We have always professed that athletics builds character, but it is time to stop the assumption and talk about how we make it actually happen in light of a spate of hazing incidences on our campuses.

Athletics administrators who wake up and do not find the latest episode of inappropriate behavior by their own student-athletes splashed on the front pages of the sports section should consider themselves fortunate. But such good fortune should not lead to complacency, either. In other words, I wouldn’t wait until something bad happens to begin noticing how some of the practices in my own programs may be contributing to this culture of hazing among student-athletes.

I learned about hazing the hard way during my tenure as athletics director at the University of Vermont. We canceled our men’s ice hockey season in 2000 as the result of a team hazing “initiation.”

Hazing isn’t confined to student-athletes — indeed, many organized groups perform initiation rites that may or may not cross an ethical line — but because athletics receives so much scrutiny from the media and general public, abuses at our schools will attract the lion’s share of attention.

Hazing also has gained a level of acceptance among many student-athletes because of their perception of team building and their finding pleasure in putting each other in humiliating situations without thinking about the consequences.

The experience we went through at Vermont and a subsequent examination of hazing taught me that the athletics culture often inadvertently feeds the notion that new team members should be treated differently from the upperclassmen. The surprising finding is that such treatment often is at the hands of unsuspecting athletics personnel — coaches may unknowingly be contributors to a culture of hazing.

In competitive sport, it is the coach who determines and positions those who play more significant roles on the team. Hopefully, they base their decisions on skill level, attitude and contribution to the team as a whole. Simply stated, we attempt  to put our best players forward as they have earned their position through the demonstration of their talent — it needs to be apparent to all team members that they proved themselves athletically. Hence, if the athletics culture is to clearly proclaim to participants that they must prove their talent in front of everyone, it follows that the veteran student-athletes might assume a social norm that requires newer members to prove their desire to be socially accepted as part of the team, regardless of their talent. What follows is participation in hazing activities that make the newer athletes demonstrate a humiliating sacrifice of their values.

Why do student-athletes believe that is an acceptable practice? It is partly their belief that these activities create “togetherness” or establishes a team hierarchy for decision-making, but one day they will understand the fallacy of their thinking. It has become the responsibility of all athletics administrators to dispel this attitude through educational programming and discussions with coaches and student-athletes.

How administrators and coaches relate these concepts to their teams may be one of the contributing factors in hazing. If a coach demonstrates distinct differences between established players and new members by dressing them in different practice gear at the start of the training sessions, or by providing privileges to veterans such as preferential training tables or taping schedules, seating arrangements on buses and differences in the quality of equipment, or by assigning custodial duties to only the newest members, then they contribute to the idea that new members are different and may be treated as such.

The athletics culture subtlety contributes to the idea of acceptable differences with terms such as rookies, benchwarmer, starters, scout and taxi squads, scrubs and subs instead of teammates. Should a sixth man in basketball who plays 30 of 40 minutes be considered a sub?

Why is it we only introduce the starters on the team at competitive events? Are the other members less important? Most coaches would say absolutely not, but the unintentional practice sends another message that athletes have perceived over the years — that everyone is not equal and should not be treated as such. We should admire all those who make the sacrifices demanded of daily practice routines, conditioning and hard work all season long. They deserve to be considered equal contributors and worthy of the distinction of being dignified, not humiliated.

From day one, the coach must emphatically demonstrate equality among the athletes so that they clearly understand that they will be accepted based on their work ethic, attitude and ability to perform. The newest members of any team and organization, regardless of their role, must be made to feel their worth and know that their contributions will be significant to the overall success of the group. They also must know that they are truly empowered by the coaching staff and administrators to walk away from anyone’s attempt to lure them into submission of these humiliating and too often dangerous “initiation practices” or meaningless “traditions.”

If coaches don’t extend total respect to the new players, they can’t expect the veterans on the team to act any differently. The established players often emulate the behvior of the coach.

It’s a simple concept that may go a long way in changing the culture surrounding our teams that may help put some quality back in the character that participation in athletics builds.

Richard A. Farnham retired as athletics director at the University of Vermont in 2003 after 30 years of service. A frequent speaker on the dangers of hazing, he can be reached at richardfarnham@adelphia.net.