{img:description}

National Hazing Study

NASPA has joined with a number of national organizations to support the "National Research Initiative to Examine the Nature and Prevalence of Hazing in Colleges and Universities." The study is being developed by Dr. Elizabeth Allan, Assistant Professor of Higher Educational Leadership at the University of Maine.

According to Dr. Allan, "The study will investigate the nature and prevalence of hazing practices across a range of student groups within colleges and universities in the U.S. By addressing the lack of empirical data, the study will provide foundational data from which to assess campus climates and to inform best practices for hazing prevention and intervention.

The research aims to generate breadth of knowledge and promote more in-depth understanding about hazing in postsecondary educational institutions with possible applications to other populations as well.

More specifically, the goals of the study are to investigate the prevalence and nature of hazing behaviors among students in U.S. colleges and universities, and offer research-based strategies for responding to and preventing the problem of hazing among college students with transferability to middle and secondary schools.”


DAY OF DIALOGUE

Concept

The "Day of Dialogue" is, at its heart, a simple concept. To engage in a "Day of Dialogue" means simply to take the time to get the right group of people into the right set of circumstances to allow meaningful discussion about a topic of common concern.

  • In this case the "right group of people" is some combination of those who share a commitment to your particular campus and to the ideals of fraternity and sorority life - chapter members and leaders, national staff, national and local alumni volunteers, faculty and staff, and other.
  • The "right circumstances" are those that provide a clear goal, an appropriate meeting space, a meaningful agenda, a date and time that meets participants needs, and sufficient structure to allow the discussion to progress.
  • A "meaningful discussion" is one where all participants have access to critical information, where an atmosphere of trust and openness leads to honest sharing of ideas and concerns, where the purpose is to accomplish a common goal, and where one of the outcomes is a commitment to a next step or a plan.
  • The "topic of common concern" is the prevalence of high-risk drinking on college campuses and, particularly, among fraternity and sorority members.
Background
Rationale
  • Collaboration between the various parties is critical to the success of any campus-based change effort.
  • The experiences of campuses that have already had such discussions can be shared and used by institutions that have yet to take the step.
  • The designation of a national “Day of Dialogue” can serve to spur the initiation of discussions that might otherwise not begin.
Initiation and Sponsorship

This project was initiated by the Greek Summit, an annual gathering sponsored by NASPA's Fraternity/Sorority Affairs Knowledge Community. The Greek Summit brings together representatives of higher education and inter/national organizations to effect the change needed to help students' behavior better reflect the founding principles of their organizations and the missions of their educational institutions. The idea for a national "Day of Dialogue" on the issues surrounding alcohol use within the Greek community emerged from the 1999 meeting of the Summit and was adopted by NASPA's Fraternity/Sorority Knowledge Community at its March, 2000 meeting.

The Inter-Association Task Force on Alcohol and Other Substance Abuse Issues is a coalition of vital organizations who collaborate on issues relating to substance abuse prevention efforts within the higher education community. The Task Force sponsors National Collegiate Alcohol Awareness Week (NCAAW) and has listed the “Day of Dialogue” in its resource guide for NCAAW campus planning. Though initially developed for application in the fraternity and sorority community, the principles and tools of the “Day of Dialogue” can be applied practically in a campus-wide effort.

Please send all evaluative materials to the project coordinator. Contact information is located at the bottom of the front page of the Day of Dialogue website.

  • Co-Sponsoring Organizations

    "Day of Dialogue" is presented in part through the generous financial support of the North American Interfraternal Foundation (NIF).

    Each of the following national organizations has endorsed the "Day of Dialogue" program:

    • The Inter-Association Task Force on Alcohol and Other Substance Abuse Issues
    • National Panhellenic Conference (NPC)
    • National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC)
    • North-American Interfraternity Council (NIC)
    • National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations (NALFO)
    • Association of Fraternity Advisors (AFA)
    • The Alcohol-Free Housing Alliance
    • The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (HEC)
    • Fraternity Executives Association
  • Sample Press Release

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT:

    -Your Name-
    -Your Phone Number-
    -Your E-mail Address-
    -NAME OF UNIVERSITY- TAKES ON ALCOHOL ABUSE IN “DAY OF DIALOGUE”
    -City, state of release-, -date- -Recognizing the significant damage high risk drinking is causing students, the University/College, and the community, -name of university- is calling for a “Day of Dialogue.”

