The Dean of Students Office maintains a Campus Hazing Transparency Report which summarizes findings concerning any established or recognized student organization found to be in violation of UA’s Student Code of Conduct as it pertains to hazing.

The Campus Hazing Transparency Report is updated in June and December of each year and will include information on any new findings pertaining to the period in which it was last updated.

The Campus Hazing Transparency Report contains the name of the student organization, a general description of the violation that resulted in a finding of responsibility to include whether the violation involved the abuse or illegal use of alcohol or drugs, and any sanctions placed on the student organization by the institution.

The report will also include the dates on which the incident occurred, the dates on which the investigation was initiated, the dates on which the investigation ended with a finding of responsible, and the dates on which the institution provided notice to the student organization that the incident resulted in a hazing violation.

The Campus Hazing Transparency Report is based on findings of responsible for student organizations. For annual statistics related to all reported incidents of hazing that may or may not result in a finding, please see UAA’s Annual Security and Fire Safety Report.

Summary of Hazing Violations

• July 2025 - December 2025
  There were no findings of hazing against student organizations during this review period.

Last Updated December 12, 2025

Stop Campus Hazing Act - Hazing Prevention Policy

In December of 2024, the Stop Campus Hazing Act (SCHA) was signed into law and amended the Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act to add institution reporting requirements on hazing prevention and transparency around incidents of hazing reported on campus.

Hazing is prohibited in the UA Student Code of Conduct under University Regulations 09.02.020.7. While there are currently no local, state, or tribal laws in Alaska that specifically address hazing, some hazing activities could also be considered a criminal violation.

• University Regulation 09.02.020.07 - Hazing

  Hazing is defined as an intentional, knowing, or reckless act committed by a person (whether individually or in concert with other persons) against another person or persons regardless of the willingness or acquiescence of such other person or persons to participate, that:

  1. is committed in the course of recruitment for, initiation into, an affiliation with, or the maintenance of membership in, a student organization, team, or similar group-affiliated activity; and
     
     
  2. causes or creates a risk - above the reasonable risk encountered in the course of participation in university activities or the organization - of physical or psychological injury.
     
     Physical or psychological injury include, but is not limited to:
     
     
  1. whipping, beating, striking, electronic shocking, placing of a harmful substance on someone's body, or similar activity;
     
     
  2. causing, coercing, or otherwise inducing sleep deprivation, exposure to the elements, confinement in a small space, extreme calisthenics, or other similar activity;
     
     
  3. causing, coercing, or otherwise inducing another person to consume food, liquid, alcohol, drugs, or other substances;
     
     
  4. causing, coercing, or otherwise inducing another person to perform sexual acts;
     
     
  5. any activity that places another person in reasonable fear of bodily harm through the use of threatening words or conduct;
     
     
  6. any activity against another person that includes a criminal violation of local, state, tribal, or federal law; or
     
     
  7. any activity that induces, causes, or requires another person to perform a duty or task that involves a criminal violation of local, state, tribal, or federal law.
• How to Report Incidents of Hazing

  Any university student, faculty, staff member, or community member may report an alleged violation of the Student Code of Conduct, including alleged incidents of hazing. Allegations of Code violations must be in writing and submitted to the student conduct administrator. Though anonymous complaints are permitted, doing so may limit the university's ability to investigate and respond to a complaint. The University has the right to pursue notice of student misconduct on its own behalf and initiate a student conduct review, regardless of whether or not a formal allegation is submitted by a complainant.

  Complaints of student or student organization misconduct, including incidents of hazing, may be reported through the form on the UAA Dean of Students Website at https://www.uaa.alaska.edu/students/conduct/ or by contacting the Dean of Students Office in Rasmuson Hall 122, by phone at 907-786-1214, or by email at uaa_deanofstudents@alaska.edu.

