Author: Hank Nuwer

This is the text of the letter in which Farmhouse acknowledged hazing violations by its Minnesota chapter:

FarmHouse Fraternity, Inc.
Building Men since 1905
March 28, 2006

Jeff Schmitz, Minnesota FarmHouse Chapter President
Brad Schloesser, Minnesota FarmHouse Association President
Minnesota FarmHouse Chapter
1505 N. Cleveland Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108

Dear Jeff and Brad,
In cooperation with the investigation underway with the University of Minnesota, this letter is to officially acknowledge risk management violations that have been confirmed within the Minnesota FarmHouse Chapter, support of the sanctions as
determined by the University of Minnesota and additional sanctions/expectations from FarmHouse International. This letter specifically outlines those concerns and details expectations of the Association and Chapter in regards to making necessary
changes to the new member education program and overall culture of the chapter.
Our investigation in cooperation with the University of Minnesota reveals the following risk management violations that
have occurred:

1. Strapping – chapter members have apparently engaged in an activity called strapping for many years – in which members are hit across the rear as a disciplinary measure for missing meetings/events and “straps” are exchanged by
brothers after being formally initiated. Regardless of whether marks are left and/or whether it’s a good-natured activity, we
believe this rises to the level of hazing and fails to pass our “videotape test” concept (see Page 2). Unquestionably, it is an
activity that must be permanently ended if the chapter is to continue.

2. Showering – chapter members engaged in an activity called showering – in which members were wrestled, then stripped to boxers and turned upside down and hung over a balcony by their feet with water poured on them when brothers are
elected president, are graduating seniors, brothers not fulfilling responsibilities, etc. There are multiple concerns with this
activity including risk management, safety, public relations and hazing. The primary concerns lie with the wrestling that
occurs, the public humiliation of a brother being stripped to his boxers and brought outside, the shock of cold water and the
safety concerns should one of the brothers holding him upside down by his ankles lose his grip and possible resulting
neck/head injury. This activity must be permanently ended if the chapter is to continue.

3. Livestock mind game – active members bought condoms and brought pledges to a livestock barn, making pledges think
they were going to have sex with a farm animal. Once the men got to the fence they’re told it’s just a joke. However, this is
not a joking matter, instead it’s clearly a violation of our FIPG risk management policy for “morally degrading or
humiliating games and activities.” This activity must be permanently ended if the chapter is to continue.

4. Pre-Initiation Program – apparently mind games were played throughout the pre-initiation program. Examples –
“Jacks” were assigned to intimidate pledges, haze and stay on pledges throughout initiation. There are conflicting reports
about late night cleaning, forced cleaning with toothbrushes, actives dirtying house/areas immediately after pledges cleaned
it during initiation. Trust walks need to build trust and confidence, not try to scare and intimidate pledges into respect.
Eliminate the mind game business about whether someone’s been initiated or not. It serves no purpose and only builds
frustration and unneeded stress. A close examination of the pre-initiation program reveals a variety of questionable
activities and hazing throughout. The entire pre-initiation program must be scrapped and rebuilt, using our model
FarmHouse new member education materials as a base. The resources are merely a tool for re-shaping things. Most
importantly, the culture and attitude towards new members must change. Every activity needs to be geared
towards building a positive, supporting new member education and pre-initiation experience.

Any Minnesota specific
traditions that you wish to continue and have added to the model FarmHouse new member education program that you’ll
use as a base must be reviewed and approved by FarmHouse International and the University of Minnesota Greek Life
office. Do they pass our “videotape test?” Why are they being added?

We have worked closely with the University of Minnesota in the sanctions as outlined in the letter you received from
Mandi Watkins and are in support of the sanctions as outlined. Below you will see additional sanctions/expectations as
outlined by FarmHouse International. As you work through this process the Minnesota FarmHouse Association, team of
chapter advisors and Chapter may determine that additional sanctions, consequences or actions are appropriate.

Effective immediately, the FarmHouse International Board has suspended activities of the chapter through the end of the
2006-07 academic year, effectively meaning that all activities must be approved by FarmHouse International. A
membership review will take place in coordination with the University of Minnesota by April 30, 2006. Following the
review, an oversight committee of Fraternity alumni representatives and university officials will monitor and approve
programs and activities of the chapter.

In addition, the chapter will not be permitted to hold any social events, participate in
Homecoming or Spring Jam or compete in our chapter awards process through the end of the 2006-07 school year.
To help institute the changes that need to be made we want to work closely with the local leadership an opportunity to
tackle this head on at the local level. We’ve learned over the years that change usually happens more swiftly, more
accountability occurs and less blame cast when discipline and change is initiated at a local level.

