Moving from Awareness Toward Prevention

Previously published in Volume 81, Issue 2

Abstract
The purpose of this case study is to add to the understanding of how athletes perceive hazing; to understand the impact of a hazing experience on athletes, a team and the coaches and how this impacts their relationship to the sport; to understand the consequences of challenging traditional hazing practices; and to understand the effects of hazing policy and related sanctions. This qualitative study involved a university team that had been temporarily suspended the previous year for engaging in hazing in violation of school regulations, resulting in game forfeitures that cost them a playoff position. Focus groups were conducted with the veterans (alleged to have planned and conducted the hazing), second-year athletes (those hazed) and first-year athletes (not on campus thus not involved in the hazing). An interview was also conducted with the head coach. Results of the study revealed that research participants perceive hazing to continue to be prevalent in university sport programs; that athletes made a distinction between hazing and the activities they used to initiate new team members; that athletes resented their sanction; that a disconnect on the topic of hazing was identified between administrators and the teams in their program; that media attention was perceived to be excessive; that there was a reported inconsistency in administrative response to hazing across the program and in the communication of policy and potential sanctions associated with policy that need to be addressed; and that no collaboration existed between teams and administrators to develop alternatives to hazing that could contribute to team bonding.

With the beginning of each academic year, colleges and universities begin their concurrent athletic programs. And each year, we've come to expect incidents of hazing. Reports of hazing in sport have emerged more frequently in the past few years and particularly among women’s teams. A number of media reports have cited cases that render the issue of sport hazing open to public debate. In September 2014, Canadian media reported that Dalhousie University suspended their men’s rugby sport club while it investigated a hazing complaint against the club. Prior to this formal complaint, the club was under a probationary period for a separate, earlier incident. In January of 2013, Dalhousie University suspended all but the first year players on the women’s hockey team for a September, 2012 hazing event. Because of the suspensions, the team forfeited the remainder of the season. In October of 2011, the University of Guelph suspended its men's rugby team for two games (www.windsorstar.com) citing allegations of hazing activities; in December, 2010, St. Thomas University suspended its men's volleyball team for the remainder of the season (www.cbc.ca/news) following the death of a rookie who had attended a party designed to initiate newcomers. In the fall of 2009, Carleton University suspended its women's soccer team alleging hazing activities in the wake of suspected alcohol poisoning of a rookie. Wilfrid Laurier University suspended its baseball team for four games in the fall of 2012 while Queen’s University investigated hazing within their field hockey team. The RCMP undertook an investigation of the Manitoba Neepawa Natives junior hockey team in the fall of 2011 after 16 players and two coaches were suspended following a hazing incident where rookies were forced among other things, to have water bottles tied to their genitals. Similarly, in the USA, Cornell University suspended their men’s lacrosse program in the fall of 2013 for hazing activities that included a drinking competition that was coercive and abusive (FoxNews.com). Humboldt State University investigated allegations of hazing in their women's soccer program in spite of the men’s soccer program having been cancelled for the entire 2012-13 season as a result of hazing (now.humboldt.edu). Vanderbilt sanctioned their tennis and women’s lacrosse teams after an investigation uncovered separate events of hazing, (www.tusconcity.com). These examples are but few, and serve as a reminder that hazing practices continue and that leaders in sport need to be vigilant to ensure safe practices for the athletes away from the competitive venue as well as within the formal sport setting Iverson & Allan, 2003; Keating, Pomerantz, Pommer, Ritt, Miller & McCormick, 2005).

Punitively, while most policies allow for disciplinary action that could include suspended seasons for teams and anything from warnings to expulsions for athletes, the consequences can extend beyond these sanctions. Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania fired its women's lacrosse coach Lauren Paul, who coached her team to a national championship, over a hazing incident. Research has attempted to determine the extent of hazing practices (Allan & Madden, 2008 & 2012; Campo, Poulos, & Sipple, 2005; Hoover & Pollard, 2000; Johnson, 2002), the sports where hazing is more embedded (Waldron & Kowalski, 2009), and the elements of hazing that lend themselves as essential to the sport experience (Allan & Madden, 2007 Fall; Waldron & Krane, 2005a; Waldron & Krane, 2005b). It has been suggested that approximately one third of students would not report hazing, feeling they do not have someone to tell or that it would not be properly handled if they did report an incident (Allan & Madden, 2008). Not surprisingly, this same study found that of those hazed, 95 per cent did not report the incident to campus authorities.