  Complaints of sex or gender-based misconduct may be reported to the Title IX Coordinator. You may contact the Title IX Coordinator in the Office of Compliance and Rights by visiting Room 352 of the Social Sciences Building at 3190 Alumni Drive, by phone at 907-786-0818, or by email at uaa_titleix@alaska.edu. Anonymous reporting is available through the UA EthicsPoint website and hotline and online reporting forms on the Office of Compliance and Rights website at https://www.uaa.alaska.edu/about/compliance-and-rights/.
  

• Process Used to Investigate

  Reported incidents of hazing are subject to investigation and adjudication as outlined under the University Student Conduct Review Procedures in University Regulation 09.02.040. The Student Code of Conduct and student conduct process apply to the conduct of individual students and all university affiliated student organizations. In cases where the incident of hazing involves allegations of sex or gender-based misconduct, then the investigation and adjudication procedures outlined in University Regulation 01.04 on Sex and Gender-Based Misconduct under Title IX would apply.

  • Regent's Policy and University Regulation 09.02
  • Regent's Policy and University Regulation 01.04

  A full version of this policy is located at: https://www.alaska.edu/bor/policy-regulations/chapter-09-02-student-rights-responsibilities.php
  
  The student conduct administrator will then review the allegations and conduct an appropriate preliminary investigation to determine:

  • whether to dismiss the matter because insufficient information exists to support the accusation; or
  • whether sufficient information exists to warrant further student conduct proceedings; and, if so,
  • whether the allegations, if substantiated, will subject the student to a major or a minor sanction.
    
    

  Group Violations

  A student group or organization and its officers and membership may be held collectively and individually responsible when violations of the Code by the organization and/or its member(s):

  1. take place at organization-sponsored or co-sponsored events, whether sponsorship is formal or implied;
     
     
  2. have received the consent or encouragement of the organization or of the organization’s leaders or officers; or
     
     
  3. were known or should have been known to the membership or its officers
     
     

  Steps in the Administrative Process

  1. Anticipated Timelines and General Procedures
     • of the allegations of misconduct and the provisions of the Code which allegedly have been violated;
     • of the student conduct administrator’s name, telephone number, and office location; and the time period in which the student should schedule a meeting to review the allegations with the student conduct administrator;
     • of whether a major or minor sanction is likely to be imposed should the allegations be substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence; and
     • that, should the student and/or student organization fail to schedule a meeting to review the allegations, the meeting will be scheduled by the student conduct administrator.
     • The respondent may submit an appeal in writing within seven days of the day the decision is issued.
     • Barring extenuating circumstances, the designated appeal reviewer will issue its written decision within seven days of receiving the notice of appeal.
     • The MAU senior student services professional or designee will review the record and render a decision within fourteen days of receipt of the recommendation, barring extenuating circumstances.
     • If the MAU senior student services professional has recommended a major sanction, the chancellor will review the record, and barring extenuating circumstances, render a decision within seven days of receipt of the recommendation.
       
  • Upon making the initial determination that any allegation warrants a student conduct proceeding, the student conduct administrator will send the student and/or student organization written notification:
  • The student conduct administrator schedules an administrative review with the respondent to review the allegations. Administrative reviews will ordinarily be scheduled between three and fifteen days after the student conduct administrator sends written notice of the allegations to the student and/or student organization.
  • Barring extenuating circumstances, the student conduct administrator prepares written findings and conclusions and sends the decision to the complainant and respondent within ten days after the conclusion of the administrative review.
  • If the case results in a finding of responsibility and the respondent is assigned minor sanctions, then:
  • If the case results in a finding of responsibility and the student conduct administrator recommends the imposition of major sanctions on the respondent, then the respondent has seven days to submit written comments on the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the administrative review.
    
    
  2. Decision-Making Process
  • Investigation
    
    Investigations are conducted by a student conduct administrator who makes findings of responsibility or no responsibility and assigns or recommends sanctions. At the administrative review, the student conduct administrator reviews the allegations and available information regarding the matter. The student and/or student organization is given the opportunity to present relevant information, names of witnesses, relevant explanations, and/or mitigating factors for the alleged violation.
    
