When a serious incident of hazing, sexual misconduct, or other interpersonal violence occurs within a student organization, calls to ban the organization often follow. The frustration is understandable. When students are harmed, sometimes with devastating consequences, campuses and communities want to see decisive action. They want accountability, and they want assurances that it will never happen again.
But eliminating a fraternity, sorority, athletic team, club, or other student organization does not necessarily eliminate the behaviors or culture that allowed the harm to occur. In some cases, it may actually make the work of prevention more difficult.
This is not an argument against consequences for organizations that engage in, facilitate, or enable misconduct. Organizational accountability is essential, and there are certainly circumstances where suspension or permanent removal is warranted. However, if our ultimate goal is to prevent future harm, we must look beyond the organization itself and address the individuals, behaviors, and broader campus culture that perpetuate hazing and interpersonal violence.
We Risk Losing the Very Networks That Can Help Prevent Harm
Student organizations, when functioning as intended, offer tremendous benefits. Fraternities and sororities, athletic teams, performing arts groups, service organizations, and other student communities provide opportunities for leadership development, friendship, mentorship, service, and a sense of belonging. These are meaningful parts of the college experience and, for many students, create lifelong connections.
Many of these organizations also have established networks of alumni, advisors, professional staff, national leadership, and volunteers who are invested in the success and safety of their members. These individuals can be valuable partners in identifying harmful behaviors, challenging unhealthy traditions, providing education, and establishing expectations for positive organizational experiences. Effective prevention requires engagement at the individual, organizational, and community levels.
When an organization is eliminated, we risk losing that infrastructure and the opportunity to engage those individuals in creating change.
Worse, students who still desire the sense of belonging associated with that organization may simply move their activities underground, beyond the reach of institutional oversight and the support systems that could help prevent harm.
Rather than viewing every troubled organization as beyond repair, we should be asking whether its leadership, members, alumni, and institutional partners can be held accountable for meaningful, measurable cultural change. Where that is possible, rebuilding a healthier organization may provide greater long-term value than simply eliminating it.
Hold Individuals Accountable, Not Just Organizations
One of the most significant shortcomings of relying solely on organizational sanctions is that organizations do not haze, assault, or abuse people. People do.
When individuals who plan, encourage, facilitate, or participate in hazing, sexual misconduct, or other forms of interpersonal violence are not held personally accountable, removing the organization may do little to prevent future harm.
A student removed from one fraternity may join another organization. An athlete involved in hazing may transfer to another team. An individual responsible for sexual misconduct may find another social environment where harmful behavior can continue.
The organization changes, but the behavior and mindset may remain.
This is why individual accountability must be central to any meaningful response. Institutions must be willing to investigate misconduct through appropriate processes, apply consequences consistent with their findings, and take steps to prevent those responsible from simply moving into another organization and repeating harmful behaviors.
Organizational accountability and individual accountability are not competing approaches. We need both.
And accountability must extend beyond those directly responsible for misconduct. Leaders who knowingly enable harmful behavior, ignore warning signs, retaliate against those who report concerns, or foster environments where abuse is normalized also have a responsibility to act.
We Must Address the Broader Campus Culture
Perhaps the greatest danger of focusing exclusively on banning individual organizations is that it allows us to overlook a much larger issue.
When hazing, sexual misconduct, or other forms of interpersonal violence occur across multiple student organizations on the same campus, we should be asking what broader cultural factors may be allowing those behaviors to persist.
What messages are students receiving about power, belonging, loyalty, consent, and tradition? Are harmful activities being dismissed as team building or simply part of the college experience? Do students trust that reporting concerns will lead to meaningful action? Are campus leaders consistently communicating and reinforcing expectations across all student communities?
While different forms of misconduct require distinct prevention and response strategies , they may share underlying cultural conditions, including unhealthy power dynamics, peer pressure, silence, and a reluctance to challenge harmful behavior.
These are not problems that can be solved simply by removing the name of an organization from a campus roster.
The passage of the federal Stop Campus Hazing Act represents an important opportunity to move institutions toward greater transparency, education, and research-informed hazing prevention. But compliance alone is not the finish line.
Campuses must examine their environments, identify the conditions that enable harmful behaviors, and build comprehensive prevention strategies in that reach every corner of campus life.
That means engaging students, faculty, staff, coaches, advisors, alumni, and organizational leaders in a shared responsibility for creating cultures where students can belong, participate, and thrive without being harmed.
Prevention Requires More Than Removal
There is no question that some organizations demonstrate such a persistent disregard for student safety that removing their recognition is appropriate. Protecting students must always come first.
But we should resist the idea that banning an organization, by itself, represents a successful prevention strategy.
A campus can remove a fraternity and still have a hazing problem. It can suspend an athletic team and still have a culture that tolerates abusive initiation practices. It can close an organization following sexual misconduct without fully addressing the behaviors, attitudes, and conditions that contributed to that harm.
We should measure success not simply by the number of organizations sanctioned or removed, but by whether we are changing behaviors, strengthening accountability, supporting those who have experienced harm, engaging students in positive experiences, and reducing the likelihood that another student will be harmed.
At Hazing Prevention Network, we believe meaningful prevention requires collaboration, education, accountability, and a willingness to challenge the cultural norms that allow harmful behaviors to persist.
We should be working with organizations committed to doing the right thing, holding accountable those who are not, and ensuring that every student community understands that belonging should never come at the expense of someone’s dignity, health, or safety.
Banning an organization may remove its name from a campus. It does not automatically remove the people, behaviors, or culture that allowed harm to happen.
Our responsibility is to change that culture. 💜
About the author(s):
Todd Shelton is executive director of the Hazing Prevention Network, with 20+ years working with college students and eight years focused on hazing prevention, education, and advocacy, including efforts to advance state and federal legislation.
