The group project no one asked for

It was the evening of December 23, 2024. Many policy administrators already turned on their automatic-replies and were preparing for a few days (or a couple weeks) of well-deserved vacation, away from all of those relentless emails and news alerts. It was then, when no one was looking, that H.R.5646 was signed into law. A new email from the Clery Center pinged in inboxes but there was no one there to hear it. If you were one of the lucky policy administrators, someone at your institution gave you a heads up about the bill—now, the Stop Campus Hazing Act (SCHA)--while it was making its way through congressional approvals. Perhaps your institution already assembled a team and was ready to create or revise a new hazing policy. But alas, most policy administrators returned to skeleton offices after a few days off or worse, did not return until mid-January, and waiting in our inboxes was a loud ticking clock – a new regulatory deadline that was less than six months away.

The Dreaded Group Project

Panic

My new year’s resolution had included not taking responsibility for other people’s job duties and SCHA was teeing me up for a failed resolution. Like many policy administrators, I needed to know who was leading the charge on this project.

To nod to Alison Whiting’s Policy Matters post last month, policy administrators are often pulled into drafting teams with varying degrees of direction, engagement, and success. SCHA is complex and meeting the deadline would require more cross-campus collaboration and speed than most policy projects. So, when I returned to the office after two weeks of blissful vacation, I (choosing optimism) looked for a special meeting invite, a notification from being added to a new collaboration folder, or even just an email thread (anything!)... Nothing.

Hope

Alas! I didn’t have to panic for long. The invite, folder notification, and emails started mid-January, and we were off to the races. I can look back at the past few months, now, with the deadline for SCHA just a few days away, and confidently say my new year’s resolution remains intact. From a policy administrator’s perspective, the SCHA project execution was a success at my institution, especially when it came to policy development and revision. Here’s why I think it succeeded.

Team > Group

The People

From the beginning, leadership set the tone. The project was led from the top by two executive leaders. Their commitment and engagement kept the project moving and gave it the gravity it needed to stay on track.

Leadership also ensured that all known stakeholder groups were represented on the project team. Even better, the representatives pulled in were decisionmakers and implementers. This had significant impact when it came to keeping discussions productive and outcomes actionable.

The Plan

A plan was clearly defined from before the very first meeting. Regular project all-team meetings were added to our calendars. At the first meeting, deliverables and assignments were outlined upfront, and the policy approval workflow was used to work backwards to help set deadlines. The project team divided into subcommittees with one focused solely on drafting our Hazing policy’s revision. Having these smaller groups made it easier to make swift decisions and produce materials with clear requests or challenges to discuss when the larger team reconvened. All committee materials were shared and organized in a single collaboration folder. Clear direction and required transparency allowed each team member to go “All in.” (IYKYK)

The Discussions

The entire project team worked efficiently. Within the policy subcommittee, emails received quick responses, assignments and drafts were reviewed prior to our meetings. Each of us knew our particular role in the subcommittee and we leveraged the others’ strengths and expertise to come to a consensus on language. For example, our previous definition of hazing required modifications to meet the new requirements in the SCHA definition. We realized we were drafting an endless list of examples and pinning our conduct office in a corner. What if we said “paddling” but left out “spanking” or “whipping?” Wasn’t it all physical harm? If we categorized our examples, we could make sure the definition endured the constant evolution of hazing practices we see with each new incoming class.

We adopted this approach for the rest of the policy. If we stayed broad, it allowed the student conduct and human resources offices to lean into their established procedures to handle each report on a case-by-case basis. Because these conversations and details were hashed out in smaller meetings, we confidently presented our recommendations to the larger team. With some questions, but very few requests for changes, the policy moved forward. Our small group trusted each other and the project team trusted us.

The Foundation

Any project team can fall into the trap of trying to reinvent the wheel. Sometimes it’s necessary. But with less than six months to pull together a policy, trainings, and update processes, taking advantage of what was already in place helped the project team move quickly. The other subcommittees looked at their processes and resources and saw where they could make tweaks just like the policy subcommittee did. As the group came together, we were able to lean into the expectations of the policy. We asked: Does the policy support the procedures? Does it clearly state the requirements needed to hold people accountable? Can the policy be enforced? Does it provide enough latitude for the breadth of the subject matter? As policy administrators, we ask these questions of our policy owners and writers often. It can seem second nature for us, but when asked aloud to a large project team and confirmation was received, the significance of our policy writing standards stood out.

I must also point out a couple foundational components we were able to leverage that I know some policy administrators could not.

1. Clemson already had a Hazing policy.
2. South Carolina law requires higher education institutions to track and report certain hazing violations.

These allowed project team members to show up prepared for the group discussions and to update their practices, expand services, build webpages, and revise a policy. And then we had our champions in leadership who set their expectations for us all and kept the momentum all the way to the end.

While I would never wish on any policy administrator another “middle-of-the-night-while- everyone’s-asleep legal requirement to comply with in six months" it was an inspiring experience to see colleagues across campus shine in their areas of expertise, collaborate quickly and effectively, and build trust as a group—ultimately becoming a team. This project gives me hope for future ones and ideas to help course correct others.

I want to give a HUGE shout out to everyone on the project team from Clemson University’s division of student affairs, office of access compliance and education, marketing and communications, office of general counsel, division of public safety, and office of university compliance and ethics! Well done, team. Go Tigers!

*Please note: at the time of the original publication of this post, Clemson's revised  Hazing policy is pending president approval and is not yet publicly available. Visit Clemson University's Policies site on June 23rd to read the final version.