Former Michigan Hockey Players Allege Decades of Hazing Abuse
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
Sixteen former University of Michigan men’s hockey players filed a federal sex discrimination lawsuit in Detroit alleging they were subjected to hazing and sexual abuse as members of the program from 1984 to 2001. The complaint describes initiation practices including forced genital shaving, excessive drinking, being made to eat live fish, and, in one account, being taunted with a blowtorch, and alleges that head coach Red Berenson (1984–2017) knew of the abuse and failed to intervene, including by pressuring a player who said he wanted no part of it. Berenson has said the coaching staff and administration did not direct or encourage such conduct, that no one had complained to him, and that describing the alleged conduct as sexual was “stretching this”; he announced an end to “freshman hazing” in 2012. University spokesperson Paul Corliss called the allegations “disturbing” but said any such misconduct by former student-athletes would have violated university policy, including an anti-hazing policy adopted in 1982. The allegations, which surfaced after former players discussed their experiences in 2024, have not been proven in court.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 2 articles
1 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report. Red Berenson denied part of it on the record.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Michael Pitt and Paul Corliss
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court filing
- Credits another outlet 0 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- On-record denial 1
- A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Red Berenson (Fox News, Sep 11, 12:56 UTC)
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 11, 12:56 UTC by Fox News, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Fox News (court filing).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Left-leaning coverage leaves the lawsuit uncontested. A reader never learns that Michigan or its longtime coach dispute responsibility for what the players allege. The Hill reports that former players sued over hazing and sexual abuse. The university's reply appears solely in right-leaning coverage, where a spokesman said any athlete who hazed was breaking policy. That same account includes the former head coach saying nobody had complained to him. Without those replies, the story reads as institutional failure already established rather than as allegations the school still contests.
Right-leaning coverage leads with coaches who ignored the rituals. Left-leaning coverage leads with the lawsuit itself and never puts coaching staff in the opening frame.
Did Michigan investigate the hockey program after its coach publicly ended freshman hazing?
Bottom line
The Hill's Michigan hockey item never prints the school's denial; Fox News does, including that hazing violated university policy.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Michigan spokesperson Paul Corliss said any former student-athlete who engaged in hazing was violating university policy
- The complaint alleges freshmen endured forced genital shaving and were made to eat live fish
- Former coach Red Berenson disputed the lawsuit's sexual characterization of the alleged conduct
- The university first adopted an official anti-hazing policy in 1982
- The allegations in the hockey lawsuit have not been proven in court
- Berenson announced the end of freshman hazing in 2012
The Left View
The Hill frames the story as a lawsuit by sixteen former University of Michigan men’s hockey players alleging years of hazing and sexual abuse, emphasizing the civil claim and the 1984–2001 span of the plaintiffs’ time on the team.
The Right View
Fox News reports the players’ attorney describing the alleged team culture as “ritualized, meticulously planned, and sadistic” and as making sexual abuse a requirement of membership, while giving substantial space to Berenson’s denial of coaching direction and of a sexual characterization, and to the university’s position that it was not responsible because any hazing violated policy. The outlet stresses that the claims are unproven, notes Michigan may argue the former players waited too long given that the alleged abuse occurred decades ago, and analogizes to litigation over campus sports doctor Robert Anderson, in which Michigan made a similar lateness argument before agreeing to a $490 million settlement covering more than 1,000 former athletes.
Our Take (balanced)
The plaintiffs’ strongest argument is the number of former players, spanning 17 years, describing similar initiation practices, plus the complaint’s claim that Berenson was told of an objection and pressed participation—the basis for treating the conduct as institutional sex discrimination rather than isolated peer abuse. Berenson’s and the university’s strongest argument is that coaches did not direct or encourage the practices, that Berenson says no one complained to him, that an anti-hazing policy was already in place, and that a lawsuit filed decades later is legally vulnerable on timing grounds. The central unresolved tension is whether coaches and the university knew of and tolerated a sexualized hazing requirement, or whether the conduct was unauthorized player misconduct they neither directed nor were timely informed of—and whether the delay in filing should bar the claims.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.