The implications of hazing are profound. For individuals subjected to hazing, psychological and physical harm are common outcomes (Hosick, 2005). As in the cases cited above, it has resulted in the lost opportunity for athletes and career interruption for coaches. It can result in death, with alcohol being central to hazing practices and 82 per cent of deaths from hazing involving alcohol (Allan & Madden, 2008). For educational institutions, the risks include athlete attrition, abusive team climates, loss of human and performance potential, negative publicity and legal, social and moral liabilities in the event of the death of a student (Johnson, 2000; Johnson, 2011; Srabstein, 2008; Waldron, & Kowalski, 2009). However, little research has examined athletes’ views of the administrative response as well as effective interventions involving policy, prevention education, investigation and sanctions.

Hazing interferes with the physical, technical, social, emotional and psychological supports of a team, ultimately weakening the team as a whole right along with the positive reputation and culture of sport. Effects of hazing can be manifested in behaviors such as disrupted eating habits, too much sleep, too little sleep, avoidance of perpetrators, withdrawal from other group members, missing practices and competition, unsubstantiated injuries or rebellious activity (Chapell, Casey, De la Cruz, Ferrell, Forman, Lipkin & Whittaker, 2004; Kirby & Wintrup, 2002; Nuwer, 1999). For coaches, the risk of having to counsel an athlete who might respond to a hazing incident in this way, of having to re-build lost team cohesion and negotiate personal animosities, and possibly having to spend time away from team responsibilities to assist with investigating and responding to allegations, the distractions can have a negative impact on an entire program.

Hazing goes beyond the act(s) of a single event by supporting a culture of hierarchy among athletes in which personal freedoms and choices are made by others or through peer pressure (Sabo, 2004). Hazing exists in a shroud of silence where athletes will not share their experiences nor resist participation in them for fear of being rejected by the group, one in which they desperately hope to become an accepted member.

It’s noteworthy that participants in many sports are opting out at a young age. Knowledge of a sport culture that demands an individual earns membership by “surviving” hazing practices may compel some individuals to choose other social activities away from sport. Parents who become aware of hazing practices may discourage a child’s participation in that sport. When a participation base becomes diminished, it can have an unknown effect on programs of excellence, not knowing if someone who may have excelled in their sport decided to walk away from it.

The purpose of this study is to develop understanding about the ways in which athletes perceive both hazing and their organization’s response to the hazing. This research examined a single case study of hazing involving a women’s team at a Canadian post-secondary institution. First-year athletes were hazed in opposition to an existing policy and were subsequently sanctioned by their athletic department. One of the sanctions included forfeiture of some league competitions. Exploration of this case was used to further understand the mechanisms of the hazing planning process including perceived purposes for hazing, the effects of hazing on the team dynamics in the short term and in the long term, the potential effects hazing has on student recruitment, the influence of policy in decisions to haze and the effectiveness of policy and its sanctions as a deterrent from engaging in hazing practices. The overall goal was to better understand hazing from a student-athlete perspective and ultimately employ this information to increase the effectiveness of policies and educational programs that are designed to eliminate hazing practices and associated abuses. It is argued that the voice of participants (athletes) is critical to the decisions made by administrators to create effective policy.

Theoretical and practical keystones
Two primary theoretical concepts support this research and have the potential to contribute to meaningful policy and implementation. The first is the strengths model developed by Saleebey (2009). This theory builds on the positive aspects of hazing and the development of viable alternatives to achieve the same potentially beneficial outcomes (such a team bonding). This approach allows administrators to shape the positive qualities of hazing into a new experience.

