{shortcode-a865f56128f61d871342736e6e1b84893c9630ee}

Hidden among the many trainings and policies new clubs at Harvard are required to attend and review lies a significant update: a revised College hazing policy.

For many students, this might feel like yet another compliance task to check off. But it deserves closer attention. Hazing is not just a relic of tradition; it is an active threat to student safety and inclusion. Harvard’s new hazing policy is a step in the right direction, but policies alone won’t eliminate a practice that has persisted for generations. For there to be meaningful change, students — not just administrators — must take ownership of the issue.

Hazing is far from some American collegiate invention. Some trace its origins back to ancient Greece, where new students at Plato’s academy were subjected to acts of oppression as a means of establishing superiority. While Plato didn’t support the practice, and the context behind it has changed, the spirit of hazing has endured on college campuses.

While hazing has been illegal in Massachusetts since the 1980s, a recent federal push for reform through the Stop Campus Hazing Act has led to updated Harvard hazing policies, including more mandatory training, educational information, and anonymous reporting forms. But how successfully these preventative policies are implemented depends on students.

The United States has had its own long and fraught history with hazing, particularly in fraternities, sororities, athletic teams, and social clubs. From 1959 to 2021, there was at least one hazing-related death every year in the U.S. Many more students were left with injuries ranging from alcohol poisoning to PTSD.

Harvard is far from immune. In fact, one of the first major hazing-related disciplinary actions in American higher education occurred at the University in 1684, when a student was expelled for hazing by means of physical abuse and forced subordination. That legacy, while distant, is not irrelevant. Hazing continues to quietly persist in parts of campus life as part of customs and invitations.

One challenge is that, for many historic organizations, hazing isn’t always perceived as harmful. Instead, it’s framed as a form of tradition, something that connects new members to a shared past and community. Many historic institutions on campus may have practices that, while not overtly violent or degrading, still toe the line on hazing. These rituals are often rationalized as rites of passage, a necessary ingredient for community. Morally and legally, participant consent is not an acceptable defense for hazing.

Moreover, recent research has highlighted that hazing may not necessarily act as a catalyst for group bonding. In light of such work, students should focus on alternative practices like fostering mentorship and defining shared goals. In practice, students could rethink club onboarding practices, opt for formal mentorship pipelines like pairing upperclassmen with new members, state shared goals and values, and facilitate conversations that emphasize team-building. Faculty mentors can also establish clear expectations around organizational behavior and offer institutional support and resources for non-hazing traditions like community dinners.

It is understandable that even with our current class groups, the psychological dimension to hazing may make it hard to eliminate. Scientists have discussed how social psychology and biology wire humans for group belonging. This sometimes leads us to rationalize harmful behavior if it means gaining acceptance, a phenomenon psychologists refer to as groupthink.

Cognitive dissonance — discomfort that originates when a person’s actions conflict with their beliefs — also plays a role: new members experiencing hazing may reconcile the discord between their sense of self-worth and suffering through demeaning treatment by convincing themselves the ordeal was not so bad. In turn, they may feel compelled to repeat the same rituals with others, perpetuating a cycle of hazing.

But breaking the cycle is possible. Doing so will require both institutional leadership and student accountability. Harvard is a place where inclusion should thrive. If that’s truly the case, then our campus culture should reflect those values.

The federal government’s recent action is a signal that this issue matters at the highest levels. But it’s about time that students take the initiative to ensure hazing is no longer a part of their clubs or communities.

Sandhya Kumar ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a double concentrator in Molecular & Cellular Biology and Statistics in Winthrop House.