by Buddy Weber

Last week, the Free Press published an article by Catherine Morrissette, “Why Hazing Makes Better Men.” The impetus for the article was the release of some police body cam footage of an initiation ritual in the basement of a fraternity at the University of Iowa. The footage went viral and the responses on social media were uniformly negative.

She wrote:

In less than a week, it has accumulated over a million views on YouTube, and over 50 million on X. “Crazy what men will do for the validation of other men,” reads one X post with almost 500,000views. “It’s really a grooming ritual—training members to normalize exploitation, hierarchy, and silence,” reads another. The New York Post called the incident “disturbing.”

The university suspended the fraternity for violating its policy on hazing.

As uncomfortable as the video appears, these young men are going through something together—and the disgust and discomfort are exactly the point.
The desired outcome of a night like the one caught on camera is not alcohol poisoning or lifelong PTSD, as internet crusaders might claim. Though the ritual is contrived—no one is out hunting for dinner or fighting off invaders—it’s about doing something hard and emerging on the other side together, as brothers. We’ve been so conditioned into safety, into correctness and tone policing and safe spaces, that I’m not surprised when men go and create unsafe spaces for themselves. If we don’t want the world to be a frat house, fine. But don’t take that from the people who do, at least for a couple years, when they’re young and boisterous and desperate to test their limits.

So, was the ritual shown on social media really hazing?

Hazing is a criminal offense under Virginia law. Va. Code § 18,2-56. Under the law, hazing means to “recklessly or intentionally endanger the health or safety of a student or students or to inflict bodily injury on a student or students in connection with or for the purpose of initiation, admission into or affiliation with or as a condition for continued membership in a club, organization, association, fraternity, sorority, or student body regardless of whether the student or students so endangered or injured participated voluntarily in the relevant activity.”

The courts have uniformly focused on the requirement to prove“ bodily injury” to sustain a charge of hazing. See, e.g., Marcantonio v. Dudzinski, 155 F. Supp. 3d 619 (W.D. Va. 2015).

The University of Virginia, however, has explicitly expanded the definition of hazing to include not just physical but psychological injury which includes, but is not limited to, “mental or physical harassment, humiliation, fatigue, degradation, ridicule, shock, or abuse. See, STU-005: Prohibition on Hazing.
The policy cites examples of specific acts that may constitute hazing including, but not limited to, the following:

Paddling, whipping, beating, striking, or similar physical abuse.
Kidnapping.

All forms of physical activity which are used to harass, punish, or harm an individual, including pushups, calisthenics, running, or similar physical exercise.

Forced excursions or road trips.

Confinement.

Spraying, painting, or pelting with any substance.

Burying in any substance.

Nudity with the intent to cause embarrassment.

Acting as a personal servant.

Exposure to uncomfortable elements, including putting irritating substances on body parts and sensory deprivation.

Verbal abuse.

Wearing of apparel that is conspicuous and/or indecent.

Coerced consumption of alcohol or any other substance, legal orillegal.
Being forced or coerced to engage in any kind of sexual activity, including but not limited to forced nudity, simulated sex acts, and touching of intimate body parts.

Depriving students of basic hygiene or sufficient sleep (six consecutive hours per day is normally considered to be a minimum).

Coerced burning, branding, or tattooing any part of the body.

Psychological hazing, defined as any act which is likely to:

Compromise an individual’s dignity.

Cause an individual embarrassment or shame.

Cause an individual to be the object of malicious amusement or ridicule.

Cause an individual emotional distress.

Interrogating an individual in an intimidating or threatening manner.

Misleading prospective members in an effort to convince them that they will not become members unless they engage in hazing activities.

Misleading prospective members into believing that they will be hurt during induction or initiation.

Any activity that places another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the use of threatening words or conduct.

Carrying any items (shields, paddles, bricks, hammers, etc.) that serve no constructive purpose or that are designed to punish or embarrass the carrier.
Blindfolding and parading individuals in public areas for amusement or embarrassment, blindfolding and transporting in a motor vehicle, or privately conducting blindfolding activities that serve no constructive purpose.

Binding or restricting an individual in any way that would prohibit them from moving on their own.

Requiring or suggesting that an individual obtain or possess an item(s) or complete an activity in an unlawful manner (e.g., stealing signs for a scavenger hunt).

Obligating prospective members to clean up an organization house or similar facility beyond the normal and reasonable expectations for, and participation of, current members of the organization.

Prohibiting an individual from social contact or from associating with other individuals or groups.

Other actions that are likely to negatively impact academic performance or mental health.

Hazing also includes soliciting, directing, aiding, or otherwise participating actively or passively in the above acts.

Is there any activity in any rite of initiation that could not be construed as hazing? Who decides? And how is the policy investigated and enforced?

Recall the incident from a few years ago of a very hostile and threatening interrogation of a fraternity member by Donovan Golich, the assistant director of accountability with Student Affairs. See, James A Bacon, “How UVA Holds Students Accountable,” Bacon’s Rebellion, Sept. 23, 2024. Mr. Golich’s employment was terminated but only because the student had the foresight to record and publicize the interrogation.

I do not question the results of any past investigation into allegations of hazing. All or some may well have resulted in some physical injury within the meaning of the law. But, in general, sanctions are imposed based on the totality of the evidence and thus necessarily consider evidence beyond the scope of the law itself. I will leave it to the common sense of the reader to decide which of the aforementioned activities really constitute legal hazing which should be sanctioned.

I do agree with Ms. Morrissette that such rites of initiation maybe more beneficial that harmful. No physical injury, no foul.

In my humble opinion, the University should narrow the scope of its policy against hazing to conform to the limits under the law.

In the meantime, any allegation of hazing against an organization should be strictly construed under the law against the University.

Charles L. “Buddy” Weber Jr. lives in Charlottesville.