Too 'Code' for comfort Hazing policy oversteps bounds Reports of hazing at the University have surfaced multiple times during the year. The fundamental problem of reporting and controlling hazing raises many concerns about student safety within the Greek system. This recent rise in incidents has led Interim Vice President for Student Affairs E. Royster Harper to work to "put more teeth" into the University's hazing policy. She plans to create an anti-hazing hotline and to strengthen relationships with national fraternity organizations. The Interfraternity Council and Panhel are also participating by appointing a joint task force to create specific policies on hazing violations. The University's involvement in making policies for hazing should be limited to prevention; it should not punish alleged offenders outside of committing academic misconduct. The effort the University put forth to deal with hazing seems ineffectual and pointless. An anti-hazing hotline requires the voluntary action of the pledge or person being hazed to call and report the abuse. But students pledging fraternities and sororities are often unaware of what constitutes hazing. Reassurances from fraternity brothers of the tradition and ritual in the hazing seemingly justifies the mistreatment. Why would a pledge actively object to poor treatment if it creates a feeling of group unity and historical pride? The proposal of creating greater ties with nationals may also prove meaningless. The national fraternity organizations have limited power to regulate each individual chapter on each separate college campus. Unless the national fraternities could place a 24-hour monitor in the houses, any form of interference would be looked upon as just that - interference. But as trivial as the suggestions may be, awareness is the first step in finding a solution. The recent hazing headlines are cause for alarm, but the University must maintain its primary role as a learning institution. Contrary to what the administration may believe, it is not a criminal justice courthouse. Academic misconduct such as cheating and plagiarism fall under the University's jurisdiction. But it is unreasonable for the University to expel or suspend a student for hazing when the police and courts already such matters. The University's purpose is to teach and educate students, not fight crime and punish those who break laws. This issue relays back to fundamental problems with the Code of Student Conduct, which violates the doctrine of "double jeopardy." A student should have the same rights within the University as outside of it. Infringing on students' rights is equally appalling as hazing. At times, the Greek system appears only to make problems for the University, in terms of alcohol regulation and hazing, but it is an organization created for students - not for the University. Even though the new hazing policies seem rather harmless, the University must remain within proper boundaries. Laws and rules created to punish those who haze could also punish those who take a stand. Any regulation the University may place on fraternities and sororities must still abide by the rules set by the constitution. Lack of personal freedom is a problem that always takes precedence. Originally on page 4A in the 1-27-2000 issue of the Daily.