Hazing - as defined in Northwestern's Student Code of Conduct

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

"Hazing is defined as any action taken or situation created, intentionally or unintentionally, whether on or off University premises and whether presented as optional or required, to produce: mental, physical, or emotional discomfort; servitude; degradation; embarrassment; harassment; or ridicule for the purpose of initiation into, affiliation with, or admission to, or as a condition for continued membership in a group, team, or other organization, regardless of an individual’s willingness to participate."

https://www.northwestern.edu/communitystandards/student-handbook/prohibited-restricted-conduct.html

I am appealing to people who can process words to think about this. As broadly as NU tried to define hazing, they have indisputably linked it to intent. I bolded the relevant phrase.
The hazing definition seems tailored to fraternities and sororities, where students decide who gets in and who doesn't.
However, football players do not have the power to admit, affiliate or expel another player from their team.
Therefore, by NU's own definition, players on an NU team simply cannot be accused of hazing.

The coaches may be held to different standards.

 

[NUCat320]

Okay.

 

[GOUNUII]

Okay.

Okay What? By that definition there was no hazing. Like I said before, knucklehead $hit went on. That alone may be grounds for discipline. But it was not zero tolerance hazing as defined above. To the extent Schill hung his hat on that policy he was extremely foolish IMO.

GOUNUII

 

[FeralFelidae]

Okay What? By that definition there was no hazing. Like I said before, knucklehead $hit went on. That alone may be grounds for discipline. But it was not zero tolerance hazing as defined above. To the extent Schill hung his hat on that policy he was extremely foolish IMO.

GOUNUII

Doesn't Illinois law have its own definition of hazing? I presume the relevant parties would also be bound by that.

Or if some of it went on at Kenosha, does Wisconsin also have laws that would apply? (I don't know; I'm just asking.)

 

[villox]

"Hazing is defined as any action taken or situation created, intentionally or unintentionally, whether on or off University premises and whether presented as optional or required, to produce: mental, physical, or emotional discomfort; servitude; degradation; embarrassment; harassment; or ridicule for the purpose of initiation into, affiliation with, or admission to, or as a condition for continued membership in a group, team, or other organization, regardless of an individual’s willingness to participate."

https://www.northwestern.edu/communitystandards/student-handbook/prohibited-restricted-conduct.html

I am appealing to people who can process words to think about this. As broadly as NU tried to define hazing, they have indisputably linked it to intent. I bolded the relevant phrase.
The hazing definition seems tailored to fraternities and sororities, where students decide who gets in and who doesn't.
However, football players do not have the power to admit, affiliate or expel another player from their team.
Therefore, by NU's own definition, players on an NU team simply cannot be accused of hazing.

The coaches may be held to different standards.

Um, you don’t think the naked stuff or dry humping was intended to produce mental, physical, or emotional discomfort or embarrassment? Do you know how clauses work? The bolder part is not the only relevant portion.

 

[NUCat320]

Okay What? By that definition there was no hazing. Like I said before, knucklehead $hit went on. That alone may be grounds for discipline. But it was not zero tolerance hazing as defined above. To the extent Schill hung his hat on that policy he was extremely foolish IMO.

GOUNUII

1. OP provided no “so what”. Is he arguing that the offense was not fireable?

2. Whether or not it was ‘hazing’ according to a policy does not affect whether it was fireable or not.

3. If the argument is “not hazing by policy —> not fireable”, the counter is that “initiation” can be formal or informal.

4. “Knucklehead s*it” sounds a lot like “horseplay.” It wouldn’t be “knucklehead s*it if it happened to your kids or grandkids, just like it wasn’t horseplay when Sandusky was getting BJs while Paterno napped.

 

[NUCat320]

Um, you don’t think the naked stuff or dry humping was intended to produce mental, physical, or emotional discomfort or embarrassment? Do you know how clauses work? The bolder part is not the only relevant portion.

Yeah, but they did it for sadistic pleasure rather than for induction into a group. Not a problem!

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Doesn't Illinois law have its own definition of hazing? I presume the relevant parties would also be bound by that.

Or if some of it went on at Kenosha, does Wisconsin also have laws that would apply? (I don't know; I'm just asking.)

Illinois has its own law about hazing.
I posted it once on another thread and one of the moderators / censors deleted it.
I'll be really nice and say that was accidental.

Here it is again.

(720 ILCS 5/12C-50)
Sec. 12C-50. Hazing.

(a) A person commits hazing when he or she knowingly requires the performance of any act by a student or other person in a school, college, university, or other educational institution of this State, for the purpose of induction or admission into any group, organization, or society associated or connected with that institution, if:

1) the act is not sanctioned or authorized by that educational institution and
2) the act results in bodily harm to any person.

