How Do We Stop Hazing?
Athletes were aware of campus policies concerning recruitment and alcohol. Most athletes reported that their institutions had athletic, behavioral, and academic standards guiding athletic recruitment. Seventy-three percent of the athletes thought that their institutions enforced state drinking laws on campus and that their administrations prosecuted alcohol misconduct violations.
Athletes had little or no knowledge, however, of strategies directly related to hazing prevention on their campuses. Only 15 percent believed that their institutions involved law enforcement in monitoring, investigating, and prosecuting hazing incidents. Only 25 percent of athletes thought the institutions had clear staff expectations in athletics for monitoring and enforcing hazing policy. Only a third (36 percent) of athletes believed that the institutions provided alternative bonding and recognition events for teams to prevent hazing. Only 25 percent of athletes thought that their institutions took strong disciplinary and corrective measures for known cases of hazing, yet these were the strategies survey respondents considered most effective in the prevention of hazing.
|Prevention Strategies Thought Most Effective||Athletes n=2027||%||Coaches n=822||%||Ath. Dir. n=338||%||Deans n=235||%|
|Strong disciplinary & corrective measures for known cases||496||52%||343||68%||128||69%||106||68%|
|Athletic, behavioral, & academic standards guiding recruitment||801||51%||464||61%||170||65%||122||65%|
bonding & recognition events for teams to prevent hazing
involved in monitoring, investigating, and prosecuting hazing
expectations in athletics for monitoring & enforcing
policy with clearly prescribed consequences
hazing policies, laws & consequences for athletes to sign
of state drinking laws on campus/prosecution of misconduct
person to whom to report suspected hazing
for athletes, coaches, & athletic administrators
activities: peer ed., counseling, team party patrols