS and of the proposed new organizational adjudication committee to meet periodically with you, with administrators who work with student groups, and with organizational leaders to discuss some hazing case-studies, so that the College can develop and foster a common understanding and clear precedents regarding what kinds of behaviors constitute hazing, what kinds of behaviors may be questionable but are not clear violations, and what kinds of behaviors are acceptable.
We hope that the definition and discussion of hazing that we have developed for a proposed new hazing policy at Dartmouth will be a useful tool in the process of preventing hazing in this community and of responding to it vigorously if or when it occurs. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss our proposal and to respond to any questions you might have.
|
