The fraternities Theta Chi and Sigma Alpha Epsilon were found guilty of hazing by the Interfraternity Council’s Peer Review Board on Tuesday night.

The exact details are undisclosed at this time, but ‘the violations range in severity and did not involve any physical harm,’ said Noel Poyner, chair of public relations for the IFC.

The penalties each fraternity will face have not been decided upon at this time, but will probably be decided upon within the next two weeks, Poyner said.

Two other fraternities, Zeta Beta Tau and Delta Tau Delta are currently under investigation for hazing violations, but there is not enough information to hear their cases yet, said Noah Simon, vice president of internal affairs for the IFC. Their cases should be heard in two to three weeks, Simon said.

Though the exact repercussions are still in the air, there is a clear difference in how the two fraternities will be dealt with by the IFC.

‘Some need to be dealt with in a more discriminatory manner,’ Poyner said.

While the most common sanction takes the form of a fine, that is not the only possibility, Simon said.

‘There are a variety of things we can do, depending on the offense,’ Simon said. One example he gave is mandating that chapters undergo hazing-related educational programs.

Though physical abuse is often associated with hazing, the law encompasses a much broader area than abuse and is much more serious than most students think, said Roy Baker, associate dean of students.

‘Hazing can be as simple as wearing a pledge pin,’ Baker said. ‘Some frats require pledges to go to a study hall. Hazing.’

Basically, if pledges are required to do something – even as innocent as wear a pin – and every member of the fraternity does not do so, it is considered hazing, Baker said.

The vagueness of the law is something that Baker said he is trying to educate the fraternities about.

‘Every student signs a document saying they won’t be participating in these types of activities,’ Baker said.

Simon said hazing is not taken lightly by anyone who may be involved.

‘Hazing is being taken extremely seriously by the university, the IFC, as well as individual national (fraternal) organizations,’ Simon said.

But some fraternities do not yet understand the full implications of hazing, Baker said.

‘Some organizations believe this is a tradition that needs to continue and they’ve been reluctant to stop these traditions,’ he said.

SU has a ‘dynamite system’ for those who don’t stop their hazing traditions and are reported, Baker said.

After receiving a report about a violation, Baker said, he goes to the fraternity in question and asks whether the allegations are true or not. The majority of the time, the reports are true and the fraternity members admit it, he said. The case then goes to the Judicial Review Board, which almost always refers it to the IFC Peer Review Board.

Once the case is referred to the IFC and all the facts have come in, Poyner said, a meeting is held with the 10-member board and representatives from the fraternities in question. The representatives present their case and answer questions from the board, then leave the room while the board deliberates, Poyner said.

The board then votes, with a majority ruling necessary. The fraternities are then notified of the decision within 72 hours, Poyner said.

In order to help prevent hazing from occurring in the future, potential pledges will be notified of the fraternities found guilty of hazing the previous year.

‘Next year during recruitment, we’ll publish a list of all fraternities and sororities who were punished for hazing in previous years,’ Baker said. ‘Wouldn’t you want to know?’

Published on April 4, 2006 at 12:00 pm