Who Owns Student Cultures? Comment on Wiese (2026) and Allan (2026)
Recently, Dr. Dawn Wiese wrote an op-ed in the National Review about the administrative enforcement of collegiate hazing policies. Wiese is concerned that broad and vague institutional definitions of hazing allow for arbitrary enforcement decisions. She argues that administrators are sometimes targeting trivial activities and are fixated on fraternities and sororities. Wiese suggests that institutions and administrators should use a more focused definition of hazing and take care to respect the importance and power of group ritual practices. In a blog post on HazingInfo.org, Dr. Elizabeth Allan wrote a response to Wiese. Allan agrees with Wiese about the importance of group rituals but suggests that the picture she has painted of administrators and administrative actions is highly exaggerated. She also argues that further interrogations of the definition of “hazing” are beside the point and that “[w]e need to move beyond compliance toward intentional culture-building. The goal is not to eliminate meaningful traditions. It is to ensure those traditions reflect the type of community we aspire to build.” I believe that both authors have offered an important perspective, but I would suggest that the problems identified by Wiese are real and are not fully addressed by Allan’s response. Further, I am troubled by the implications of Allan’s “intentional culture-building” and the slow erosion of student cultural autonomy. The question of who will decide what counts as a “meaningful tradition” is a serious one with an immense potential for arbitrary cultural impositions. Further, the idea that we should somehow be ensuring that the traditions of adult student groups “reflect the type of community we aspire to build” assumes that “we” are all in agreement as to the type of community we want to have and that we are competent to judge which ritual practices are sufficiently aligned.
Before further addressing the concept of “hazing” and its collegiate regulation, it is worth stating a few basic facts about my background. I am an anthropologist who has dedicated his career to the study of hazing, particularly fraternity hazing. My work has included ethnographic fieldwork with hazing fraternities, laboratory studies of hazing, and large-scale surveys to assess predictors of hazing motivation. I also work on the applied side of the topic and have advocated for harm-reduction approaches as well as improved messaging and policies. I share Allan and Wiese’s desire to increase student safety and (in particular) prevent hazing-related deaths. However, we do not all agree—in theory or in practice—on what constitutes “hazing” and what should be done about it. Further, it appears to me that one of the reasons we are arriving at different conclusions is that we are working from different principles and values.
Cultural Autonomy in Private Collegiate Groups
As Allan and Wise have acknowledged, hazing can occur in all manner of collegiate student groups. While a minority of these groups are run by the university itself (e.g., varsity athletic teams) the vast majority of collegiate student groups are privately run. The pieces by Allan and Wise address both university-run and privately-run groups, but I would suggest that these groups call for different analyses. In order to make a coherent position, I intend to only address the arguments of Allan and Wiese as they apply to private student groups. This means that I am addressing the decisions of legal adults who are exercising their right of free association to join private clubs run by fellow adults. I hold the following propositions:
1. College students should have the right to join private groups with differing hierarchies of authority, rituals that may appear strange to outsiders, and guarded secrets that are the sole business of insiders.
2. Private collegiate groups should not be required to have rituals, activities, or authority structures that administrators would personally endorse or believe to be effective for the group’s stated goals.
3. To the extent allowed by law, administrators should not seek to alter the initiatory or ritual practices of private student groups unless they can clearly articulate a serious danger that extends beyond moderate, temporary discomfort.
The propositions I have outlined are designed to respect the immense variety of social, political, and religious groups on campus. At their heart, they recognize that the individuals who are often most interested in altering student cultures are outsiders with different incentives, motivations, and values. They further recognize that while administrators have a legitimate safety interest in these private groups, any interventions should be conditioned on the presence of serious and articulable danger. In expressing these propositions, my values should be clear: I value student safety but I also value student cultural autonomy. I do not expect the cultures of private student groups to align with my own and I believe that these cultures should not be subject to interrogation by outsiders except in limited circumstances.
1. College students should have the right to join private groups with differing hierarchies of authority, rituals that may appear strange to outsiders, and guarded secrets that are the sole business of insiders.
2. Private collegiate groups should not be required to have rituals, activities, or authority structures that administrators would personally endorse or believe to be effective for the group’s stated goals.
3. To the extent allowed by law, administrators should not seek to alter the initiatory or ritual practices of private student groups unless they can clearly articulate a serious danger that extends beyond moderate, temporary discomfort.