A second theory critical in understanding the deep roots of hazing and its perpetuation is the Social Norms Approach (Berkowitz, 2004). The development of strategies to change behaviour requires a clear understanding of not only the issue itself, but of the normative behaviour associated with the social relationship established within the team culture. The assumption in hazing is that athletes believe it is essential for team building and that they “enjoy” the experience yet at the same time, athletes feel pressured to submit to the hazing (or to haze younger students) because of their adherence to an unspoken set of rules (Allan, 2004 Spring; Allan & Madden, 2006; Holman, 1997). These elements become contradictory and confusing to the athletes. To effect change, administrators need to recognize these elements and incorporate them into any plan for change.  

This study is also policy-relevant research. A proactive policy demonstrates positive values as does swift action when there are violations of policy. Policy properly administered can contribute to a culture where athletes are not silenced and expectations are clear. A policy can then strengthen the voice of participants and contribute to change from within a particular culture. People want to be associated with a reputable organization whatever its capacity. Most university and college athletic departments now have policies that directly prohibit traditional hazing practices. Thus, specific objectives that emerge from the purpose of this research are: 1) to understand the experiences in sport that can be identified as contributing to a hazing culture; 2) to understand the meaning and impact of a hazing experience on athletes, a team, the coaches and their relationship to the sport; 3) to understand the consequences to challenging traditional hazing practices; and, 4) to understand the effects of hazing policy and related sanctions.

Method
This paper provides a report of research findings from a case study. Research participants were members of a team who had been sanctioned by their university for hazing. After receiving ethics approval for the study, the university Athletic Director was contacted requesting permission to conduct the study. Subsequently upon receipt of this permission, the coaching staff and the athletes involved were invited to participate in the research. Research participants who were on campus and competing at the time of the study participated in a focus group interview. They were divided into three focus groups – returning athletes in their third, fourth and fifth years, second-year athletes, and first-year athletes. The head coach participated in a face-to-face interview. Assistant coaches were unavailable to participate due to work commitments. In addition, first year alumni who would have been seniors at the time of the hazing were invited to complete an online survey that mirrored the focus group questions posed to their former teammates.

Interview protocol
Three focus groups were conducted with athletes as well as one interview with the head coach. The returning athletes in their third, fourth and fifth years were responsible for organizing the hazing incident that served as the case for this study while the second-year athletes were those subjected to the hazing. The first year athletes had not yet entered the program at the time of the hazing incident. Focus group questions were guided by the literature and designed to generate interactions approximately one hour in length. This was followed by a debriefing session where all participants met collectively with a researcher and research assistant to learn more about the study and its objectives, to engage in further discussion and to address any questions that may have emerged from the focus group dialogue. The goal of the focus groups was to have athletes and the head coach provide a detailed account of events that resulted in their sanction including the purpose, planning, activities, and fallout. All focus groups were audio recorded and conducted in a private space on their university campus. The study was approved by the researchers’ Institutional Ethics Review Board. Prior to commencing, each athlete and the coach read and signed a consent form outlining the purpose of the study, ensuring anonymity in the publication of results, and confirming their right to withdraw from the study at any time. In light of the coach participation, the introduction prior to commencing with the research questions emphasized that their participation in the focus group was voluntary and that they could decline participation at any time without penalty.

Research participants who were not on campus but had been part of the team the previous year when the hazing incident occurred were invited to participate in the study through an online survey. This process and the survey itself mirrored study information, consent and the questions that were asked in the focus groups. Focus group participants were also invited to complete the online survey. This was done to allow them greater confidentiality to elaborate on focus group discussion and provide additional information, particularly if they were uneasy about sharing something in the presence of peers. No online surveys were completed. A planned focus group with coaches became an interview with the head coach as the assistant coaches were unavailable.

