Address Roadblocks and Improve Your Hazing Prevention Strategy

Madison, Wis.—June 12 — Hazing and attempts to prevent it aren’t new. In 1874 the US Congress passed regulation making it a criminal offense for anyone to commit hazing at the US Naval Academy. In 1901 Illinois became the first state to pass an anti-hazing statute.

Since then, colleges and universities have used principles of “prevention science” to help prevent high-risk behavior such as alcohol abuse. Unfortunately, not much of this approach has been applied to preventing hazing, says Arizona State University’s Kimberly Novak.

Novak shared this and other thoughts on hazing prevention during the June 12 online seminar “Using Science to Design Hazing Prevention Strategies.” Novak is the director for Student and Campus Community Development at Arizona State University’s Downtown Phoenix campus, heading a team that works with judicial affairs, student affairs risk management, and crisis intervention.

During the June 12 workshop, Novak enumerated the weaknesses of most institutions’ approach to hazing prevention:

1) It’s usually driven by an individual or single group, rather than being an institution-wide effort. As a result, policy enforcement is inconsistent. In addition, spotty efforts don’t address the hazing climate as a whole.

2) It’s often conducted without any research into where the problem actually lies. For instance, an institution might assume that students haze because they aren’t aware of the institution’s anti-hazing policy. As a result, the institution might simply set out to publicize the policy’s existence and language. But if the institution had conducted a survey or some other type of needs assessment, it might have found that although students are aware of the policy, they don’t see hazing as a negative. In that case, simply publicizing the policy language wouldn’t solve the problem.

3) It’s typically based on “what others have done” rather than what research has shown to be effective. We tend to copy what we see on other campuses (“Oh, you did a poster? I like your poster. Can I use it?”) rather than base our efforts on what’s proven effective. This proof can come from research on preventing other high-risk behavior such as violence and alcohol abuse, as well as an individual campus’ research into what’s effective with its unique student population.

4) It’s often activity-based rather than strategy-based. The first step in hazing prevention should not be to create an activity, but to define the problem and think of general strategies to help solve that problem. Then the activity—the speaker, workshop, or awareness campaign—can be designed to meet the strategy’s goals. For example, if the problem is that students do not view hazing as a problem, the strategy might be to increase awareness of hazing’s negative psychological, physical, legal, and academic consequences. Once that strategy has been identified, then workshops, media campaigns, training programs, and other tactics can be implemented.

Research into and strategies for preventing other types of high-risk behavior are available through the US Department of Education’s Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention (www.higheredcenter.org).

If you missed the June 12 seminar and would like to order a transcript or CD of the event, click here to visit our online store.

Magna Publications (www.magnapubs.com) is a leading publisher of newsletters and other information products in the higher education segment. Magna also manages onsite and online conferences on topics of interest to higher education.

For more information please contact David Burns, Publisher, Magna Publications, Inc., at 608-227-8109, or dburns@magnapubs.com.