New Federal Anti-Hazing Law Establishes Obligations for Schools—What Does it Mean for Students?
| | Student Rights, Title IX
The vast majority of states in the U.S.—44–have passed criminal statutes outlawing hazing activities on school campuses. At first glance, it might seem that when federal lawmakers passed a new anti-hazing law, it might be similar to the state laws in application and bring uniformity to the prosecution of hazing offenses.
However, the new law does not make hazing a federal crime. Instead, it sets requirements that colleges and universities must follow in order to receive federal financial aid. In that sense, it seems to be establishing a scheme much like Title IX, where violations are based on an individual institution’s rules, and investigations and penalties are set by institutional policies. The new law may increase uncertainty for students accused of violations in many ways. However, the law does establish a universal definition of hazing that creates the potential for everyone to understand what constitutes a violation and what may be permissible—as long as it doesn’t violate state law.
What the New Law Requires Colleges and Universities to Do
The Stop Campus Hazing Act, which was signed into law just before the end of 2024, requires institutions of higher education—accredited colleges and universities—to include reports of hazing episodes in the annual security report that these schools are required to file as part of their obligations under the Clery Act. This focuses public attention on hazing practices so that potential students and their families have information to help them make safe choices.
However, it is the requirements that schools must follow to be able to make these reports that will be the factors that have the best chance of producing changes in student behavior. Colleges and universities need to accept and understand the federal government’s definition of hazing because the actions that meet the definition are the ones that must be reported. It will probably be embarrassing if their policies don’t prohibit hazing as defined by the federal government, so that should create a baseline definition of hazing activities that are prohibited on most, if not all college campuses. (However, some schools might adopt definitions that encompass more conduct than the federal rules.) The policies must include information about how to report hazing incidents and the school’s process for investigating reports of hazing. Additionally, policies should provide information on hazing laws adopted by applicable state, local, and tribal authorities.
Schools are also required to report their policies regarding programs for prevention and awareness of hazing, which will ensure that they create and maintain these programs. This might include programs such as skill-building programs to encourage ethical leadership by students and effective intervention by bystanders, as well as strategies for building team unity without hazing.
Federal Definition of Hazing
The definition of hazing in various state statutes and school policy manuals around the country varies considerably, so by including a definition in the Stop Campus Hazing Act, Congress may establish a more uniform standard. However, it is important to remember that this new federal law does not override any state criminal laws, so those varying definitions remain applicable to students in those states. Moreover, schools are free to establish more restrictive anti-hazing policies that cover additional conduct, and the new federal law does not appear to require schools to prohibit hazing but only to report it when it occurs.
Nevertheless, it will be important for current and incoming college students to understand how the federal government defines hazing, which notably applies even when a student is willing to participate in the activities. Hazing, according to the new law, consists of intentional or reckless acts committed against a student when:
- The act is connected with initiation into an organization, maintaining membership in an organization, or even affiliation with an organization, and
- The act “causes or is likely to contribute to a substantial risk, above the reasonable risk . . . of physical injury, mental harm, or degradation.”
Organizations to which this definition applies include clubs, societies, associations, athletic teams, fraternities, sororities, and student government. Presumably, the definition could apply to other organizations as well.
So, when does an act create a “substantial” risk of physical injury, mental harm, or degradation? The House version of the bill (H.R. 5646) provides some examples:
- Whipping, beating, striking, electronic shocking, placing of a harmful substance on someone’s body, or similar activity
- Causing, coercing, or otherwise inducing sleep deprivation, exposure to the elements, confinement in a small space, extreme calisthenics, or other similar activity
- Causing, coercing, or otherwise inducing another person to consume food, liquid, alcohol, drugs, or other substances
- Causing, coercing, or otherwise inducing another person to perform sexual acts
- Any activity that places another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the use of threatening words or conduct
- Any activity against another person that includes a criminal violation of local, State, Tribal, or Federal law
- Any activity that induces, causes, or requires another person to perform a duty or task that involves a criminal violation of local, State, Tribal, or Federal law.
Even with these examples, however, there could be considerable latitude in campus tribunals about what conduct constitutes hazing.
Federal Hazing is a Violation of Campus Policy, But State Hazing is a Crime
Students who are planning activities for their organizations, as well as those who have been accused of hazing, need to understand that federal and state hazing laws will be applied in different ways. A student who is accused of violating a state anti-hazing law can face criminal penalties as well as any penalties levied by the school. It is a good idea to work with an attorney who is familiar with student defense on campus because campus disciplinary proceedings usually proceed at a much more rapid pace than criminal proceedings and information from campus investigations may be shared with law enforcement authorities.
A violation of federal anti-hazing provisions, at this point in time, would be considered a violation of school conduct codes, and schools are free to set their own rules for investigating and adjudicating potential violations and assessing penalties. Eventually, the anti-hazing procedures could be regulated much as Title IX rules are now, where school policies must comply with a host of federal requirements to protect due process and other rights.
Students and their families need to remember that the process and outcome of a campus disciplinary proceeding can have lifelong consequences, interfering with education and career opportunities far into the future. So, it is wise to consult an experienced student defense attorney as soon as accusations arise on campus.
Protecting the Rights and Future of Our Nation’s Student Population
Colleges, universities, and other educational institutions often try to make examples of students to show that they are serious about correcting longstanding problems on campus. In many situations, the rights of individual students, faculty, and staff get trampled in an effort to protect an institution’s reputation.
At Nesenoff & Miltenberg, we protect the rights of individuals when schools either go too far in enforcing policies or don’t do enough to safeguard students, faculty, and staff. For a confidential consultation to discuss how we may be able to assist with an issue on campus, contact our team today.