Anti-Hazing Procedures

Procedures for the 05-09.00 Hazing Policy. These Procedures incorporate the definitions set forth in the University’s 05-09.00 Hazing Policy and may be amended without the need to amend the Policy.

  1. Purpose:

    The purpose of these Procedures is to outline the reporting and investigatory processes specific to allegations of hazing. Except as otherwise provided herein, the procedures set forth in Towson University’s (the “University”) Code of Student Accountability (the “Code”) shall apply to hazing matters.

  1. Reporting Hazing

    As set forth in the Code, reports of alleged hazing can be made directly to the Office of Student Accountability & Restorative Practices (“SARP”). Additionally, if departments that oversee student organizations receive information alleging incidents of hazing, they must forward all available information to SARP.

    The University encourages prompt and complete reporting of hazing allegations, including the relevant date(s), time(s), location(s), and description of the alleged incident or behaviors, as well as the names of the student organization and/or individual(s) involved. The University does not limit the time for submitting a report of alleged hazing and encourages all reports irrespective of when the underlying incident occurred. Incomplete or late reporting may, however, limit the University’s ability to investigate and respond effectively.

  2. Requests for Confidentiality

    Reporters are encouraged to provide their name and contact information. The University understands the sensitivity around reporting incidents of hazing and will protect the identity of reporters and those involved in investigations to the greatest extent possible. Information about hazing incidents should be shared only with those who have a need to know such information.

    While anonymous reports are permitted and the University respects privacy considerations, there are situations in which the University must override a request for confidentiality to meet its obligations. If the University honors a request for confidentiality, the University’s ability to investigate and respond to the reported misconduct and pursue disciplinary action may be limited. Retaliation of any kind against those who report or participate in investigations is strictly prohibited and may result in disciplinary action.

  3. Preliminary Review

    Upon receiving a report of alleged hazing, SARP will review the report to determine:

    1. Whether the alleged behavior, if true, would constitute a violation of the University’s Hazing Policy; and

    2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation.

    If SARP decides not to investigate or to conduct a limited inquiry prior to the commencement of an investigation, SARP staff will memorialize that decision in writing and will notify the reporting party, if known, of that decision. In such circumstances, SARP may still pursue voluntary education or informal conversation(s) with the student organization(s) or accused individual(s) involved.

    In cases where the alleged behavior is severe enough to pose a threat to the health, safety, or general well-being of the University community, or poses a threat to the general operations of the University, an organizational Cease and Desist can be issued pursuant to the Code.

  4. Investigation

    If SARP determines that an investigation into alleged hazing is warranted, the following investigative protocol shall be utilized:

    1. SARP will promptly notify the individual(s) who engaged in the alleged hazing, the individual(s) who were subjected to the alleged hazing, and the involved student organization(s) in writing of the alleged violation(s) that the University plans to investigate.
    2. SARP, in collaboration with the director of the appropriate office and their designee (collectively, the “Investigators”), will gather facts related to the alleged hazing incident(s). Such fact gathering will include interviews of the individual(s) who engaged in the alleged hazing, the individual(s) who were subjected to the alleged hazing, and any witnesses, along with collecting all pertinent documents and other relevant evidence identified by the interviewees or that the Investigators otherwise obtain. Additionally, the Investigators will determine which and how many new members of the student organization (where applicable) to interview based on the facts and circumstances of the case. 
    3. Witnesses are not afforded a support person during hazing investigations.
    4. Following interviews and the collection of other available evidence, the Investigators draft a report that summarizes their findings of facts and the supporting evidence. To ensure confidentiality, investigative reports for hazing matters do not identify the names of witnesses, and interviewees’ direct statements are not used or are redacted from the investigative reports. The investigative reports do, however, identify the student organization(s) and individual(s) who allegedly engaged in conduct that violates the Hazing Policy.

  5. Accountability Resolution Meetings and Hearings

    Upon completion of the investigation process, SARP issues a notice of allegations to the student organization(s) and any individual(s) named as having allegedly engaged in conduct that violates the Hazing Policy. The student organization(s) and any accused individual(s) are each entitled to attend an Accountability Resolution Meeting. In accordance with the procedures outlined in the Code, student organization(s) and any accused individual(s) are provided access to review the investigative report, any accompanying evidence that will be considered, and respond to the allegation(s). In some circumstances, the student organization(s) and accused individual(s) may be entitled to a hearing.

    Thereafter, SARP will utilize the preponderance of the evidence standard (as defined in the Code) to determine whether the student organization(s) or any accused individual(s) violated the Hazing Policy. SARP will issue an outcome letter to such student organization(s) and individuals, which will include the decision of responsibility, any Accountability Actions (as defined in the Code) imposed, and information regarding the right and deadline to appeal.

    If SARP concludes that a student organization or accused individual is responsible for a violation of the Hazing Policy, any resulting Accountability Actions and appeals will be governed by the procedures set forth in the Code.

  6. Accountability Actions

    Accountability Actions will be assigned to a student organization or individual(s) found responsible for violating the Hazing Policy. SARP determines the appropriate Accountability Actions based upon the severity of the incident, the disciplinary history of the student organization or individual(s), and the general precedent of past Accountability Actions assigned for similar incidents. As hazing is taken seriously by the University, protection of the current and future safety of students who may engage with the student organization found responsible for hazing is considered when determining appropriate Accountability Actions.