(b) Sentence. Hazing is a class A misdemeanor, except that hazing that results in death or great bodily harm is a class A felony.


source: https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K12C-50

​

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

1. OP provided no “so what”. Is he arguing that the offense was not fireable?

2. Whether or not it was ‘hazing’ according to a policy does not affect whether it was fireable or not.

3. If the argument is “not hazing by policy —> not fireable”, the counter is that “initiation” can be formal or informal.

4. “Knucklehead s*it” sounds a lot like “horseplay.” It wouldn’t be “knucklehead s*it if it happened to your kids or grandkids, just like it wasn’t horseplay when Sandusky was getting BJs while Paterno napped.

talking about the players. Duh.
By NU's definition AND the state of Illinois definition, the players could not haze their teammates.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

talking about the players. Duh.
By NU's definition AND the state of Illinois definition, the players could not haze their teammates.

Do you honestly believe that those definitions REALLY means “hazing cannot occur unless it is explicitly at the coaches’ direction?” Because you seem to be pushing the fact hazing cannot occur exclusively amongst players.

 

[Darren72]

I think this is what you call 'grasping at straws'.

 

[SimpsonElmwood]

"Hazing is defined as any action taken or situation created, intentionally or unintentionally, whether on or off University premises and whether presented as optional or required, to produce: mental, physical, or emotional discomfort; servitude; degradation; embarrassment; harassment; or ridicule for the purpose of initiation into, affiliation with, or admission to, or as a condition for continued membership in a group, team, or other organization, regardless of an individual’s willingness to participate."

https://www.northwestern.edu/communitystandards/student-handbook/prohibited-restricted-conduct.html

I am appealing to people who can process words to think about this. As broadly as NU tried to define hazing, they have indisputably linked it to intent. I bolded the relevant phrase.
The hazing definition seems tailored to fraternities and sororities, where students decide who gets in and who doesn't.
However, football players do not have the power to admit, affiliate or expel another player from their team.
Therefore, by NU's own definition, players on an NU team simply cannot be accused of hazing.

The coaches may be held to different standards.

I’ve processed the words and vehemently disagree with your interpretation.

 

[GOUNUII]

Um, you don’t think the naked stuff or dry humping was intended to produce mental, physical, or emotional discomfort or embarrassment? Do you know how clauses work? The bolder part is not the only relevant portion.

I know how clauses work Villox. BTW … glad to see you posting again.

Both clauses are not only relevant, they are essential to defining the nature and scope of the prohibited conduct.

In other words, if you satisfy the first clause but not the bolded clause you don’t have a case of hazing as defined and prohibited by the policy.

GOUNUII

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I’ve processed the words and vehemently disagree with your interpretation.

I'd love to know how.
It is perfectly clear that NU says hazing can only occur in certain circumstances, where students control admission, acceptance, etc.

Thats just plain English.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Do you honestly believe that those definitions REALLY means “hazing cannot occur unless it is explicitly at the coaches’ direction?” Because you seem to be pushing the fact hazing cannot occur exclusively amongst players.

No. I think the definition says (because thats exactly what it says) that one student cannot haze another student unless he/she controls which people are part of their group.

Not sure what definition of hazing would apply to the coaches (employees of NU) but if their contracts refer to this specific definition, then the coach himself would have had to actually engage in the demeaning act in order for him to be guilty of hazing. At least that may be the case.

I'm only looking at the legal implications of these definitions. My daughter goes to NU, so, as a parent, this is interesting to me.

 

[GOUNUII]

1. OP provided no “so what”. Is he arguing that the offense was not fireable?

2. Whether or not it was ‘hazing’ according to a policy does not affect whether it was fireable or not.

3. If the argument is “not hazing by policy —> not fireable”, the counter is that “initiation” can be formal or informal.

4. “Knucklehead s*it” sounds a lot like “horseplay.” It wouldn’t be “knucklehead s*it if it happened to your kids or grandkids, just like it wasn’t horseplay when Sandusky was getting BJs while Paterno napped.

1. Not fireable for cause if the sole basis for cause is this policy.

2. Of course it does. Unless there is an independent basis for establishing cause. Remember. Fitz was fired for cause. Of course you can fire him without cause as long as you pay the man his money.

3. You are free to make that argument. I’ve dealt with worse arguments over the meaning of words used in policy statements etc. It’s a loser, but not the biggest loser I’ve ever seen. The clear purpose of the bold language is to limit the scope of the policy to those situations where subjecting yourself to the prohibited conduct is a condition to initiation into or continued participation in an organization, Club etc.

4. Comparing this to the conduct of a serial child rapist could earn you a chair on the View.

 

[NUCat320]

Our whistleblower was in his third year in the program, and the story is, I believe, that he was hazed even in 2022. It seems that the threshold for belonging is…unclear…but that there were certainly ‘knuckleheads’ who had a role in that decision.