We believe the changes that need to be made go beyond tweaking of activities and expectations. We believe substantial and
permanent changes need to occur at the Minnesota Chapter. Prior to the Chapter’s 75th Anniversary Celebration May 5-7 a
full day planning retreat and membership review will take place coordinated by the Minnesota FarmHouse Association and
chapter advisors, with the assistance of the FarmHouse International Office, and with the entire chapter in attendance.

Specific to that all-day retreat we’d ask that the Minnesota FarmHouse Association request a representative of the
Minnesota Student Activities or Greek Life department to provide a keynote educational address to everyone in attendance
– outlining the university’s anti-hazing policy and providing a summary report from the investigation (what the university
believes rises to the level of hazing, violation of university policy and why). Please have them address:
– outlining the university’s stance on these violations and what the sanctions entail;
– what they see as being the ideal new member education program in 2006;
– what simply cannot happen in new member programs at the University in 2006;
– the increased involvement of parents in student’s lives and lack of tolerance students have today for being hazed,
mind games, blackball threats, etc.

After that session, we’d challenge the Association and Chapter to begin discussions about what needs to happen, ultimately:
– engaging in an in-depth discussion about what activities need to be eliminated that an outsider might consider
hazing (whether it be actives or pledges) – use Page 1 of the February 2006 Flash as self-evaluation tool of
activities that rise to the level of hazing or questionable activities (http://www.farmhouse.org/flash/FEB2006.pdf).
Make copies for each participant;
– a complete overhaul of the pre-initiation program (model program on website to be used as a base).
– the chapter implementing the new member education materials for the 12-week program as outlined by
FarmHouse International – and carefully considering what Minnesota traditions and activities might be added;
– what additional changes need to occur to create a positive new member education and pre-initiation experience?
A simple test to determine whether an activity is hazing – would you feel comfortable videotaping the activity and 1) show
it to a recruit’s parents; 2) show to a professor and attorney; 3) show it to the FarmHouse International Office; 4) show it to
the Dean of Students office; 5) show it on the evening news and saying this is what FarmHouse stands for?

We also request:
1. That a detailed report from the retreat be submitted to the FarmHouse International Headquarters and the Minnesota
Greek Affairs Department by Sunday, April 23, 2006, jointly agreed to and signed off on by the chapter and association
outlining the changes that will be made to the Minnesota New Member Education process and chapter as a whole.

2. That the Minnesota FarmHouse Association assist university officials and FarmHouse International with the formation of
the oversight committee that will work closely with the chapter to help develop and implement changes that are needed.
Much thought and consideration should be given to which alumni should be hand-picked to serve on this team. We’d
suggest that this team work closely with the Chapter Executive Board. We need this oversight committee to submit a
complete report/outline for the Fall 2006 new member education program to the FarmHouse International Headquarters and
the Minnesota Greek Affairs Department by July 1, 2006. We would like this oversight committee to continue to work with
the chapter throughout the fall semester, providing monthly reports of progress to FarmHouse International with the
changes being implemented (four reports – one by Sept 1, one by Oct 1, one by Nov 1, one by Dec 1).

3. Space devoted in next issue of Minnesota FarmHouse Alumni newsletter to help educate alumni on the changes being
made to the new member education program, why they’ve changed, chapter and personal liability, the risks associated with
going back to doing things the old way, etc.

4. Time must be devoted at the 75th Anniversary Celebration of the Chapter to educate alumni on the violations, sanctions
and what changes must occur. Detail must be provided about the two separate investigations, what’s at risk and what needs
to be done to move forward. This session must be geared towards educating alumni, getting buy in and getting alumni to
commit themselves to the changes that must be made to survive.

5. A Chapter and Association Representative (ideally Jeff and Brad) will be expected to provide a personal testimonial at
the 44th Biennial FarmHouse Conclave this summer in Nashville about this case – specifically the violations that occurred,
the history of the incidents, the judicial process, the chapter investigation, the sanctions and what you’ve learned from this.
This program will precede a Hazing/Risk Management general session at Conclave from FarmHouse alumnus and NIC
Board Member Rick Barnes.

6. To determine as an association, team of advisors and chapter executive board whether additional self-imposed
punishments and/or consequences should result from the allegations of violations that have been confirmed. If the
conditions described by the University and FarmHouse International are not met, more severe sanctions may be imposed.