    The goal of the “Day of Dialogue” is to confront the difficult issues caused by alcohol, other drug and violence and to develop programs of action to reduce the problems. During the program, students, faculty, staff, alumni, and community members will engage in extensive, planned discussions of alcohol-related problems and possible solutions. The discussions will serve as the basis for collaborative, campus-based action planning.

    The “Day of Dialogue” program at -name of university- will be held on -date- at -location and time-. The event will feature -details: key speakers, members of discussion panel, etc.-

    “Changing a campus culture as it relates to high-risk drinking is a serious undertaking," says Dr. Penny Rue, Chair, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators’ (NASPA) Fraternity and Sorority Affairs Knowledge Community and Dean of Students at University of Virginia. "We’re suggesting that an intensive dialogue involving all of the key stakeholders is critical to beginning or advancing the change process.”

    The “Day of Dialogue” program was initiated in 1999 by the Greek Summit, an annual gathering of representatives of higher education and inter/national organizations sponsored by NASPA’s Fraternity/Sorority Affairs Knowledge Community. For more information on the national program, please contact Day of Dialogue Coordinator Geof Brown, Vice President of Alcohol Education, North-American Interfraternity Conference, at 317 872-1134 x 211 or email at [email protected]

  • Steering Committee

    The Steering Committee that developed "Day of Dialogue:"

    • Lissa Bradford, NPC/NIC Alcohol-Free Housing Task Force (Co-chair)
    • Terry Hogan, Dean of Students, Ohio University (Co-chair)
    • Cari Cook, Executive Director, Delta Delta Delta
    • Sue Kraft Fussell, Executive Director, Association of Fraternity Advisors
    • Chris Heasley, Consultant, Phi Gamma Delta
    • Jaime Hockensmith, Panhellenic VP for Risk Management, Indiana University
    • Michael Johnson, Director of Alcohol Education, Phi Gamma Delta
    • Erika London, President, Pennsylvania State University Panhellenic Council
    • Bob Maust, University of Colorado
    • Monica Miranda, Vice Chair, National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations
    • Jon Williamson, Executive Vice President, North-American Interfraternity Conference
    • Ann Wilson, Program Advisor, Ohio University
  • Participating Campuses

    Staff at these campuses have indicated that they have produced an a "Day of Dialogue" activity on their campus:

