Davis 1

Karen Davis
Jennifer Courtney
WRTG-2010-90
20 October 2015
Literature Review
Fraternity and Sorority Hazing
Hazing began hundreds of years ago and continues to be a problem in our country today.
The selfless acts are being allowed and students are getting hurt physically and emotionally and
are sometimes resulting in death. These injuries can affect students lives mentally and physically
for many years if not the rest of their lives. Even though in most schools and states it is
prohibited, it still is happening very often without much discipline. So, who should be
responsible? This is a large topic of discussion throughout the authors and what should be done
to stop this for good. Students are feeling so much peer pressure to fit in as they begin their first
years in college that they will do anything including participating in hazing activities and since
they are not strictly forbidden, then it is known to be tolerated. These students need help from
the chapters and the universities in order for things to change.
In reviewing the literature on fraternity and sorority hazing, I will show how hazing
began along time ago and discuss how it is performed and tolerated today and ultimately who
should be responsible.
Evolution of Hazing
History of hazing goes back further than you would think. Author William Terrell in
Pledging to Stay Viable: Why Fraternities and Sororities should adopt Arbitration as a
Responsible to Litigation Dilemma writes that Greek organizations can trace their American

Davis 2
origins back to over 200 years ago. In the United States, the first Greek fraternity was founded
in 1776 at the College of William and Mary known as Phi Beta Kappa. The first womens
fraternity known as Alpha Delta Pi was founded in 1851 and the first national fraternity for
college women known as Pi Beta Phi was founded in 1867.
During the ancient Greek times military organizations had to demonstrate how loyal they
were by suffering large amounts of pain, along with the new students in the European
universities during the Middle Ages whom were servants to the upperclassmen and eventually
these traditions emigrated to America and therefore violence became a part of the United States
Armed Forces as described by Gregory L Acquaviva in Protecting Students From the Wrongs of
Hazing Rites: A Proposal for Strengthening New Jerseys Anti-Hazing Act. Michelle A. Finkel,
MD also wrote in Traumatic Injuries Caused by Hazing Practices that hazing was actually a
requirement for graduation during the 1600s as the administration at the University thought that
most were uncivilized and had to be groomed. Likewise, this was also known as Pennalism,
however Pennalism was abolished in the 1700s due to the serious injuries that occurred and
death. Hazing became so prevalent in the armed service that Congress prohibited all forms
whether it was harmful or not in 1874 but it many states were extremely slow to follow.
(Acquaviva)
In 1901, 27 years after Congress prohibited all forms of hazing, Illinois passed the very
first Anti Hazing law making this kind of conduct a criminal act, but unfortunately the violence
continued. (Acquaviva)
In the United States today, all but 6 states have put in place criminal or civil statues
against hazing, but it still continues and is no longer just restricted to military barracks or college

Davis 3
animal houses, it is now in American schools, which can begin as young as junior high.
(Acquaviva)
The meaning of hazing is known to have several different meanings to different people.
A New York Court defined the word hazing as which incorporates treatment such as the
wearing of a beanie cap to the permanent disfigurement of the body, which as described would
be next to impossible for any legislature to define in detail, therefore it was variously defined as
the act of putting another in a ridiculous, humiliating, or disconcerting position as part of an
initiation process, any humiliating or dangerous activity expected to join in a group, regardless of
willingness to participate, and attempts to intimidate by physical punishment to harass by
exacting unnecessary disagreeable or difficult work to try to embarrass or disconcert by banter,
ridicule or criticism (Acquaviva).
Many states choose to define the term in statutes, and others will let the courts interpret
the term, for example it has also been defined as any activity expected of someone joining or
participating in a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers them regardless of a
persons willingness to participate, however the courts will typically define hazing as: (1) the
striking, laying hands upon, treating with violence, or offering to do bodily harm with the intent
to punish or injure or other treatment of a tyrannical, abusive shameful insulting, or humiliating
nature; (2) the subjecting of a freshman or fraternity pledge to treatment intended to put one in a
ridiculous or disconcerting position; (3) the intimidation of a person by physical punishment; and
any act or series of acts which cause, or are likely to cause bodily danger or physical harm
abusive or ridiculous tricks that subject an individual to personal indignity or ridicule. (Terrell)

Davis 4
It is clear that when the authors Acquaviva, Terrell, and Finkel discuss the evolution of
hazing there is some arguments on how it should be defined and how the courts should interpret
the definition.
Physical and Emotional Injuries
Over many years hazing has become increasingly more violent. In the scene from the
movie Animal House where there are several men causing a lot of chaos and drinking, this has
become the stereotypical image of a fraternity as written by Kerri Mumford in Who is
Responsible for Fraternity Related Injuries on American College Campuses Even though the
movie was filmed in the 1970s it is still referred to today as an easy stereotype for reference
purposes. Throughout the past two decades, the concern has increased as hazing consists of
binge drinking violence and sexual assault on campuses. In some instances the injuries can also
become fatal. Cheryl E. Drout and Christie L Corsoro write in Attitudes Toward Fraternity
Hazing Among Fraternity Members, Sorority Members and Non-Greek Students for example
that at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1997, a freshman died from alcohol poisoning
during a hazing activity. Another example was a student from Alfred University in New York
was forced into the trunk of a car and required to drink so much beer, bourbon and wine that he
died due to the quantity he consumed. In addition an St Louis University a pledge died after
being forced to receive shocks while lying on a table naked and having his skin covered in a
flammable chemical.
Additionally, hazing is more than just bodily injury. Gregory Acquaviva describes that
The pain of hazing is not limited to bodily injury. Rather, the litany of physical and
psychological sadism from hazing triggers significant emotional harm, including anger, fear,
nightmares, and suicidal tendencies. Nearly three-quarters of high school students subject to

