Hazing Prevention Deserves Attention, Too.

As school leaders nationwide have redoubled their efforts to manage risks associated with school violence, one form of violence largely has escaped their gaze.

Hazing, which has had a high profile on college campuses for years, appears almost as widespread on high school campuses, as well.

Consider the following incidents during the 1999-2000 school year, drawn from various news sources:

* Ten students at Winslow High School in northwest Arizona were indicted on several felony charges in May for allegedly hazing teammates, mostly freshmen, on the basketball and track teams;

* Four students at Mount Zion High School in Illinois faced expulsion this spring after being accused of spanking and paddling 8th-graders apparently as a form of initiation into the high school;

* The student newspaper at Avon High School in Indiana last fall exposed an annual summer rite of the varsity football team in which upperclassmen strike younger team members with extension cords and belts. The football coach subsequently resigned.

These incidents are not isolated. Indeed, they closely followed the release of an August 1999 study by Alfred University on widespread hazing of male and female collegiate athletes. Of those who reported being hazed, 5 percent said they were first hazed in middle school; another 42 percent indicated they experienced their first hazing initiation in high school sports.

Behavior Defined

Dealing with this problem must start with a baseline understanding of the conduct we label hazing. While hazing is defined differently by the 41 or so states with legislation prohibiting this behavior, hazing generally is considered conduct that causes or threatens to cause serious physical or psychological injury to another as a condition of joining a team, student organization or other group. This conduct is considered illegal even if participants consent to the activity.

Of course, disagreement exists over what conduct rises to the level of hazing, but school administrators are well advised to avoid getting lost in intellectual debates over this aspect of the problem. Most criminal actions and civil litigation involve claims in which someone has been seriously hurt physically or emotionally. Conversely, the typical initiation activities by teams or other groups, such as requiring new members to sing the fight song in the crowded cafeteria, rarely results in serious harm, conflict or litigation.

Recent high school incidents like those cited earlier provide telling examples of the problem and should be studied carefully by school officials who want to do right by students and avoid exposing themselves or their districts to costly litigation.

Parental Prodding

Not surprisingly, parents of student victims are outraged by the conduct and harm caused to their children, and they immediately look to school officials for answers and solutions. Unfortunately, the districts involved in several recent cases stumbled in their responses and failed to appreciate that these parents would not be mollified by anything less than a swift, unequivocal and comprehensive response.

In a highly publicized case in Essex, Vt., older members of the girls' gymnastics team required a 9th grade recruit to eat bananas out of the zippers of boys' trousers. Her parents were forced repeatedly to prod school officials to take action against the wrongdoers, but they often were met with implications their 14-year-old daughter bore blame for the incident. These implications enraged the child's parents. In the aftermath, the school promised to discipline students and take other remedial actions, but it ultimately failed to follow through on its promises.

The family retained counsel to impose significant changes and seek compensation. Now, the athletic director conducts a hazing awareness program and requires students to sign anti-hazing contracts along with formal agreements requiring students to refrain from the use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs. The students who participated in the hazing avoided litigation by issuing apologies to the family. The family received a confidential financial settlement and is working with the school board to develop a districtwide anti-hazing policy.

Make no mistake, this was a fairly straightforward, painless resolution for the school. Most large hazing cases cost schools far more.

The solution to this problem starts with dispelling the time-worn, legally indefensible notions that hazing is a legitimate rite of passage, that this type of initiation is important or that it is just a matter of kids having consensual fun. Hazing degrades vulnerable young people.

Next, dispel assumptions that this problem has bypassed your school and that your staff understands this problem and is implementing measures to prevent harmful conduct. In virtually every case I have ever been called into, the coaching and administrative staff at the school had no prior training in this area and was generally ill-equipped to understand, prevent or respond appropriately.

Hazing is not typically done in the open (it takes cover to hurt and degrade), and many students or faculty know, or have reason to know, it happens. Claiming ignorance is often a dubious defense because, depending upon the circumstances, lawyers can justifiably establish that the school had a duty to learn of and prevent the problem.

The school and district must develop a comprehensive anti-hazing policy that provides specific illustrations of prohibited conduct. For ideas, start by reviewing your state law if you're in one of the 41 states that have criminalized this type of conduct. The laws of Alabama, Maryland and Ohio are especially good examples.

Annual Reminders

The anti-hazing policy should be linked with schoolwide codes of conduct that authorize officials to expel wrongdoers and terminate tolerant coaches or faculty. Communicate the anti-hazing policy at the beginning of each school year and athletic season to staff, students and parents and require coaching staffs to report all alleged incidents of hazing to school officials. Consider requiring students to sign pledges to refrain from hazing.

For implementation ideas, review the January 1999 guidelines created by the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education and the National Association of Attorneys General (available at www.ed.gov/pubs/Harassment/complaintl.html), which provide guidance to elementary and secondary schools on protecting students from unlawful harassment.

Finally, the district must improve its understanding of and develop policies for responding to incidents of hazing. Young people joining a team face overwhelming influences based on feelings of acceptance, perseverance, loyalty, failure and fear. These can be exploited through group pressure and coercion.

These same concepts are at play when a young person is humiliated, hurt or forced to leave a team or school as a result of hazing. Victims of hazing may have physical injuries, suicidal impulses, nightmares and other emotional problems, and you can be sure they have angry family members who want their questions answered promptly and the problems solved properly.

Anticipate and prepare for a divisive controversy involving coaches, parents, friends and teammates because all sides will be drawn in as people move to protect or blame those involved. The school and district must demonstrate leadership, responsiveness and support by enforcing its school policies and affirming students' rights to learn and join teams in a safe environment.

Douglas Fierberg is a partner in the law firm of Sherman, Meehan, Curtin and Ain, 1900 M St., N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20036. E-mail: [e-mail]. He has represented plaintiffs in several hazing cases and provided training and risk management for educational administrators, coaches and student groups.