    The University student conduct system is an administrative process and is not a court of law and is not held to standards applied in criminal proceedings. Formal rules of evidence do not apply. Testimony containing hearsay may be considered, and will be weighed appropriately, taking into account the reliability of the information. Findings and conclusions are based upon information obtained during the review.
    
    
  • Sanctions
    In determining appropriate sanctions, the student's and/or student organization’s present and past disciplinary record, the nature of the offense, the severity of any damage, injury, or harm resulting from the prohibited behavior, and other factors relevant to the matter are considered.
    
    
  • Appeals
    An appeal must be made in writing and identify the ground(s) for appeal. The designated appeal reviewer conducts a review of the record and issues a decision dismissing or upholding or altering or modifying the challenged decision, making a new decision, authorizing a new review, or referring the matter back for further review.
    
    
  3. Standard of Proof
     A student conduct procedure is a review undertaken by the University to establish whether there is substantial information to determine whether it is more likely than not that a student and/or student organization violated the Code.

  A full version of this policy is located at: https://www.alaska.edu/bor/policy-regulations/chapter-01-04-titleix.php

  Upon receiving a report of sex or gender-based discrimination, the Title IX Coordinator determines if there is sufficient basis and jurisdiction to initiate an investigation under BOR 01.04. Sex and gender-based misconduct that does not meet the requirements of BOR 01.04 are addressed under other applicable chapters.

  The Title IX Coordinator engages with the complainant in the interactive process to discuss supportive measures, determine whether the complainant wants to proceed with an investigation or whether the circumstances require the University to proceed with an investigation, and explains the process for filling out a formal complaint. The Compliance and Rights staff also evaluates the risk, if any, the respondent presents to the complainant or University community and takes appropriate steps in response to that assessment.

  Steps in the Process

  1. Anticipated Timelines
     
     A reasonably prompt timeframe for conclusion of the grievance process, including time for filing and resolving appeals and participation in any informal resolution processes, is defined as 180 days. See the following for additional timelines applicable to specific steps in the process.
     
     
  2. Decision-Making Process and Outcomes
     
     
     • Informal Resolution
       
       As detailed in BOR 01.04.120, any party may request to use the University’s informal resolution process (which may involve, for instance, mediation, training, restorative justice, developmental opportunities, or apologies) to resolve a formal complaint any time after the formal complaint is filed but before a determination of responsibility has been made. Informal resolution is not available in cases alleging sex or gender-based discrimination by an employee against a student. As long as all parties agree in writing to attempt the informal resolution process, the formal grievance process will stop and the informal resolution process will begin. If any party no longer wishes to use informal resolution, the informal resolution process will end and the formal grievance process will resume.
       
       
     • Investigation
       
       A formal complaint is required to proceed with an investigation under Title IX. Sex and gender-based allegations that do not meet the requirements of Regents' Policy and University Regulation 01.04 must be dismissed and are addressed under different chapters of policy. A complainant or respondent can appeal the dismissal of a formal complaint within 5 days of receipt of the dismissal. A complainant or respondent must submit a written appeal to the chancellor or the president, in the case of statewide employees. The president, chancellor, or their designee will review the appeal and render a prompt, written decision either upholding the dismissal, overturning the dismissal and returning it for additional investigation to the original Title IX coordinator, or to another Title IX coordinator if a conflict of interest exists for or with the original Title IX coordinator, or seeking more information.
       
       If a formal complaint is received, the Title IX investigator(s) will conduct an investigation that provides an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence, including both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, and does not make credibility assessments based on a person’s status as a complainant, respondent, or witness. The burden of gathering evidence rests on the University and not on the parties; however, the parties may present relevant witnesses and evidence to the investigator.
       
       The Title IX investigator(s) will provide the parties with an equal opportunity to inspect and review any evidence obtained as part of the investigation that is directly related to the allegations raised in the formal complaint, including any evidence which the University does not intend to rely upon in reaching a determination regarding responsibility. The parties will have at least 10 days to submit a written response to the evidence, which the investigator will consider prior to completion of the investigative report.
       