7. All members and pledges sign the attached Risk Management verification forms and submit to FarmHouse International
Office by April 24, 2006.
Pending the response/action of the Minnesota Chapter, the FarmHouse International Board reserves the right to take
additional action as outlined in the FarmHouse Disciplinary Procedures. However, it is our hope that the chapter and
association will tackle this issue head-on and make the necessary changes in process, mindset and culture that clearly need
to occur for FarmHouse to survive at the University of Minnesota for another 75 years.
Making these necessary changes will forever strengthen your chapter. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to contact
Dwight at 217-xxx-8346 or Jim at 800-xxx-1905. (numbers x’ed out my moderator of this blog)

Fraternally,
Dwight Raab Jim Griffith, CAE
International President Executive Director

Opinion by Hank Nuwer

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk has taken pokes at TV and print coverage criticizing her handling of the hazing/manhandling incident at the Arizona Association of Junior High Students Council camp.

She’s said the incident was only about power, not about sex.

OK, what’s your point, Ms. Polk? If they had shoved the boys into a locker, they’d have been charged with assault also. If they had done this on school grounds, they’d have been eligible for hazing charges–even under Arizona’s weak (compared to Florida and New York) hazing law. Do you have any doubt that the odds of at least one of those 18 boys needing long-term counseling as a result of this unfortunate episode is high. The laws of unintended consequences also may find the abused becoming the abusers—and that’s not only scary, it’s dead wrong.

Bottom line: They used their hands, and a broomstick-turned-weapon, to abuse those boys put in their trust. Bottom line: hazing is a human rights abuse, condemned by all whether it’s the Russian military or high school hazing.

Is it fair that they would have received more sentence time for animal abuse had they done the same thing to 18 dogs?

Isn’t it sexism that their charges are lighter because the abuse was male-on-male instead of male-on-female? Clearly, this is a case of Might winning out over Right as the cause of human rights just took a tumble.

Hazing used to be dismissed by judges and prosecutors as a matter of boys being boys. No more—or so I thought. Since the public is now resigned to the fact that justice was miscarried, it is time for Ms. Polk to rethink her flawed reasoning…and to resign.

It is easier for me to feel sympathy for the senator whose son is charged if he made a few phone calls and called in some political chips to influence the judicial process. Every father, every mother, would feel the same pit in the center of the gut if his or her child was accused of 39 felonies of a sexual nature.

It is harder to feel empathy for Ms. Polk, a public servant charged with protecting that public who had the duty to rise above politics in the interest of justice.

And it is even harder to stomach how Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has distanced himself from this case with his whaddya-gonnna-do statements.

The parents of the young men should urge Arizona’s legislature to grasp the OTHER end of the broom to sweep Polk and Goddard out of office

Here’s how another journalist views the AZ case.

Moderator: the point of Ruggles’ short note is clear here: engage in a sometimes dangerous, usually demeaning, always primitive or cruelly creative activity long enough and something bad will happen. Then there are consequences. Except in Arizona. Where the holes in Ms. Polk’s reasoning go deeper than the Grand Canyon’s chasms. HN

Ruggles’ letter below:

Defense by county attorney ludicrous

Link to the original NCAA News article

Opinion Guest Column
Reprinted with Permission of author from Oct. 20 NCAA News

Why NCAA Faculty Reps Should Loudly Ban Hazing: A Friendly Nudge

By Hank Nuwer, Franklin College and Indiana University School of Journalism (IUPUI)

Thanks to the NCAA and Alfred University in 1999, the public and educators such as myself who write about hazing have a clearer idea of how prevalent hazing is in the culture of student athletes. Nearly 80 percent of all athletes admitted submitting to some sort of initiation ritual, and numerous athletes said that alcohol, nudity, sexual simulation, hitting, and even improper sexual touching were part of their rookie experience.

The term “initiation,” of course, was the euphemism that was used far more often than the term “hazing,” but that study gave a clear definition of hazing. To wit], hazing is “any humiliating or dangerous activity expected of [athletes] to join a group, regardless of [their] willingness to participate.”

That study was groundbreaking, and it has had an impact. Long resistant to any survey that revealed the extent to which fraternities and sororities in their midst, national Greek organizations now have permitted a University of Maine professor to conduct a survey similar to the NCAA’s to assess how problematic hazing is in Greek groups. The only way to effectively combat a problem is to know how big or small that problem is. All else is unacceptable speculation and guesswork.

Moreover, the Greek world, under the direction of such educational entities as the Association Of Fraternity Advisers, has taken the unprecedented step of organizing a task force composed of its most senior members to brainstorm ways to end the hazing activities that have seen at least one death (often many deaths) every year from 1970 to 2004.

And, on November 9, the AFA and partner groups sponsored a National Hazing Prevention Symposium at Purdue University. Invited participants included Mary Wilfert of the NCAA and Elliott Hopkins of the National Federation of State High School Associations. In effect, what we had was the first attempt for fraternal groups to partner with athletic groups, antihazing activist groups, educators and hazing researchers to see if there is common ground to attack hazing’s more lethal practices in an attempt to end the degradation, abuse, and occasional carnage.

