{"id":54778,"date":"2020-11-10T00:00:30","date_gmt":"2020-11-10T08:00:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/world.edu\/?p=54778"},"modified":"2020-11-09T10:57:35","modified_gmt":"2020-11-09T18:57:35","slug":"brutal-rituals-of-hazing-wont-go-away-and-unis-are-increasingly-likely-to-be-held-responsible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/brutal-rituals-of-hazing-wont-go-away-and-unis-are-increasingly-likely-to-be-held-responsible\/","title":{"rendered":"Brutal rituals of hazing won\u2019t go away \u2014 and unis are increasingly likely to be held responsible"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

Students enter university as young adults embarking on a new life. Hazing rituals are meant to be a lighthearted initiation into university life that breaks down barriers between seniors and freshers and prepares the newcomers for their future. But hazing can be a terrifying ordeal.<\/p>\n

Many practices associated with being initiated by other students are\u00a0cruel and inhumane<\/a>. Hazing has, in some cases, led to homicide, rape, sodomy, infliction of physical injuries, mental torture and forced binge drinking of alcohol.<\/p>\n

Innocent lives are lost and student careers ruined. Many carry the mental scars of hazing for life. However, if they refuse to participate in hazing, they are\u00a0ostracised<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Internationally, courts are increasingly holding universities responsible for the impacts of hazing on their students. Unlike other countries, Australia lacks legislation that clearly makes universities and their colleges responsible for hazing. But the overseas experience shows legislation alone isn\u2019t enough; cultural change is essential.<\/p>\n

How widespread is the problem?<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Hazing is culturally entrenched in Australian universities, especially in residential colleges. The 2018 privately commissioned\u00a0The Red Zone Report: An investigation into sexual violence and hazing in Australian university residential colleges<\/a>\u00a0describes hazing as \u201cendemic\u201d. Sydney University\u2019s vice chancellor has confessed he is\u00a0\u201cpowerless\u201d to stop hazing<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In 2017, 39 Australian universities had commissioned the Australian Human Rights Commission report\u00a0Change the Course<\/a>. The report was scathing about the prevalence of hazing, sexual assault and harassment at university campuses and residential colleges.<\/p>\n

Hazing poses a threat to international education in Australia, a\u00a0A$35 billion \u201cexport industry\u201d<\/a>\u00a0employing more than 200,000 Australians. It is just behind iron ore, coal and natural gas.<\/p>\n

In the US,\u00a055% of students<\/a>\u00a0on university campuses face hazing. In India 60% of students at universities and professional institutions are victims of hazing. In 2018 reported incidents of hazing\u00a0increased by 75%<\/a>\u00a0in India.<\/p>\n

In Australia,\u00a0as many as half<\/a>\u00a0(51%) of all Australian university students were sexually harassed in 2016, many as part of hazing rituals. Many are subjected to other indignities.<\/p>\n

Universities can\u2019t escape responsibility<\/strong><\/h4>\n

While the individual perpetrators of hazing are subject to criminal and civil sanctions, the reality is that it is up to institutions to deal with the problem. Australia does not have standalone hazing legislation that clearly makes this the responsibility of universities and\/or their colleges.<\/p>\n

Such legislation exists<\/a>\u00a0in the US (in 44 out of 50 states) and India (in 14 out of 29 states). These laws provide for wrongdoers to be imprisoned or fined. However, criminal liability has failed to stem the tide of hazing.<\/p>\n

Civil courts have sought to help. They have recognised the university\u2019s responsibility to its students and awarded damages to them under tort law. The US courts began this trend by imposing a duty of care on universities that left them liable for failure to control hazing.<\/p>\n

In\u00a0Mullins v Pine Manor College<\/a>\u00a0it was held that the university controlled residential premises. Thus, it was liable for the rape of a campus resident that happened due to its failure to arrange adequate security.<\/p>\n

Furek v University of Delaware<\/a>\u00a0resulted from a fraternity hazing ritual during which oven cleaner was poured on the plaintiff\u2019s face and neck, burning and permanently scarring him. The court held the university liable as through its clearly pronounced policies it had assumed responsibility for controlling hazing.<\/p>\n

A 2018 US case,\u00a0Regents of University of California v Superior Court<\/a>, produced the most expansive view on the university\u2019s liability. The behaviour of a student who suffered from schizophrenia had become erratic. The university knew about his behaviour. This student attacked another student with a kitchen knife, who then sued the university.<\/p>\n

The court held the university liable as there was \u201ca special relationship\u201d between a university and students, creating a duty to protect the latter. The Regents decision reflects the modern reality of how much control an institution exerts over students and how much they depend on the university for their safety.<\/p>\n

In Australia, there have been calls for a statutory duty of care to be imposed on universities. The ACT Supreme Court recently reached the same conclusion.<\/p>\n

In\u00a0SMA v John XXIII College (No 2)<\/a>, the plaintiff had non-consensual sex with a fellow student following the hazing ritual of binge drinking on the college premises and outside. She sued an affiliate college of ANU. The defendant was held liable for breaching its duty of care to the plaintiff on the grounds it failed to:<\/p>\n