The propositions I have outlined are designed to respect the immense variety of social, political, and religious groups on campus. At their heart, they recognize that the individuals who are often most interested in altering student cultures are outsiders with different incentives, motivations, and values. They further recognize that while administrators have a legitimate safety interest in these private groups, any interventions should be conditioned on the presence of serious and articulable danger. In expressing these propositions, my values should be clear: I value student safety but I also value student cultural autonomy. I do not expect the cultures of private student groups to align with my own and I believe that these cultures should not be subject to interrogation by outsiders except in limited circumstances.
What About Hazing in Private Collegiate Groups?
I would note that the word “hazing” does not appear in any of my propositions, despite it being relevant to their construction. I agree with Wiese that institutional definitions of hazing are often broad and vague and (as she acknowledges) I have published a paper on the topic. I also agree with Allan that we need to move beyond arguments over the boundaries of the term “hazing,” though for entirely different reasons. Allan wants to move beyond the definition in order to get to the business of “culture-building.” I want to move beyond the definition of hazing because it is not fit to the task of detecting genuine danger. In particular, while many dangerous activities do indeed fall under the definition of hazing, other, comparatively trivial activities do as well. For example, prospective fraternity members who are made to clean chapter bathrooms and run errands for incumbent members are being hazed but that does not mean that they are being substantively harmed. To argue otherwise is to imply that inconvenience and temporary discomfort are fundamentally dangerous, a belief that would necessitate the end of college itself.
Allan is not in favor of focusing on dangerous activities in the way that Wiese or I have recommended. She provocatively suggests that “[n]arrowing the definition of hazing to only the most egregious examples of harm only serves those who want us to look the other way when their rituals and traditions leave behind scars that can’t be seen.” While I do not think that “only the most egregious" examples deserve attention, it is worth placing our current moment in context. Specifically, egregious hazing incidents are exactly what drove the establishment of anti-hazing organizations, anti-hazing laws, and anti-hazing policies around the country. The anti-hazing movement would not exist were it not for these incidents. But instead of focusing all their energies on the specific activities that brought about serious injuries and fatalities, the anti-hazing movement decided to fight the loose category they belong to: “hazing”. Needless to say, things are not going well, and collegiate hazing deaths have shown no clear downward trend over the past few decades. But Allan and others soldier on, ostensibly convinced that they are still on the right track. As a consequence, we now get to have endless arguments about activities that are incapable of causing the very outcomes that created the anti-hazing movement.
Allan, for her part, insists that she is not against “challenge” or “discomfort” but she wants these challenges to be “developmental” and have clear justifications that align with the group’s goals and values. Allan’s criteria make sense for university-run organizations. But private groups should not have to satisfy these criteria and should not be forced to justify or explain their initiatory or ritual practices to outsiders.
Allan is not in favor of focusing on dangerous activities in the way that Wiese or I have recommended. She provocatively suggests that “[n]arrowing the definition of hazing to only the most egregious examples of harm only serves those who want us to look the other way when their rituals and traditions leave behind scars that can’t be seen.” While I do not think that “only the most egregious" examples deserve attention, it is worth placing our current moment in context. Specifically, egregious hazing incidents are exactly what drove the establishment of anti-hazing organizations, anti-hazing laws, and anti-hazing policies around the country. The anti-hazing movement would not exist were it not for these incidents. But instead of focusing all their energies on the specific activities that brought about serious injuries and fatalities, the anti-hazing movement decided to fight the loose category they belong to: “hazing”. Needless to say, things are not going well, and collegiate hazing deaths have shown no clear downward trend over the past few decades. But Allan and others soldier on, ostensibly convinced that they are still on the right track. As a consequence, we now get to have endless arguments about activities that are incapable of causing the very outcomes that created the anti-hazing movement.
Allan, for her part, insists that she is not against “challenge” or “discomfort” but she wants these challenges to be “developmental” and have clear justifications that align with the group’s goals and values. Allan’s criteria make sense for university-run organizations. But private groups should not have to satisfy these criteria and should not be forced to justify or explain their initiatory or ritual practices to outsiders.
Waking Up
In my experience, people do not like to hear that some of the ritual activities of private student groups that appear “mean” are none of their business and are not worthy of administrative attention. They also do not like to be reminded that there is a limited set of time and resources that can be expended on policing these groups. They are instead drawn to the dream offered by Allan: What if we could take all the mean activities and transform them into nice activities? Wouldn’t that be grand?
And while everyone dreams, the hazing deaths continue.
And while everyone dreams, the hazing deaths continue.