Instrumentation
The first part of the focus group was dedicated to reviewing the purpose of the research, the consent process, selection of pseudonyms, and the guarantee of anonymity for the individuals, the sport and the institution in the reporting of the results. Participants were then asked to respond to questions. The instrument was comprised of open-ended questions intended to elicit candid views about hazing and its role in university athletics (Corbin, & Strauss, 2008). Athletes were invited to share how they would define hazing, comment on details about their experience with hazing, their perceptions about the purposes of hazing, their reaction to how their specific case was managed by leaders of their institution, and the role of policy while building on the comments presented by others in their focus group. These categories of inquiry were developed to solicit specific information from those who had experienced hazing, had been a part of planning and executing a hazing event, and part of an administrative sanction for actions undertaken. Little research has been conducted to explore athletes’ experiences and perceptions particularly with respect to sanctions as a result of their actions. However, the questions were guided by previous hazing research findings. Their responses offered a case-based point of reference to extend qualitative analysis of hazing experiences and the organizational role in managing the behavior of athletes, outside of competition. Specific details of athletes’ responses were limited or paraphrased in order to preclude recognition of the research participants.

Data analysis
Qualitative data analysis was used to identify themes embedded in the accounts of research data provided by the participants thus representing their experiences and perceptions. The focus group interviews were transcribed verbatim producing 42 pages of double-spaced text. Data analysis was done manually according to Coté, Salmela, Baria and Russell’s (1993) coding process. The first step of analysis was to establish common themes to generate a landscape of hazing that contributes to the understanding of its traditions, resistance to change and role of policy. The themes of inquiry were initially based upon the literature and the objective of the question asked of participants. Additional themes were prompted by the data itself. Information that did not fit a theme or generate sufficient responses to introduce an additional theme was noted as an outlier. The second step of analysis was to identify common and atypical responses between and within focus groups as a comparative based upon experience and role with the hazing. The themes are represented in the subheadings used in the reporting of the results. They were: 1) understanding perceptions of the value of hazing, 2) experience with hazing, 3) validation of hazing, 4) case consequences, 5) policy, and 6) education, sanctions and alternatives. The analysis of the coach interview was completed following the same process used for the focus groups.

Case
Prior to analyzing the focus group and interview content, an overview of the case under study follows. A university varsity team was in the midst of their season when the veterans organized a “rookie” party which included hazing the first-year team members. The team had already played a number of league games and held a strong position in the middle of the league standings. The specifics of the hazing were not published but allegations included the use of excessive alcohol, humiliating attire, sensitive questioning and behavioral demands that included confinement of first-year athletes in a locked shed. When a first-year athlete was subsequently taken to hospital because of possible alcohol poisoning, the incident was exposed. The case received national media attention when the university suspended the team for two league games. The team was still on probation in the year following this case. Failure to comply with the hazing policy would result in removal of team members from the varsity program along with associated benefits, including scholarship money.

Results
Understanding hazing
The first theme examined was an exploration of research participants’ understanding of the meaning of hazing. The responses ranged from a clear to a vague understanding of the concept. Typically, this was based upon years of experience within the varsity program. The first-year players cited hazing as a type of initiation that could be good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable. “It’s like an initiation,” said Haley, “It’s where you are doing funny things… like you get pushed around and stuff. I think there is… approved kinds of hazing,” said Josie.

The remainder of the participants had a broader understanding of hazing. Veterans expressed a consensus that they had no knowledge of hazing prior to attending university. They also determined that hazing and initiation are the same thing. Their views on hazing are represented in the comments, “…isolating a particular group to make them feel not equal to another group” (Jen), while Ann added, “public humiliation.” Kim suggested that when in her first year, “They (veterans) while they were maybe not looking forward to doing it, they understood that that’s what happened and the next year they would get a chance to do that as well with recruits coming in,” which speaks to the cycle and the evolution of a tradition.

The coach acknowledged having a much better understanding of hazing following the team experience with hazing, citing it as “any sort of ridicule or humiliation of someone who wants to be part of the group as part of an initiation…it’s (a situation) where if you want to be in a group, this is what you’ve got do and what they do is humiliating and degrading.” The coach went on to say that, “…since this incident it has become quite apparent that it is widespread within universities and colleges in Canada…”

Experience with hazing
The first year athletes provided a fresh perspective as they had very little experience with the team and none with the hazing incident in question. They had yet to reach a stage in their university experience where hazing had been addressed by the administration or coach prior to the focus group discussions for this study. Further, it was determined that with the previous year’s sanctions the team had not taken the risk of hazing new recruits at the time of the study. Responses ranged from knowing nothing about hazing to hearing about it in a way that seemed harmless such as pinning ceremonies, costumes and pep rallies.

