Zero Tolerance on Hazing: What You Need to Know

Hazing has no place in colleges and universities. In the past, many educational institutions turned a blind eye towards hazing activities that were carried out either on or off campus. However, this is no longer the case as colleges and universities are adopting a zero-tolerance policy towards hazing, which is now considered a criminal offense in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Any conduct that intentionally places an individual in danger of physical or mental harm qualifies as hazing. This includes activities such as any potentially dangerous forced physical activity, extreme mental stress-inducing activities, or any form of humiliation or degradation that could potentially be harmful to the dignity and mental health of a student.

Examples of hazing activities extend from whipping, beating, exposure to elements to forced consumption of food, liquor, drugs (legal or illegal) amongst others. Conduct resulting in extreme embarrassment or coerced sexual activity is also deemed hazardous by most colleges and universities across the US.

It should be noted that if any pledge initiation activities by an organization result in willful destruction or removal of public or private property, both the organization and members will be held accountable for engaging in hazing behavior.

Potential Consequences Resulting from Hazing

When an individual gets accused of violating anti-hazing policies within their college/university institution it can lead to disciplinary proceedings against them alongside potential criminal charges if warranted.

New Jersey laws classify hazing under § 2C:40-3 of The New Jersey Code Of Criminal Justice. This law stipulates that when individuals willingly engage in conduct with non-competitive athletic events meant for initiations into fraternal organizations placing others at risk of bodily injury they shall be charged with disorderly offenses.

If an act prohibited earlier causes serious bodily injury to another person then it becomes aggravated hazing; a fourth-degree crime. In Pennsylvania under 24 Pa.C.S.§ 5351 hazing is regarded as a third-degree misdemeanor. 

The Anti-Hazing Act of 1986 under Act 175 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania outlaws any activities geared towards hazing applicants for membership and existing members to maintain their status in organizations. The law also prohibits anyone from consenting to hazing.

Pennsylvania law uses a broad definition of hazing meaning any actions taking place because of admission, initiation, or affiliation with organizations recognized by higher institutions that endanger students’ mental or physical well-being. Any brutality of a physical nature, forced calisthenics such as whipping, beating, exposure to sole elements amongst other activities are classified as hazing behaviour.

Moreover, this definition states that any action that submits individuals to extreme mental stress such as sleep deprivation or social exclusion which might affect their self-worth is unethical. Additionally, the bill considers the willful destruction or removal of public/private property used in these activities similarly as hazing.

Negotiating Hurdles with Zero Tolerance Policy against Hazing

To address hazing issues across most colleges and universities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania requires adopting anti-hazing policies and developing punitive measures for offenders. The two states uphold strict guidelines regarding what goes on during the pledge process by ensuring institutions adhere to an explicitly adopted Bill Of Rights outlining acceptable pledges’ behavior.

New Jersey has its Attorney General’s office § 18A:3-25 tasked with keeping an Officer who’s mandated to develop and maintain the “Pledge’s Bill of Rights”. This bill outlines what’s deemed acceptable & unacceptable behavior related to fraternal organizations’ pledging or rushing activities alongside similar groups within campus settlements.

Administratively, review meetings concerning this pledge should be conducted regularly following set protocols best suited for creating awareness among students about hazardous pledging practices. Students too have a role to play in maintaining order by whistleblowing unfavorable fraternity behaviors going unnoticed till injuries occur when possible injuries or harm is done. If you or your student has faced a hazing disciplinary breach, do not hesitate to contact attorney Todd Spodek for guidance.

Zero Tolerance on Hazing: What You Need to Know

Students should realize that no institution of higher learning in the United States can tolerate hazing activities. In the past, some colleges and universities allowed certain actions to be carried out by campus organizations on and off-campus without consequence. However, zero tolerance regarding such behaviours are now part of educational institutions’ policies with severe reprimand measures awaiting anyone found engaging in such activities.

Anything that endangers a person’s physical or mental wellbeing qualifies as hazing behaviour. Most US colleges and universities ban most extreme mental stress-inducing activities, such as demanding personal humiliation or making students commit hazardous or harmful acts under duress.

These include whipping, beating, branding, exposure effects alongside mandatory ingestion of foods/alcohol/drugs or anything else detrimental to health. Any kind of embarrassment, sexual activity without consent but under coercion or forced social exclusion that impacts mental health also qualifies.

Those who organize/initiate treatment procedures may create willful damage/ removal of private/public facilities shall all face consequences relating to anti-hazards policy violation together with the organization as a whole.

Potential far-reaching effects from occurrences of hazing

The first thing individuals accused of violating anti-hazing policies in their respective schools will face is potential disciplinary proceedings which could lead still further where warranted due to what has been deemed criminal behavior.

New Jersey court codes classify hazing in § 2C:40-3 from The New Jersey Code Of Criminal Justice; this code clearly indicates that individuals who knowingly engage in doing things outside competitive athletic events into fraternal organizations where other individuals are put at risk shall be charged with disorderly offenses.

Further up the ladder would be aggravated hazing which results in serious bodily injury; this is classified as a fourth-degree crime punishable by law. Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania under 24 Pa.C.S.§ 5351 hazing activities are classified as third-degree misdemeanors.

Other regions have implemented legislature such as the Anti-Hazing Act of 1986, defined within Act 175 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This act outlaws injuring or harming potential fraternity/sorority members vying for admission or former members seeking to retain their standing by hazing overtly or covertly on collegiate campuses. Consent is not legally valid either; it’s just unacceptable practice.

Pennsylvania laws seek to protect mental and physical well-being, thus taking pains to define any actions that endanger students subjecting them to hazing practice as illegal. Whip lashings or beatings, branding considerations, calisthenics forcing hardship exposure amongst others are considered unacceptable – this applies anywhere even beyond colleges & universities publicly accepted codes of conduct guidelines.

Each state has further addressed these concerns with advanced protocols outlining unacceptable behaviours and punitive measures applicable when institutional laws governing fraternities show little regard for personal safety.

Negotiating Hurdles with Zero Tolerance Policy against Hazing

Zero tolerance requires Anti-hazing policies developed by authorities on a need-to-have basis along with measures directed at reforming detrimental trends aimed to root out hazardous practices associated with pledging activities.

New Jersey & Pennsylvania require explicitly adopted Bill Of Rights be upheld related specifically towards acceptable pledges’ behavior conducted exclusively by fraternity/sorority organizations along all other similar groups falling under fraternal purview.

An office mandated in New Jersey oversees this approach (§18A:3-25) enabling serious action plans while streamlining involved players embroiled in ongoing grievances towards an exit strategy through awareness programs involving students alongside quasi-administrative staff.
Students can also play a role through whistleblowing unfavorable fraternity behaviors promptly once spotted avoiding injuries down the line where possible harm may occur.

Disciplinary breeches should be dealt with rigorously following a duly constituted anti-hazing code of conduct adopted by relevant authorities.

If any students faced a hazing event and is facing possible-legal action, it’s wise to consult legal counsel such as attorney Todd Spodek who specializes in student defence cases.