I am, at this time, asking NCAA faculty representatives to do three things, and I am asking this as a faculty member in the spirit of collegiality. You’ve got a split infinitive in the first part of this sentence.

The first is to find a way to authorize a follow-up study to the 1999 NCAA study to give the public a comparative study to let hazing researchers know whether hazing is on the rise, decline, or has stabilized. The immediate pressing need for such a study is for researchers and the public to gain insight into the 70 or more incidents of sexual hazing allegations and/or convictions that have tarnished high school athletics since 1995. (College sexual incidents have been far less numerous, but still problematic due to their traumatic effect on victims).

The second is for faculty athletic reps to find a way to authorize the NCAA to act in the best interests of collegiate education by launching anti-hazing educational programs on a national scale.

Such a campaign would include 15 or 30-second public announcements by prominent NCAA coaches and athletes that send the message that hazing is all about abuse, not discipline. In the 1920s, deaths caused by freshman-sophomore physical hazing activities were the most common form of hazing death. At that time, the voices of prominent college athletes such as Branch McCracken (later Indiana basketball coach) made it clear that hazing was wrong and cowardly. Following the 1920s, only one freshman-sophomore death ever happened again.

Public announcements by high-status athletes would not only be heard by other collegiate athletes and coaches, but also by Greeks and high-school athletes who might heed such a clarion call for an end to hazing abuses. Such a message certainly is absent in professional sports where, reinforced by sensational media coverage, non-criminal but silly hazing initiations are perceived by the public to be the norm, if not actually the reality. (No survey of professional athletes has ever been attempted, of course).

The third is for a collective statement by NCAA faculty representatives that hazing is at best unethical, and at its worst, criminal or potentially malicious—particularly when alcohol is consumed during initiations. The alternative to hazing, recommended by the NCAA-Alfred study in 1999, is that each school find welcoming and positive ways to bring first-year players into the fold. Such schools as the University of Michigan now incorporate anti-hazing educational programming into larger educational programming aimed at team captains.

What’s NCAA faculty reps need offer now is not only guidance but action. Hazing policies alone won’t end the problem. What’s needed is a collective societal push to say that hazing has no place in our schools, and by extension, in our sports programs.

What I would hate to see happen is another scenario: that a highly regarded male or female athlete in high-profile program will die “accidentally” in an initiation. As a cautionary red flag, let us recall that in October 2004, two Sandwich High School (Mass.) football players are facing felony charges after a rookie teammate lost his spleen in a hazing. Under the intense media pressure now facing the University of Oklahoma and University of Colorado after alcohol-related pledging-related deaths, the NCAA will be forced to respond to public and media pressures by banning hazing.

That scenario need not take place.

The NCAA has enough power and status to lend its collective faculty voices to back its individual member institutions and fraternal groups now partnering to end hazing.

Let us keep three past incidents in mind.

When University of Vermont hockey players clutched each other’s genitals and drank beer their teammates had dipped testicles into, the blame focused on UVM’s president and arguably was a contributing factor to her departure. When Minnesota-Duluth rookie rugby player Ken Christiansen died, literally dead drunk, after falling into a creek en route home, the buck of blame stopped with three officers of the rugby club there. When the University of Oklahoma female soccer team, in the presence of a coach according to court documents, required a player allegedly and graphically to simulate oral sex, the matter wound up in the courts.

But sooner or later, the public and media almost certainly will eventually decide, should an egregious hazing incident or high-profile hazing death occur, that blame should settle on the NCAA because a criminal or willful act occurred on the NCAA’s watch. All it will take is the hardly unlikely spectacle one vocal outraged and grieving parent to ask the media to assess what NCAA faculty representatives have actually done to prevent hazing for the NCAA’s lack of a truly comprehensive anti-hazing risk management to become abundantly clear.

Don’t believe it? Eventually, military hazing ended up square on the gold-barred shoulders of the Pentagon’s brass. Eventually, scores of deaths in individual fraternities ended up with the governing National Interfraternity Conference (NFC) head facing hard, hard questions from microphone-bearing national reporters from all the evening news programs.

Right now, absolutely no media or public pressure is on the NCAA.

The right thing can be done quietly and with the satisfaction of all faculty reps knowing that they’ve done so out of a sense of sportsmanship and fair play and a concern for student-athletes, not because of outside pressures.

In the NCAA’s Mary Wilfert, you have a dedicated professional who works hard to educate herself on such matters as hazing research. In your 1999 study, you have contributed immeasurably to hazing research.

But you can do more, honorable Faculty Reps.

In my opinion, you MUST do more.

Athletic hazing can end. The buck, and abuse, can stop with your help.

Scottsdale band incident also in the news these days. Story here