The second year athletes were those who were hazed in the case serving as the foundation for this study. Some indicated that they had not experienced hazing until this particular occasion. Others shared some previous experiences that reinforced the ambiguity around a definition. Dawn shared that, “…umm, grade 10. I don’t know if this is considered hazing, but it falls within the guidelines, …I had to go to school in my (sport) uniform and they made me dance with a lot of guys.”

While she didn’t refer to it as hazing, Rita shared that at her high school her team held an orientation and called it a fun day. Ozzi experienced what she called a “freshie party” at high school where they had to play pass the milk and pass the egg (where an egg or an amount of milk is passed from player to player, by mouth), and as a first-year player hazed in this particular case, commented that, “I didn’t think it was hazing until it was brought up.” Dawn further noted that they did not consider these activities hazing but that they were “just an icebreaker.”

Vera reinforced the insignificance of the demands placed on them stating that the activities were voluntary and all participants had agreed to do it. She reported having a good time, being comfortable and not understanding why it was wrong. Ozzi agreed with Vera stating, “In the moment I wasn’t thinking, oh no, I’m getting hazed. I was having fun at the time and we all volunteered to be there and if they asked us to do something and we didn’t want to they wouldn’t have forced us to. We were allowed to say yes or no. I think it was blown out of proportion.” Dawn accepted the normality of hazing. She expressed that, “I think for me growing up in sport and playing (sport) for a long time, it was almost a culture…it’s normal…it’s going on with all of the other girls and all the other schools in Canada so it wasn’t a shock.”

None of the veterans had experienced sport hazing prior to attending university. They recalled their hazing experience in university as positive and safe. Sue described it as “Fun – as embarrassing as it was, I loved it.” Ann concurred stating, “…it was just fun…the rookies wore silly outfits and looked pretty awful but I think it was more like the fact that it wasn’t individualized, we all did it collectively as a group…we had that bond, we were like a team.”

An athlete in the fifth year of eligibility indicated that the hazing experience had not changed during her tenure with the team. She stated that, “…we’ve done it every year…to get everyone on the same page…it is just like interrogation like we ask just embarrassing questions that they have to answer and then [they drink] a few drinks and then there is some kind of obstacle course they have to do.” Dawn recalled her response to being hazed: “At the time it’s going on, you’re panicking. [You’re thinking] it’s going to be so embarrassing. During the questioning, I hated it, I cried, but that is because I am an emotional person… but after, in a way, you felt cool because you can look back on it and all of the other girls will look back on it and laugh.”

None of the focus groups spoke of alcohol consumption as central to the experience of hazing. The first year athletes did not express concern about alcohol as part of their being hazed. Ali said, “I would go along with it, you can control yourself, and they are not forcing drinks down your throat.” Josie agreed, saying, “There is always that one person that drinks too much and gets sick.” Yet Ali continued by saying, “They would give you some pressure but they wouldn’t make you do that.” Haley added, “Underage drinking is just illegal.” Even though the team’s hazing activities were exposed when one athlete was taken to hospital due to the effects of excessive drinking, little attention (by the athletes) was given to this as a part of the ritual and its outcome.

The veterans insisted that the negative experience only came from one individual and even believed that this athlete may have been encouraged to come forward by someone else’s influence. Sue indicated, “She had the right to stop whatever she was doing. She could have said no, or stop, or bring me home at any point, but she just continued to drink and drink and then she just — and she just dropped.” Deb said, “She just didn’t know her own limits.” Yet, Ellen added, “…the safety thing — we always had one veteran or two who was responsible for one of the first year players.” Ann added, “There was a vet there who took her to the hospital and ensured that there was someone to take care of her and go home with her afterwards…”