An anti-hazing think tank was recently hosted on campus before spring break on March 14, aiming to bring awareness to the currently ongoing process of attempting to codify what hazing is into the law and make it a crime. The event itself was hosted by Bridge UWYO, an organization dedicated to encouraging bipartisan discussions about issues, helping bridge the political divide in the United States. It took place in three stages, each with its own panel, and lasted for roughly three hours.
The first stage was the smallest of the three and focused on those who have been working with the Wyoming legislature to get hazing officially outlawed. While the project has had several setbacks, including all bills thus far dying before even reaching a vote, those fighting to codify the practice of hazing as being illegal are still hopeful for the future. When asked about why the bills failed, Tanner Ewalt stated, “The best way I could explain it is that you could have all 68 members of the legislature in a room a week before session, and present them a bill and they can say, ‘this is perfect,’ and that bill could still die . . . in our case we were asking for criminal and civil penalties. But hazing is a really broad term, and senators got uncomfortable wanting to implement criminal penalties.” Ewalt was hopeful that in the future, a version of the bill that focuses primarily on the civil penalties may get through the legislature.
The second stage had to do primarily with fraternities and sororities, with multiple representatives from both coming to speak on the panel about the practice of hazing as it related to Greek Life. The panel was quick to point out that in the modern day hazing is actually more common in places like student government than in Greek Life, but were still aware of the reputations that they sometimes hold, especially at other universities. For the most part, however, the panel agreed that hazing in regard to Greek Life at the University of Wyoming was nearly extinct, with the University and almost all major frats and sororities placing a ban on it. One of the panel members, Olivia Crook, when asked about her thoughts regarding some people’s opinion that hazing is voluntary, said, “I think that it’s a very common misconception, hazing can be voluntary or involuntary. If something still causes harm to someone psychologically or physically . . . it’s wrong, the harm that is being caused . . . is wrong whether or not the person being hazed recognizes that.”
The third and final part of the event had a panel of school administrators give their thoughts on the matter, with many members of the criminal justice department coming out to speak. When asked why hazing continues to be a pervasive issue on many college campuses, Katelyn Golladay, an assistant professor from the criminal justice department, stated, “From a criminal justice perspective, we used to do public punishments as a way to build solidarity among groups who were different. Hazing is just sort of a perpetuation of that mentality.” Many argue that hazing should continue because of this, that it’s a continuation of tradition, but when asked about the difference between tradition and hazing, Jamie Snyder, an associate professor, said, “Anything that puts someone at risk from a safety perspective is absolutely hazing. Any sort of forced alcohol use especially.”
In the end, the anti-hazing think tank made one thing clear: while hazing remains difficult to define in legal terms, its impact is not as debatable. Across lawmakers, Greek Life leaders, and university faculty, a common thread emerged: harm, whether masked as tradition or volunteered for, cannot be excused. Though the legislative fight may be slow-moving, the conversation is gaining ground. Until a clearer legal framework is built, awareness and open discussion, like those fostered by Bridge UWYO, remain vital for bringing light to the issue in Wyoming.
