College Revises Hazing Policy

These guys seem to think hazing is fun, but Middlebury disagrees.

Over the summer, the College revised its policy on hazing (click for background information on last year’s hazing incident). In addition to spelling out the investigative process that a group of students would undergo if accused of hazing, the updated policy outlines specific activities that violate the College’s new rules. Listed below are some of the more eyebrow-raising examples:

  • Shaving, tattooing, piercing or branding
  • Throwing substances or objects at individuals
  • Assigning unreasonable chores or acts of servitude
  • Causing excessive exercise, sleep deprivation or excessive fatigue
  • Interfering with adequate time for study
  • Requiring the wearing of apparel or acting in a way that is conspicuous and not within community norms

(NOTE: Sleep deprivation or excessive fatigue? Middlebury, you’re hazing us.)

Violation of the aforementioned activities (among others) may result in suspension for an indefinite period of time, revocation of College facility use privileges and/or case referrals to local law enforcement. Those accused of hazing are given the opportunity to issue a response statement to the Dean of the College to justify and defend their actions.

Perhaps the most important section of the new policy is in the section on consent to hazing, which reads, “Because of the socially coercive nature of hazing, implied or expressed consent to hazing is not a defense under applicable State law or this policy.” In other words, an outside source determines if an action falls under the category of hazing, even if you wholeheartedly agreed to take part. Hazing is a violation of Vermont state law, but because Middlebury is a private institution, College rules take precedent of state laws in such situations. Continue reading

Advertisements

The recent hazing case, and how we talk about it

Most of the women’s swim team was recently suspended from finishing out the season, after members of both the men’s and women’s teams were found to have violated the College’s hazing policy.

At the expense of joining the conversation on this topic a bit late, MiddBlog hopes to examine the case and the reactions to it thus far. The goal is to build a basis for constructive discussion about the broader concerns the situation raises.

This post is longer than average, so hit “Read more” for the rest:

Continue reading