Davis 5
hazing reported negative consequences. Emotional scars as noted in this quote can sometimes
be worse as they can take much longer to heal than a bodily injury. Also, one in five have
reported poor academic performance; eighteen percent indicated they had difficulty sleeping,
eating and just concentration. Nevertheless, the most troubling was the fact that fifteen percent
of hazing victims reported to have suicidal thoughts.
Some other additional kinds of hazing acts can include beating, paddling, whipping and
striking. Michelle Finkel argues that Intra-abdominal injuries, intracranial damage, and deaths
are all documented consequences of blunt trauma caused by beatings as part of hazing practices.
These practices can scar students for a lifetime and ultimately result in death. These acts have
also led to renal failure and hemoglobinuria. At a state university in Missouri in 1994, a
fraternity member died following a beating during a pledge session by seven fraternity brothers
and they left him in the vehicle while enjoying some fast food. The student endured many
injuries including fractured kidneys, bruised thigh, fractured ribs and a massive subdural
hemorrhage. Furthermore a hazing incident occurred in 1975 when a student was slammed into a
wall, which fractured his skull and caused an intracranial injury that caused death.
The authors come together in this topic discussing all the types of injuries that can occur
and the fact that there is more injury going on than just bodily, it is also very emotional.
Who should be Responsible?
As students continue to get away with hazing, there is a lot of discussion around who
should be responsible when these activities take place. Should the university, local chapter or
national chapters be held responsible? Author Kerri Mumford says Litigation against
fraternities has resulted in enormous civil damages paid to injured plaintiffs, often involving
multiple parties including the local chapter, the national chapter, the college and the individual

Davis 6
defendant fraternity members who cause the injury. It is time for both national and local
fraternitys chapters, as well as the colleges, to take a role in preventing these injuries. Because
of the large amount of fees that have been paid the college and chapters should start to take this
seriously in order to help start eliminated these injuries.
Every state seems to have a different idea around the wording they incorporate into law,
for example Gregory Acquaviva writes the following when discussing the New Jerseys AntiHazing Act The current act references only bodily injury and it is recommended to effects of the
mental and emotional health on students as well. The new act would impose a bold policy
statement and help bring attention to all the wrongful doing on campus and help eliminate
schools from hazing and the long-term effects: The current act with only referencing bodily
injury is very vague and does not cover the fact that hazing can become a very emotional
problem for the victim, therefore this should be included into the act as well.
There is also another form of legal action that people can take, which is a civil action. In
some cases parents that have brought these suits against universities and the local and national
chapters and therefore some of them have won thousand and millions of dollars. (Finkel)
As the authors discuss who should be responsible, they all know that is a problem that
needs to be addressed by the colleges, local and national chapters along with fact that more
legislation needs to be address, however they dont seem to know the best way to make it work
which is a gap.
In conclusion hazing in fraternities and sororities is a very serious problem that can no
longer be ignored. It needs to be addressed first by the colleges, local and national chapters to
come up with a solution to eliminate it as much as possible. Many students injuries are severe
enough that they resulting in either death or long term emotional scars.

Davis 7
Additionally every state in the country needs to individually pull together to come up
with a plan to make sure their laws are sufficient and that the students are held accountable and
are prosecuted accordingly.

Davis 8
Works Cited
Acquaviva, Gregory L. Protecting Students from the Wrongs of Hazing Rites: A Proposal for
Strengthening New Jerseys Anti-Hazing Act. 26 Quinnipiac L (2008): 305-36. Print
Drout, Cheryl E, Christie L. Corsoro. Attitudes Toward Fraternity Hazing Among Fraternity
Members, Sorority Members, and Non-Greek Students. Social Behavior and Personality
31.6 (2003): 535-44. Print
Finkel, Michelle A. Traumatic Injuries Caused by Hazing Practices. American Journal of
Emergency Medicine 20.3 (2002) 228-23. Print.
Mumford, Kerri. Who is Responsible for Fraternity Related Injuries on American College
Campuses? The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 17.2 (2001): 737-69.
Print.
Terrell, William C.Pledging to Stay Viable: Why Fraternities an d Sororities Should Adopt
Arbitration as a Response to the Litigation Dilemma. 43 U Mem L. 511(2011): n. pag
Print