FratPAC and Hazing at the Federal Level

I'm the last person who ever thought I would start my own blog.  Well, necessity is the mother of invention, I suppose.  When the news broke last week about the FratPAC's lobbying efforts, I was a little surprised to see the oft-repeated line from FRGC brass indicating their position that hazing was an issue best left to the states.  I thought a lot about the pros and cons of state vs. federal action, and came up with a few ideas of what effective federal legislation might look like.

I was proud of my effort, and immediately shipped it off to HazingPrevention.Org for consideration in their upcoming newsletter.  To my surprise, I was informed that HPO does not have a position on federal hazing legislation, and that they were going to pass on my article.  Upon further investigation, I found the news not-so-surprising.  The HPO Board Chairman, Joe Gilman (who is a great guy, and someone I consider a friend), is a donor and past board member of the FratPAC.  So I understand why HPO leadership decided to pass on my article.

Next, I shopped it to AFA Essentials.  They loved the article, and asked to hang on to if for a few months until it better fit with the theme of their monthly newsletter.  Me, being the impatient guy that I am, didn't want to wait.

So here we are.  My first blog.  This may be the only time I do this.  I'm counting on the power of social media to help me spread this message.  We'll see how this little experiment works.  Enjoy!

Gentry

Addressing Hazing at the Federal Level

Late last week, news broke indicating that the Fraternity and Sorority Political Action Committee (FSPAC) was actively engaged in lobbying against federal anti-hazing legislation proposed by Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL).  Her proposed legislation (which has yet to be submitted as a bill before Congress) would, among other things, require mandated reporting of hazing allegations and would eliminate Federal Financial Aid benefits to students found responsible for hazing. 

According to North American Interfraternity Conference (NIC) president Pete Smithhisler (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fraternity-group-lobbies-hazing-reform/story?id=19766121), the Fraternal Government Relations Committee (FGRC) has, in fact, met with Rep. Wilson regarding concerns about her proposed legislation, and public records indicate that the FSPAC donated $1,000 to her campaign fund.  The FGRC training packet for the April 2013 congressional visits contains a brief section regarding hazing legislation, including this excerpt:

While we lead the fight against hazing, we do not think it should be a federal issue. For many legal and policy reasons, we oppose proposed legislation that denies federal financial aid to students subject to a university sanction for hazing. We believe this legislation would result in more problems than it solves in regards to hazing.

While their critiques of the legislation are legitimate, their involvement in lobbying against proposed hazing legislation could be problematic, especially for the NIC and the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC), the two groups who founded and financially support the FGRC.  Public commentary from FRGC leadership has always suggested that their lobbying efforts included three main legislative priorities: to protect fraternity/sorority exemptions articulated under Title IX, to protect tax deductions for fraternity/sorority charitable contributions, and to promote the Collegiate Housing and Infrastructure Act (CHIA), which would allow for tax-deductible gifts towards fraternity/sorority housing.  Public documents and websites related to the FGRC and the NIC/NPC government relations efforts make little mention of any lobbying on behalf of or in opposition to federal hazing legislation.  In a phone conversation, Pete Smithhisler indicated that the decision was made to only communicate the hazing lobbying effort "to our internal constituents” (Pete Smithhisler, Personal Communication, July 25, 2013).  Based on this admission, it appears that many individuals may have donated to the FSPAC under the auspices of supporting CHIA, with no knowledge that the funds would be used to lobby for or against federal anti-hazing legislation.

Social media has been abuzz with conversation regarding this revelation.  Those defending the NIC/FGRC/FSPAC are quick to point out the flaws in Rep. Wilson’s proposed legislation (http://wilson.house.gov/press-releases/congresswoman-wilson-announces-framework-for-anti-hazing-legislation/).  This criticism is not without merit.  Her proposal of denying federal financial aid benefits to any student found responsible for hazing, or witnessing hazing but not reporting it, would have far-reaching unintended consequences and would disproportionately affect low-income students.

With that said, some of the arguments against her proposed legislation appear misguided.  Several have argued that there is no need for a federal anti-hazing bill – that the issue is best left to the states.  The argument that only the states should be involved in hazing does not reflect an understanding of existing prevention framework.  Those who study the science of prevention are well aware of Bronfebrenner’s “Social Ecological Model” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ecological_model).  The Social Ecological Model describes various levels of intervention that can affect behavior change.  The outermost layer, the “macro-system,” is often thought of in regards to public policy.  The laws governing any particular behavior are an important part of promoting change with regards to that behavior.  This is a basic tenant of the framework taught at the Novak Institute for Hazing Prevention, and has been previously discussed when comparing the anti-bullying movement to the hazing prevention movement (http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Learning-from-the-Anti-Bullying-Movement.html?soid=1101826026302&aid=OBB2_TrwoF0). 

