Union ignores NUS initiations advice

With a greater emphasis on voluntary participation and executive responsibility, the Students’ Union continue to support sports clubs’ initiation programmes. Yet, some of the practices to which new recruits are subjected remain questionable.

In light of the recent controversy at the University of Gloucestershire, there has been a national debate over the future of sports initiation ceremonies. Students at the University of Gloucestershire were filmed with plastic bags over their heads, drinking and vomiting, whilst being directed in a chain gang by someone dressed in a Nazi-style uniform. The shocking images caused national controversy and cast serious doubt over the merits of the rituals.

As a result, the National Union of Students advised students’ unions to drop the ceremonies. NUS President Wes Streeting said: “”We are totally opposed to student initiations, and we strongly encourage all students’ unions to ban them. They put students at serious risk and exclude students who don’t want to take part in that binge-drinking culture.”

Yet, Warwick Students’ Union has chosen to ignore these recommendations. Sports Officer Terry Marshall said that it was “important to work with what is specific to your university”. He added, “The Press paints a terrible picture, but in reality most of the ceremonies are more of a welcome to the club.”

The SU have made serious changes to the protocol surrounding the ceremonies. Initiations are now called “adoptions” to move away from the “negative connotations of the term”, as Marshall put it.

The Union’s Adoptions Policy has three major components. Firstly, the executive officers of each club are responsible for the welfare of the participants. If anything was to happen to any of the pledges, they would be held accountable and face disciplinary action themselves. Secondly, the rituals cannot be mandatory; everyone must be able to opt out at any point and they cannot be criteria for success in the sports club. Thirdly, no-one should feel under pressure to do anything they do not enjoy.

The Union also demands each club submit a form online with details of their planned activities to receive approval. There must be two sober people there throughout the event, and any club that does not abide by these rules will face disciplinary action. Terry Marshall added, “We are not trying to control the adoptions, but ensure student safety”.

Initiation ceremonies have begun in recent weeks, with no incidents of excessive alcohol consumption. The teams have taken on board the safe drinking policy with all the club’s executives emphasising the safety of their members. Rugby Union operates a “family policy” to ensure that all freshers are being looked after by an older team member. Men’s Hockey similarly allocates a “caddy” to each fresher, whilst Men’s Football did not play drinking games at all. Women’s Netball kept a balance of drinking games and non-alcoholic activities.

Due to events at Gloucestershire, some clubs reassured freshers before initiations that there was no need to worry. A hockey fresher told The Boar , “I wasn’t worried because they told us at training there would be no nudity, violence or running about”. On the other hand, a Rugby Union fresher admitted he was “bricking one” beforehand, but found the team “really friendly” and enjoyed the experience.

Rugby Union, in particular, have acquired an infamous reputation regarding their initiations, but Chairman James Quigley was keen to dispel this perception, “Although we are seen as the club that may go ‘too far’, I believe our system allows us to uphold the traditions of the event whilst ensuring the safety of the fresh.”

However, despite the safe drinking policy of the various clubs there have been questionable tasks demanded of the new recruits. Each pledge to Men’s Football had to perform an entertainment piece, which was rated on a points system and given a subsequent punishment. These punishments included eating pickled onions, Tabasco sauce and cat food. One student was asked to swallow laxatives, whilst another was requested to rub deep heat “in a questionable area”. Entertainment pieces, voluntarily created, included eating fat and maggots.

James Stewart-Smith, Club Captain of Men’s football, denied there were any punishments whatsoever involved, but did not deny that the instances described above took place. He said: “All our entertainment pieces were voluntary. There were no punishments. Some people decided to do some strange things but it was all optional. We made comments on the performances but there were no punishments. It is not a requirement for success in football.”

Terry Marshall commented on these findings, “If tasks are given out and they are optional then it is part of the process, but obviously it depends on the situation.” Regarding the students’ wellbeing, he added, “If the welfare of any student is jeopardised at any point then of course it’s an issue”.

All the football recruits interviewed thought the games had been in good taste, and merely part of the fun. Many of them stressed the voluntary nature of the tasks. In the current media frenzy surrounding the Gloucestershire incidents, it is difficult to know where the line between simple challenges and hazing lies.