    • Ball State University
    • Bowling Green State University
    • Eastern Michigan University
    • Lenoir-Rhyne College
    • Ohio University
    • Oklahoma State University
    • Otterbein College
    • Southern Methodist University
    • Southwest Texas State University
    • Syracuse University
    • Texas A & M University
    • Tulane University
    • University of Missouri-Columbia
    • University of Dayton
    • University of Delaware
    • University of Florida
    • University of Idaho
    • University of New Hampshire
    • University of South Alabama
    • Vanderbilt University
    • West Texas A&M University
    • West Virginia University
    • Wittenberg University
  • Sample Activities
    Bowling Green State University
    • Program: Panel followed by Dialogue
    • Highlight: Used topic of community relations to lead into discussions of alcohol; used multiple media (faculty/staff newsletter, two local newspapers, University Web site) to preview and report on “Day of Dialogue”
    Eastern Michigan University
    • Program: Three events over the course of the day, A variety of sessions in which participants could individually choose topics of interest, Mocktail social hour, Presentation by the Campus Close-Up Theatre Troupe
    • Highlight: Used a variety of approaches and included students, staff, and members of the community to engage in meaningful dialogue
    Oklahoma State University
    • Program: Three events over the course of a day, welcome and discussion with chief student affairs officer, Peer-facilitated student-only discussion, Panel with University and community representatives
    • Highlight: Rich dialogue led to identification of important “local” issues and solutions
    Southern Methodist University
    • Program: Four events over the course of a day, Three debates on alcohol topics by the Debate Team, DW Eyes – game of altered perception using “goggles”, Surveyed and reported on student drinking behaviors to correct misperceptions, Town Hall Meeting
    • Highlight: Used daytime fun promotional activities to encourage participation in Town Hall Meeting
    University of Delaware
    • Program: Three events over the course of a day, Brown bag lunch and panel with outside members, Discussion on risk management with chapter leaders, Keynote speaker on risk management issues
    • Highlight: Used the event to successfully advance the adoption of a third party vendor resolution by the Panhellenic Association
    University of Missouri-Columbia
    • Program: Two events, Brown bag lunch with discussion facilitated by the chief student affairs officer regarding the new campus alcohol policy, Legal issues panel; panelists included members of city and campus police, the liquor control board, and a local judge
    • Highlight: Partnered with the Wellness Resource Center to add “Day of Dialogue” to the events of Alcohol Responsibility Month and students were given participation points for attending
    University of Nebraska-Lincoln
    • Program: Eight hour-long series of six events, Welcome by institutional leader, Panel including report on survey results, Breakout discussions facilitated by alumni, Dinner with speaker, Second breakout sessions for action planning, Inspirational keynote for closing
    • Highlight: Mixed multiple approaches and gained broad stakeholder involvement
    Texas A&M University
    • Program: Three-part event during one evening, Opening speaker, Panel presentation with Q&A, Small group discussion
    • Highlight: Developed and distributed a newsletter to participants to continue information sharing
    Vanderbilt University
    • Program: Four events over the course of the day, Alcohol trivia and prizes activity, “True Story” testimonial presented by a peer from another institution, Panel on alcohol policy, Interactive activity/discussion on relationships and alcohol
    • Highlight: Used topic of personal male/female relationships to lead discussions on alcohol
    West Texas A&M University
    • Program: Panel of students with varied backgrounds moderated by an on-campus professor. The professor used the topic of racial identity to get at issues of alcohol.
    • Highlight: Excellent conversations about the divisions perceived to exist on campus
  • Program Evaluation

    In order to continue to build this project, we need your evaluation of the event you developed for your campus. The information you share will be provided to future participants so they can benefit from your experience. Use and attach additional pages if necessary. Thank you for your participation.

    Please provide the following information:

    1. Name of school:
    2. Date(s) of your event:
    3. Number of participants who were expected to attend:
    4. Number of participants who actually attended:
    5. Please describe the format of your event (or attach an agenda):
    6. Please describe the strength and weaknesses of your event from the perspective of event planners (including yourself):
    7. Please describe the strength and weaknesses of your event from the perspective of participants (if available):
    8. Please attach any promotional materials, news clippings, summary reports, agendas, or other materials related to the event.

    Please send all evaluative materials to the project coordinator. Contact information is located at the bottom of the front page of the Day of Dialogue website.

A CALL FOR VALUES CONGRUENCE

The leadership of the Fraternity and Sorority Affairs KC has been working with representatives of the Association of Fraternity Advisors (AFA), American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), National Panhellenic Conference (NPC), North-American Interfraternity Conference (NIC) and the Inter-Association Task Force on Alcohol (IATF) to help bring to life the "Call for Values Congruence" document developed at Franklin Square.

In addition to considering this document at Greek Summit VII in Indianapolis, a meeting was held at the AFA Conference in San Antonio in December 2003 and a National Greek Summit was held in Washington, DC in February 2004. Further discussion took place at the NASPA National Conference in Denver in March 2004.

Much progress has been made and the presidents' organizations are working to produce a document summarizing the outcomes of this effort. Don Mills, past national chair of the KC, is coordinating NASPA's ongoing involvement in this process.

  • View the original "Call for Values Congruence" document.

