Considerations for a Federal Criminal Prohibition on Hazing (CRS Report for Congress)
| Release Date |
Nov. 26, 2024 |
| Report Number |
LSB11247 |
| Report Type |
Legal Sidebar |
| Authors |
Dave S. Sidhu |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
A long-standing governmental interest is keeping students safe. One harm befalling students and raising
concerns with some lawmakers is hazing—which generally consists of inflicting pain, discomfort, or
ritualized humiliation on a student, or coercing a student to participate in the experience, usually as a
condition of initial or ongoing membership in a social organization or athletic team. Congress has banned
hazing at the U.S. Naval Academy and has directed the superintendents of the Naval Academy, U.S.
Military Academy (West Point), and U.S. Air Force Academy to issue regulations preventing the practice.
Outside of the service academy context, Members of Congress have introduced several bills (e.g., H.R.
5646, 118th Congress; S. 209, 118th Congress; H.R. 2525, 117th Congress; S. 775, 117th Congress; S. 774,
117th Congress; H.R. 662, 116th Congress) addressing hazing.
Hazing is also of interest at the state level. By one count, 44 of the 50 states have anti-hazing laws. The
state statutes vary significantly, revealing issues of disagreement among the states on fundamental issues,
such as who should be protected from and punished for hazing and what conduct should be prohibited.
This Sidebar identifies these substantive points of departure and offers examples of how states have
responded differently to them. In doing so, this Sidebar provides Congress with a list of some key
components of a potential federal effort to criminalize hazing as well as a sense of the options that
Congress could have for each component.
This Sidebar enumerates and examines the general core components of a criminal anti-hazing statute:
(1) applicability (who is subject to and protected by the law, such as those seeking membership into
fraternities and sororities, athletic teams, or other on-campus entities), (2) the jurisdictional basis (whether
Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate hazing), (3) the prohibited conduct (what type of
action constitutes hazing, such as forcing a fraternity pledge to ingest alcohol), (4) the mental state
accompanying the prohibited conduct (whether the prohibited conduct has to be committed purposefully,
knowingly, recklessly, or negligently), (5) the relevance of consent (whether hazing occurs even if the
victim willingly participates in the prohibited conduct), and (6) the punishment (what consequences
perpetrators may face if they engage in hazing). The Sidebar begins by providing background on hazing.
It then discusses the core components of anti-hazing legislation, giving examples of different approaches
for these components from both state law and current federal law governing the service academies. It
concludes with considerations for Congress.
