Hazing

How far is too far?

What starts out as harmless can turn criminal real fast, as was the case for the University of Vermont's 1999-2000 hockey team. Allegations of fraud and sexual misconduct are not harmless acts. On-the-ice sportsmanship should expand its focus to off-the-ice behavior.

Initiations may strengthen group loyalty and even performance. But, how beneficial are acts which turn into injurious rites of passage that break laws and violate the freedoms of individuals?

Hazing incidents involving athletes are more prevalent than ever. For players who are held up as role models and for schools whose reputations are at stake, illegal, injury causing or immoral sexual conduct seems a poor standard for future student athletes to emulate. Campus-cover-ups that protect their own have been rumored in the past—accountability and responsibility trashed by special treatment.

The numbers of assaults, sexual assaults and other alleged acts of violence persist in NCAA Division 1 schools. Decisions of fairness toward athletes, the presumption of innocence, the high price of publicity, and in some cases an even higher price of fielding a losing team is the dilemma schools face.

Whether to handle illegal and immoral behavior within the athletic department, through campus student affairs, or school administration, to remove scholarships or hand down suspensions — all are up for debate. Schools continue to maintain individual policies regarding second chances and individual rights.

An NCAA national response isn't eminent. Individual schools which seem to prefer disciplinary matters handled on home turf, rather than with national legislation, haven't found a definitive answer to the complicated legal ramifications in the NCAA rule book: Bylaw 15.3.4.1.2: “An institution may cancel or reduce the financial aid of a student-athlete who is found to have engaged in misconduct by the university's regular student disciplinary authority...”

There are far reaching legal ramifications for schools. A suspension of an athlete, who later was proven innocent could mean a suit against the institution. The possibility of wrongful accusations, suspensions or even arrests could be the end of an athlete's career potential.

A code of conduct should be in place at universities with a disciplinary process and procedures. Most schools have codes of conduct for the general student body. They're divided, however, on having separate policies for athletes. Should disciplinary actions be in the hands of coaches, or an administration removed from making biased decisions based on an athlete's athletic talent, academic scholarship or team contribution?

There seems to be no unified official right or wrong approach. With NCAA guidance preferring to leave judgment to individual schools, lawbreaking athletes feeling empowered by their seeming elite position, continue to carry out immoral and illegal behavior nationwide in all NCAA sports.

In a SPECIAL USA Today report: COLLEGES CONFRONT ATHLETES' CRIMES Sep 18, 1998, “Athletes were "over-represented" in reports of campus violence against women.” The article also suggests that “athletes are more prone to criminal acts than the general student population and showed that high school athletes tested 12% below non-athletes in a morals based test.” According to this test, athletes, "believed more than non-athletes that they could bend the rules."

The May issue of the Journal of American College Health reported that, “College athletes tended to binge drink more often than other students, 7.34 drinks a week to the non-athlete's 4.12.”

In an ESPN on-line survey fall of 1991, 83% of 6,645 respondents said they thought college and pro athletes were committing more criminal acts than 25 years earlier. Almost 68% said big-time sports makes athletes violent. And, asked if colleges should revoke the scholarship of an athlete convicted of a crime, 84% said yes.

Breaking laws just to be “one of the guys” is going way too far.

Center Ice (Home)