       The Title IX investigator(s) will write an investigative report that does not make a finding but fairly summarizes relevant evidence, makes relevant credibility assessments, and considers each party’s written response to the evidence and, at least 10 days prior to a hearing, send a copy of the investigative report to each party and the party’s advisor, if any, in an electronic format or a hard copy, for review and written responses.
       
       
     • Hearing and Determination of Responsibility
       
       

       Once the investigative report has been distributed, the University Office of General Counsel will timely appoint a decision-maker to conduct a hearing. The decision-maker shall not be the campus Title IX coordinator or the investigator of record, but may be a Title IX coordinator or investigator from another campus or any other qualified person.

       A live hearing will be held with either in person or virtual attendance of parties, witnesses, and other participants. Hearings will last no longer than two days with the option of an extension at the decision-maker’s discretion upon request by the University, the complainant or the respondent.

       The decision-maker shall have discretion for the following additional determinations:

       1. To allow or restrict attendance of non-parties at the hearing, including restriction of attendance of all persons other than the University’s representatives, the parties, their advisors, a union representative, if applicable, and other individuals as required by law;
       2. To allow the University, complainant, and respondent, or an advisor, to make a brief opening and/or closing statement, provided no party shall be compelled to make any such statement; and
       3. To ask questions during the hearing of any party or witness, including the right to be the first person to ask questions of any party or witness. A party has no obligation to respond to questions from the decision-maker, and no inference may be drawn from such a refusal.
          
          

       The Title IX investigator will present the relevant evidence gathered during the investigation.

       The decision-maker shall allow each party’s advisor, whether selected or appointed, to ask the other party and any witnesses all relevant questions and follow-up questions, including those challenging credibility of any party or witness. Questioning and cross-examination shall not be permitted by any party personally. Determinations of relevancy of any question asked by any advisor shall be made by the decision-maker prior to any response by a party or witness.
       
       The decision-maker may require questions to be submitted prior to the hearing so their relevance can be determined, and the parties may submit their questions prior to the hearing so that relevance can be pre-established.
       
       A party's advisor may object to a question's relevance once. Once the decision maker determines to include or exclude the question, no further objections may be made.
       
       If a party or witness disagrees with the decision-maker's relevance determination, they have the choice of either abiding by the decision-maker's determination and answering the question or refusing to answer the question.
       
       Questions and evidence about the complainant’s sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior is not relevant unless provided to prove either that someone other than respondent committed the conduct alleged by complainant or if it concerns specific instances of the complainant’s prior sexual behavior with respect to the respondent that are offered to prove consent to the conduct alleged by complainant.

       The decision-maker must issue a written determination regarding responsibility within 30 days, and this deadline may be extended for good cause with written notice to both parties. 

       The written determination regarding responsibility will include any disciplinary sanctions the University imposes on the respondent and the date sanctions take effect, absent any appeal. Possible sanctions are outlined under R01.04.160.

     • Appeal
       
       The complainant and respondent each have a right to appeal a determination regarding responsibility. To appeal, a complainant or respondent must submit a written request to appeal within 5 days of receipt of the determination. The request must identify the finding being appealed and the ground(s) for appeal per Regulation 01.04.180. The appeal authority will be the chancellor at the separately accredited universities within the University system — UAA, UAF, and UAS — or the system president for statewide employees.
       
       Upon receipt of a request to appeal a decision under this chapter, the chancellor or president shall allow the complainant and respondent to have 15 days to submit a written statement in support of, or challenging, the outcome, but no party is obligated to submit a statement, nor shall a party’s decision not to file a statement be held against them.
       
       The chancellor or president will issue a written decision describing the result of the appeal and the rationale for the result and will provide the decision to the complainant and respondent simultaneously.
       
       An appeal of sanctions for a finding of responsibility against non-represented (non-bargaining unit) individuals is handled under Regents' Policy and University Regulation 09.02 and 04.08 as outlined in those sections.
       
       
  3. Standard of Evidence
     
     Findings are made using the preponderance of the evidence standard.