Universities who don’t define or address hazing aren’t dissuading or punishing it.
Following alleged “serious and concerning behaviour,” Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) suspended its men’s soccer team, forcing them to forfeit multiple games over the Labour Day long weekend.
Forfeiting multiple games seriously impacts a team’s standing in its overall season—TMU willingly suspending its soccer team implies the severity of the incident. Since it occurred at the beginning of the season, the incident could have possibly involved some form of hazing.
Despite the apparent severity of the situation, TMU hasn’t released any details. The only information available is that the University is investigating.
TMU’s response is in line with what appears to be a larger trend of universities refusing to communicate transparently with the public—a phenomenon with which Queen’s students are too familiar.
Last year, Queen’s Finance Association (QFA) was suspended following a serious incident of hazing. Much like TMU, Queen’s failed to release any details about the situation or those involved, and merely communicated that an investigation was conducted.
In not thoroughly addressing incidents of misconduct like these, universities fail to adequately condemn hazing.
Maximally discouraging hazing requires universities to define it. Specifying the types of behaviours that constitute hazing will help inform students of what actions to avoid, but also identify when they’re in an unsafe situation. Universities should equally be publishing the repercussions for perpetrators to prove hazing is taken seriously and won’t go unpunished.
By standardizing responses, defining hazing will facilitate its punishment.
There’s no evidence the perpetrators of the incident at TMU were punished. Although the University suspended the soccer team over the long weekend, they’re now playing again. Sidelining the whole team isn’t a proper punishment—it harms the victims just as much as it does the perpetrators.
Repercussions for perpetrators need to be individualized, like stripping them of scholarships or removing them from clubs and teams. Victims of hazing have already been mistreated and deserve to see actions against them being punished, instead of experiencing further suffering.
Publishing the names of perpetrators should be standard. University students are adults and deserve to be held able as such.
Releasing the names of perpetrators could even be in the interest of the public’s safety, as perpetrators of hazing may be prone to aggressive behaviour.
The further removed from the university an incident is, the more courage it requires to report it. Addressing hazing more openly and acknowledging it as a reality will make it easier for students to report their experiences.
Discouraging hazing is especially important for athletes because of the culture of silence in sports, wherein of a team and their coaches historically conceal each other’s wrongdoings.
The Ontario Hockey League’s (OHL) treatment of the Niagara IceDogs should serve as an example to universities. When the hockey team violated the league’s code of conduct, the OHL removed the perpetrators from the team and published their names.
Having a set definition and stern repercussions is the only way forward in preventing dangerous hazing.
—Journal Editorial Board
Tags
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].