Perhaps the threshold for belonging in the group was being good enough.

 

[GOUNUII]

Our whistleblower was in his third year in the program, and the story is, I believe, that he was hazed even in 2022. It seems that the threshold for belonging is…unclear…but that there were certainly ‘knuckleheads’ who had a role in that decision.

Perhaps the threshold for belonging in the group was being good enough.

Now you’re just throwing $hit on the wall to see what might stick.

GOUNUII

 

[NUCat320]

3. You are free to make that argument. I’ve dealt with worse arguments over the meaning of words used in policy statements etc. It’s a loser, but not the biggest loser I’ve ever seen.

This is the nicest thing you’ve ever written about me. You seem to have softened since the heyday of the Rant Board.

😀😉😂😀

Maybe next you’ll agree on a national popular vote for elections.

🇺🇸💪

Now you’re just throwing $hit on the wall to see what might stick.

GOUNUII

Ooops….spoke too soon lololol




(Tho, seriously, even if you think there’s some value to hazing, you must agree that hazing a third-year player is seriously deranged. That’s no longer about some concept of ‘belonging.’)

 

[SimpsonElmwood]

I'd love to know how.
It is perfectly clear that NU says hazing can only occur in certain circumstances, where students control admission, acceptance, etc.

Thats just plain English.

This phrase is extremely broad: condition for continued membership in a group, team, or other organization.
Could be part of any position group, not just the FB team itself.

 

[Secho99]

"Hazing is defined as any action taken or situation created, intentionally or unintentionally, whether on or off University premises and whether presented as optional or required, to produce: mental, physical, or emotional discomfort; servitude; degradation; embarrassment; harassment; or ridicule for the purpose of initiation into, affiliation with, or admission to, or as a condition for continued membership in a group, team, or other organization, regardless of an individual’s willingness to participate."

https://www.northwestern.edu/communitystandards/student-handbook/prohibited-restricted-conduct.html

I am appealing to people who can process words to think about this. As broadly as NU tried to define hazing, they have indisputably linked it to intent. I bolded the relevant phrase.
The hazing definition seems tailored to fraternities and sororities, where students decide who gets in and who doesn't.
However, football players do not have the power to admit, affiliate or expel another player from their team.
Therefore, by NU's own definition, players on an NU team simply cannot be accused of hazing.

The coaches may be held to different standards.

Just looking at what's written, I think "for the purpose of initiation into, etc..." could be interpreted pretty broadly. Yes, players can't technically admit or expel another player, but I would read that these behaviors can be conducted for the "general" purpose (a sports team) as well as the "explicit" purpose (a fraternity) of initiation or affiliation.

 

[villox]

I know how clauses work Villox. BTW … glad to see you posting again.

Both clauses are not only relevant, they are essential to defining the nature and scope of the prohibited conduct.

In other words, if you satisfy the first clause but not the bolded clause you don’t have a case of hazing as defined and prohibited by the policy.

GOUNUII

You sure? It says “; or”

It’s hazing if it satisfies any of the listed reasons. It doesn’t have to satisfy all.

 

[Darren72]

Consider contacting the university for clarification.

 

[NUfanfrom CA]

Our whistleblower was in his third year in the program, and the story is, I believe, that he was hazed even in 2022. It seems that the threshold for belonging is…unclear…but that there were certainly ‘knuckleheads’ who had a role in that decision.

Perhaps the threshold for belonging in the group was being good enough.

It's also possible he could have been considered a senior member "hazer." I wouldn't be so quick to assume he was a victim until his playing time didn't add up.

 

[GOUNUII]

You sure? It says “; or”

It’s hazing if it satisfies any of the listed reasons. It doesn’t have to satisfy all.

I’m sure. It’s prohibited hazing if it satisfies any of the listed reasons AND is done for a prohibited reason. Take an obvious example. Best buds in a dorm, fraternity or on a team doing any of that $hit among themselves just for “shits and giggles” ain’t what this policy is aimed at preventing.

GOUNUII

 

[villox]

I’m sure. It’s prohibited hazing if it satisfies any of the listed reasons AND is done for a prohibited reason. Take an obvious example. Best buds in a dorm, fraternity or on a team doing any of that $hit among themselves just for “shits and giggles” ain’t what this policy is aimed at preventing.

GOUNUII

I suppose it could be read either way but I don’t see how you can say it requires intent when it explicitly says “unintentionally”

 

[GOUNUII]

I suppose it could be read either way but I don’t see how you can say it requires intent when it explicitly says “unintentionally”

I never said it requires intent. It requires participation as a condition to either getting in or staying in the organization.