Standards

Several national Greek organizations have adopted various standards and expectations to support the "Call for Values Congruence" documents. Links to these documents include:

  • National Pan-Hellenic Council, Inc. (NPHC)
  • National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations (NALFO)
  • North-American Interfraternity Conference (NIC)
  • National Panhellenic Conference (NPC)

FRATERNAL FUTURES

"Fraternal Futures" is a project developed by Dennis Roberts of Miami University. Seeds for the project were planted through dialogue at a number of the early Greek Summitts hosted by the NASPA Fraternity and Sorority Affairs KC.

According to Laura Hayhoe, who has collaborated with Dr. Roberts on the project, "The Fraternal Futures deliberation model . . . asks fraternity and sorority members to tackle difficult questions, explore possible futures and choose a collective direction for their campus community. The deliberations challenge students to consider what their Greek system should look like in order for it to survive and thrive in the future."

An article written by Dr. Roberts and Laura Hayhoe follows. It was written for the Kettering Foundation which has provided financial support to the project. It is used here with permission. For additional information regarding the project, contact Dennis Roberts.

  • Fraternal Futures: Empowering Undergraduate Fraternity and Sorority Members to Take Hold of Their Future

    By Laura Hayhoe and Dennis C. Roberts, Ph.D.

    With the founding of the first social fraternity in 1825, college students were offered a home away from home, a social outlet, high academic and behavioral expectations, and a way to get involved in the community. Since that time, millions of men and women have entered into these organizations that are represented by ritual, secrecy and a sense of brother or sisterhood. Greek organizations pride themselves on attracting the best of the best of college populations, and fraternity and sorority members often have higher GPAs then non-affiliated students, higher graduation averages and perform considerable community and philanthropic service. In recent years, however, the number of students interested in joining these organizations has significantly declined. While the exact cause of this decline is not clear, it is obvious that fraternity and sorority members need to be actively involved in protecting their future if the survival of Greek organizations is to be certain in the years to come. (Roberts and Rogers, 2003)

    There are both significant advantages and disadvantages to affiliation with fraternal (sometimes referred to as “Greek”) organizations. The disadvantages are often so detrimental to members, organizations, and host institutions that the international headquarter personnel and campus administrators who oversee them take them over in exasperation. However, without student involvement, lasting and deep change is unlikely to take place.

    Fundamental change is the only way to resolve the persistent problems that have plagued fraternal organizations. Members have to be drawn from passivity to action and they have to engage in critical and informed analyses in order to secure a promising future.

    Recognizing the problems of traditional methods of change, Miami University requested the assistance of the Kettering Foundation two years ago to approach fraternal change from the grassroots level. Since that time, undergraduate students have helped to develop “Fraternal Futures” based on the National Issues Forum model. Speaking to students, both affiliated and non-affiliated, parents, faculty, community members, headquarter staff, and campus administrators, students at Miami researched the presumed advantages and disadvantages of fraternity life. From this research, students discovered that there were three possible directions for fraternal organizations. Following the first approach, undergraduate members would make their organizations more accessible. Opening themselves up to a more diverse membership, new recruitment techniques, and positive public relations, would ensure that fraternal organizations would survive and thrive in the future. The second approach asks undergraduate students to examine fraternal organization founding values and accountability practices to which they hold their members responsible. By examining standards that members should uphold, and enforcing these expectations, fraternity and sorority members can ensure the survival of fraternal organizations. The final approach asks affiliated students to examine fraternities and sororities as the campus health and safety hazards they often have become. By making fraternal organizations safer, and educating the entire campus community on health and safety issues, these organizations would become invaluable to campus communities, and therefore ensure survival.