Furthermore, the federal government has demonstrated its ability to bring about behavioral change on college campuses.  For an example of this, one should look no further than the April 2011 “Dear Colleague Letter” from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/dear_colleague_sexual_violence.pdf).  This letter, and the laws that now undergird it (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/vawa_factsheet.pdf), have drastically improved the way that college campuses prevent and respond to allegations of sexual misconduct.  Sadly, it appears that the FGRC, along with the leadership of the NIC and NPC, have also lobbied against those reforms (http://www.fspac.org/images/uploads/FratPAC_S12_Newsletter.pdf).

Assuming that the FGRC is genuine in its assertion that it would support “well-crafted” federal anti-hazing legislation, it is worth proposing what effective federal legislation might look like.  The following list includes a number of possible ways that hazing prevention could be enacted at the federal level:

Include Hazing in Clery Report Statistics

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act was passed in 1990 in response to the 1986 rape and murder of Jeanne Clery at Lehigh University.  The Clery Act requires, among other things, colleges to publish an annual security report.  This report contains statistics about campus crime, including crimes of violence and crimes involving violations of drug and alcohol laws.  The Clery Act was amended in 2013 as part of the Violence Against Women Act to include a number of new crimes in the security report, including domestic violence and stalking.

Many campuses attempt to keep hazing allegations and investigations quiet in an effort to reduce negative publicity and to curry favor with prominent alumni.  As a result, prospective students and their parents are often ill-informed regarding the prevalence of hazing on the campuses they are considering attending.  By including hazing allegations on the Clery Report, prospective students will be able to  make better-informed decisions, and campuses will be more accountable for their respective hazing cultures.  Furthermore, as organizational conduct records are not protected by FERPA, campuses could be required to publish the names of any organizations found responsible for hazing in their Clery Report.  This would add an additional layer of accountability to both the institutions and the organizations involved in hazing.

Promulgate Investigative/Adjudicative Model Similar to the One Outlined by the OCR for Title IX Cases

The April 4, 2011 “Dear Colleague” Letter issued by the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education put colleges on notice that the manner in which they were handling, or mishandling, sexual misconduct allegations was no longer acceptable.  The letter laid out a number of guidelines, many of which were later codified under the Violence Against Women Act in 2013.  While the NIC, at least, appears to have concerns regarding the mandated “preponderance of the evidence” threshold for burden of proof in Title IX cases, other aspects of the DCL provide a valuable framework for addressing and adjudicating hazing on college campuses.

The DCL guidelines included very specific language related to the “fair and equitable” investigation and adjudication of sexual assault allegations.  It required campuses to appoint a Title IX coordinator and to have trained, unbiased investigators.  The letter provided protections to victims, allowing conduct processes to proceed without forcing the victim to face her attacker.  Each of these requirements, and more, would drastically improve the way college campuses respond to hazing allegations if they were applied in that fashion. 

It is well-documented that many college campuses have attempted to minimize hazing allegations, particularly those that do not result in physical injury or harm.  The culture that is created by this “head in the sand approach” is one that allows for greater rates of perpetration.  Federal legislation could require campuses to report hazing allegations to a designated “Hazing Prevention Coordinator,” require timely investigations by a trained, unbiased investigator, allow for the results of investigations to be presented at a hearing without the participation of victims.  By moving towards this type of model, campuses would be forced to address all hazing allegations, regardless of severity, and provide a timely, fair and equitable outcome.  This would surely be an improvement on a majority of campuses.

Loss of Federal Financial Aid Benefits for Anyone Criminally Convicted of Hazing

Representative Wilson’s original proposal would have denied federal aid benefits to anyone found responsible in a campus conduct hearing for any type of hazing, or for anyone who witnessed hazing, including as a victim, and did not report it to the proper authorities.  This proposal is problematic for a number of reasons, all of which have been pointed out by the FGRC.

However, the idea of denying federal aid benefits should not be dismissed outright.  Under current law, students can be denied federal aid for a variety of drug and forcible sex offenses (http://studentaid.ed.gov/eligibility/criminal-convictions).  However, these restrictions only apply if and when a student (or prospective student) has been convicted in a criminal proceeding.  Currently, 44 of 50 states have hazing laws.  In order to truly be effective, it would be necessary to have some uniformity to these laws and to bring the other six states (Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming) into the fold.  If that happened, a restriction of federal financial aid to anyone criminally convicted of hazing would send a clear message to would-be hazers, particularly in those states with strong anti-hazing laws.

Conclusion

The function and activities of the so-called “FratPAC” will likely continue to stir debate.  While their aims and purposes appear to be noble, it cannot be denied that they, like many other lobbying groups, represent powerful special interests.  It also cannot be argued that their efforts, and the resulting media coverage, represent a black eye for the “fraternity movement.”  Openly lobbying against federal hazing legislation was a bad idea.  Period. Regardless, those of us interested in hazing prevention should be interested in pursuing any and all opportunities that show promise in preventing hazing.  The suggestions in this article are likely only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what might be effective at the federal level.  But to be outright dismissive of any federal involvement in hazing prevention is shortsighted.  Let us continue to pursue opportunities to reduce the prevalence and severity of hazing at all levels and in all settings.