To your point, the unintentional modifier goes to the degrading etc. effect of the behavior. It’s no defense that the perp didn’t mean to hurt anyone.

GOUNUII

 

[villox]

I never said it requires intent. It requires participation as a condition to either getting in or staying in the organization.

To your point, the unintentional modifier goes to the degrading etc. effect of the behavior. It’s no defense that the perp didn’t mean to hurt anyone.

GOUNUII

Well here we are a week later and there is still nobody associated with the team saying “hazing didn’t happen”. Says it all to me.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Well here we are a week later and there is still nobody associated with the team saying “hazing didn’t happen”. Says it all to me.

The problem for NU is that when you get to define what hazing is, which is exactly what they did, there is no room for alternative definitions. So, even if the players have a different definition in their heads, it doesn't matter. What matters is the NU definition (which is very close to the State of Illinois definition).

Hazing, according to both of those organizations, can only occur when one student has the power to admit or exclude another student from his group.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

This phrase is extremely broad: condition for continued membership in a group, team, or other organization.
Could be part of any position group, not just the FB team itself.

Not when "team" is specifically named in the definition.

 

[GOUNUII]

Well here we are a week later and there is still nobody associated with the team saying “hazing didn’t happen”. Says it all to me.

There's hazing in the general sense of the term. And then there's hazing as defined by the University policy. I think everybody has acknowledged that unacceptable $hit happened. The kind of $hit that is routinely referred to as hazing. But the narrow point of this thread is the question whether it was "cause" for firing Fitz because it violated the University policy. There may be credible cause in these facts. But to argue that justifiable cause is rooted in the violation of this policy would be very problematic for Pres. Schill in a court of law.

GOUNUII

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

New York State Definitions & Penalties​

According to NY State Penal Law, Chapter 716, Section 1:

120.16: Hazing in the first degree​

A person is guilty of hazing in the first degree when, in the course of another person's initiation into or affiliation with any organization, he intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of physical injury to such other person or a third person and thereby causes such injury.

Hazing in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor.

120.17: Hazing in the second degree​

A person is guilty of hazing in the second degree when, in the course of another person's initiation or affiliation with any organization, he intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of physical injury to such other person or a third person.

Hazing in the second degree is a violation.

 

[villox]

There's hazing in the general sense of the term. And then there's hazing as defined by the University policy. I think everybody has acknowledged that unacceptable $hit happened. The kind of $hit that is routinely referred to as hazing. But the narrow point of this thread is the question whether it was "cause" for firing Fitz because it violated the University policy. There may be credible cause in these facts. But to argue that justifiable cause is rooted in the violation of this policy would be very problematic for Pres. Schill in a court of law.

GOUNUII

I think it absolutely violated policy in any stretch of what's been described. They weren't grabbing random people off the street - the acts were clearly a result of their "affiliation with" the team. And it wasn't even random, it was supposedly a direct result of actions in practice which resulted in ritualized embarrassment.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I think it absolutely violated policy in any stretch of what's been described. They weren't grabbing random people off the street - the acts were clearly a result of their "affiliation with" the team. And it wasn't even random, it was supposedly a direct result of actions in practice which resulted in ritualized embarrassment.

I'm merely pointing out that people are calling the behavior "hazing" when that term is clearly being applied incorrectly. I'm not defending any alleged actions. Its quite possible there are other sections of the Student Code of Conduct that address general behavior of one group of students toward members of that group. Or just general stuff like being abusive toward someone anywhere on campus.

But, interestingly, because it was not hazing, Fitzgerald is perfectly correct when he says he was not aware of any hazing in the football program.

 

[NUCat320]

I'm merely pointing out that people are calling the behavior "hazing" when that term is clearly being applied incorrectly. I'm not defending any alleged actions. Its quite possible there are other sections of the Student Code of Conduct that address general behavior of one group of students toward members of that group. Or just general stuff like being abusive toward someone anywhere on campus.

But, interestingly, because it was not hazing, Fitzgerald is perfectly correct when he says he was not aware of any hazing in the football program.

Okay.

 

[villox]

I'm merely pointing out that people are calling the behavior "hazing" when that term is clearly being applied incorrectly. I'm not defending any alleged actions. Its quite possible there are other sections of the Student Code of Conduct that address general behavior of one group of students toward members of that group. Or just general stuff like being abusive toward someone anywhere on campus.

But, interestingly, because it was not hazing, Fitzgerald is perfectly correct when he says he was not aware of any hazing in the football program.

it is anything but clear that the term is being applied incorrectly, and nobody affiliated with the team has come out and said "hazing did not occur"

 

[CappyNU]

Ok, I think we have explored the entirety of any amount of productive discussion here.