    Since finalizing the Fraternal Futures model a year ago, approximately four hundred undergraduate students have participated in forums to deliberate on the future of fraternal organizations. Undergraduate members of these organizations were trained by the Foundation and have led deliberations at Miami University of Oxford, Ohio, Jacksonville State University of Jacksonville, Alabama, Westminster College of Fulton, Missouri, and Kutztown University of Kutztown, Pennsylvania. Each campus has been remarkably different, some with high percentages of students affiliated with these groups, some with populations of less than 1%, highly traditional campuses, large campuses, a campus with less than 1000 students, and commuter campuses. Depending on the situation of the campus, and the particular problems of the fraternal system there, the preferred approach of undergraduate students has been different. Despite the differences in “Fraternal Futures” conversations, each deliberation has demonstrated that students value hearing from others about concerns that affect a system that has become such an integral part of their college experience.

    To measure the impact of the “Fraternal Futures” deliberation, we have utilized a pre and post forum survey to determine differences in response. Using a model based on Berkowitz’s model for change, it is necessary that people realize there is a problem, feel they have a role in fixing the problem, believe they have the skills to change the problem, and are committed enough to take action for real change to occur (Berkowitz, 1997 & 1998). Therefore, before and after the deliberation, we ask students to rate themselves in each of the above four areas. Additionally, we ask students to indicate what approach(es) they value, and what tradeoffs they would be willing to accept in realizing positive change for their organizations. Finally, students comment on how their perspectives on fraternal life and citizen participation have changed. On all four campuses, students have indicated higher ratings on all four components of Berkowitz’s model after deliberating. Additionally, most students are willing to accept tradeoffs detailing longer hours spent with their chapter, but do not want to see the tight brother or sisterhood bonds they have developed decreased. As we continue our work at Miami University with the project, we will be reporting results to students, campus staff, and headquarters so that the student voice may be represented in change initiatives on all levels. Additionally, we are now embarking on a project that uses the “Fraternal Futures” deliberations as a starting point for increased civic engagement on our campus. Through using the concept of deliberation and active citizen involvement, we believe that the Miami community can engage in respectful and important dialogue, preparing students to be more actively involved in the larger community throughout life.

    The support provided by the Kettering Foundation in establishing the “Fraternal Futures” initiative provides a way to foster shared leadership for the kind of changes that will allow these organizations to exist in the coming years. If there is enough merit to preserve fraternal organizations as a way to actively involve students in campus life, to enhance learning about community living and democratic life, then the support and encouragement of headquarters, campuses, alumni, and foundations such as Kettering will be needed. Fraternal organizations in North America are on nearly one thousand campuses and freedom of association rights portend that they are not likely to go away as organizations with which students affiliate, either as on-campus or off-campus unaffiliated groups. It is to all our benefit to take fraternities and sororities seriously and to establish mutually beneficial models for their enhancement. Empowering members to take responsibility for themselves and requiring that brothers and sisters share the responsibility for improving them represents one of the only rays of hope on the horizon and the Kettering Foundation has supported deliberation as a starting place in doing this.

    References

    Berkowitz, A.D. (September/October 1998). “The proactive prevention model: Helping students translate healthy beliefs into healthy actions.” About Campus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 26-28.

    Berkowitz, A.D. (1997). “From reactive to proactive prevention: Promoting an ecology of health on campus.” In Rivers, P.C. and Shore, E.R. Substance abuse on campus: a handbook for college and university personnel. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 119-139.

    Roberts, D.C. and Rogers, J. (2003). Transforming Fraternal Leadership. In Gregory, D. (ed.), The administration of fraternal social organizations on American campuses: A pattern for the new millennium. Asheville, NC: College Administration Publications, Inc., pp. 327-343.


ALCOHOL FREE HOUSING

Purpose

The Alcohol-Free Housing Task Force is co-sponsored by the NASPA Fraternity and Sorority Affairs Knowledge Community and works to raise standards regarding the use of alcohol in fraternity housing across North America. The Task Force seeks to change the alcohol-centered norms in fraternity life thru education and modeling and, thus, improve the health and safety of collegiate fraternity members.

Resources

Complete information about the efforts of the Task Force including a listing of campuses and fraternities that have adopted alcohol-free policies, definitions, research findings, and current news is available from the coordinator.