Be nice to each other

August 2016

The uproar about the hazing practices at student associations Vindicat and Albertus Magnus started exactly a year ago, when the UK published photos of the initiation rituals. For years, the Personnel faction on the RUG’s University Council has been vexed by the stories about students suffering psychological pressure, or even becoming the victim of violence, during the hazing periods. When the party was confronted with the photos, faction chair Bart Beijer immediately called for action to be taken. ‘Shocking, dehumanising: it’s just not done’, he said.

‘Haze responsibly,’ the party said as far back as 2013. But these remarks never led to anything. 
The Board of Directors never took part in the discussions concerning the hazing, and pointed out that the associations were responsible for their own conduct and that the university’s Advice Committee Orientation (ACI) was tasked with monitoring the introduction periods.

That also meant that initially, the RUG board was not particularly upset about the hazing photos, which show students being pressed against the wall with a stick in their mouths, or being pushed into tables by several senior students. According to RUG manager Jan de Jeu, the pictures were no cause for concern.

But when national media got wind of the story and published the hazing photos as well, pressure on the university increased. The pictures, which had been published in the associations’ almanacs with funny captions for years, were now public knowledge. The public and politicians were outraged.

September 2016

Criticism increased when the NRC revealed in September that a student had been abused during the latest hazing period at Vindicat. The student was alleged to have suffered a cerebral oedema after a senior student trod on his head. The association confirmed the incident and swore to ‘research the matter thoroughly’.

The RUG had been informed of the abuse in August, but felt it was ‘an internal matter for the student association to deal with’. ‘The university council’s stand is that they have to handle and resolve it themselves’, the spokesperson said.

But Jet Bussemaker, the minister for Education, disagreed. She admonished the RUG board and said the university’s reaction to the incidents was ‘entirely lacking’. As far as she was concerned, this was the limit. She called on the university to take action against the student association.

And if that wasn’t enough, a new revelation caused even more of a stir. Residents of the Vindicat student house Tabu had created a bang list that described female members of the association as ‘hotties’ and ‘horny bitches’. Once again, Vindicat was in the press, and the picture painted was none too positive. According to members, this led to a ‘black mood’ down at the pub. ‘We’re being depicted as a bunch of morons’, one of the members told the UK.

The RUG was forced to respond. RUG president Sibrand Poppema spoke during a University Council meeting: ‘This has to stop: we will put an end to hazing in this city. What we want is an end to these hazing practices. It has to be more about introducing students to the associations. These ridiculous rituals have to stop. We’ve now had two incidents where people were severely harmed. That is why we now say: these hazing practices are completely unacceptable. We cannot go on like this.’

October 2016

Strong language, but the solution turned out to not be particularly revolutionary: a committee was instated.

This is how the university has always responded to incidents: in 1998, the ACI was founded after the death of Vindicat member Reinout Pfeiffer. And now, after a scandal at the same association, a new supervisory authority was created: a five-man accreditation committee, led by former chief of police Martin Sitalsing.

The committee was founded in collaboration with the association, which was being monitored closely. Vindicat was allowed to nominate two members to the committee: Dertje Meijer and Michel Ooms.

Student associations under investigation by the committee were tasked with writing a ‘critical self-reflection’. If that reflection did not meet expectations or the committee noticed wrongdoings, the associations would lose their committee grants.

Minister Bussemaker supported this agreement between the RUG, Hanze University, and student association. ‘They took their sweet time, but the action they’re now taking is good’, she said on the television programme Nieuwsuur.
The matter seemed settled.

January 2017

In the meantime, the RUG was preparing to take more action, to show the outside world that the university was taking the matter seriously. From now on, student associations had to be in harmony with their environment and contribute positively to the city’s image, according to the university. The old initiation and hazing rituals had to be transformed into a ‘new kind of orientation’, the Board of Directors felt.

May 2017

To that end, the university drew up a new behavioural code and published it in May. Associations signing the code would promise to create a safe and trustworthy environment for the students, reject violence, intimidation, and discrimination, and to report any and all incidents to the university. They would also allow the Board of Directors to step in themselves during incidents. When the RUG suspects a criminal offence, they can report it to the police.
Signing the behavioural code is voluntary, but anyone who doesn’t sign will draw the RUG’s ire. ‘It’s supposed to work as a deterrent’, Jan Wolthuis at the ACI said. ‘But we hope that none of this will be necessary.’

In the meantime, the ACI had sprung into action and come to the same conclusion the Personnel faction came to several years ago: the ACI doesn’t work. The supervisory authority is not being taken seriously by the more prominent student associations and is unable to guarantee people’s safety during the introduction periods.

The NRC appealed to the Government Information (Public Access) Act to access the ACI’s meeting notes and annual reports. These show, among other things, that inebriated hazing committee members at Vindicat have struck aspiring members in 2015. According to Vindicat, they needed to ‘learn their lesson’ for talking back. A year later, a member of that same hazing committee stood on the head of one of the ‘pledges’. The suspect is currently being prosecuted by the Public Prosecution Office.

The professors at the ACI were ‘shocked’ by the incidents and felt that Vindicat and Albertus have ‘lied to and betrayed’ them. For this reason, several of them no longer wanted to talk to the associations and considered leaving the committee.

In the meantime, the RUG had started a twin-track policy. The ACI would maintain contact with the associations and monitor their safety plans, with the behavioural code serving as a reminder. The accreditation committee would investigate the association culture throughout the year and check whether the association boards can keep that culture under control.

July 2017

The report that the accreditation committee is supposed to be writing on Vindicat, took several months longer than expected. In July, the committee finally decided that the association is worthy of accreditation, but under certain conditions. The society has to meet strict conditions, such as an association-wide behavioural code, at least half of the senior students at the introduction camp have to be sober, and incidents must be reported properly.

Starting next year, all senior students at introduction camps have to be sober, rector magnificus Elmer Sterken adds.

For those wondering about Albertus Magnus: not a peep has been heard from the association over the past few months, as they are trying to avoid any negative publicity. But the almanac photos show that they engaged in very similar practices as Vindicat. Internally, the association has taken steps to change its culture, Albertus reports on its own website. But the association will not escape the RUG’s scrutiny. Next year, the accreditation committee will visit Albertus.

August 2017

In the meantime, a next KEI week is underway, with new members joining both Albertus Magnus and Vindicat. The hazing that starts next week will be subject to the new policy. Have the associations truly changed their stripes? Have their hazing practices been transformed into ‘fun’ and ‘new’ introduction weeks? Will the negative publicity influence the number of new members signing up at the associations? The UK will keep an eye on things.