Federal Suit Accuses Michigan Hockey of Decades-Long Ritualized Abuse

Key points

• A 74-page federal lawsuit filed on Sept. 9 in Detroit alleges that 16 former Michigan hockey players suffered sexualized hazing between 1984 and 2001.
• Plaintiffs describe acts including forced genital shaving, blowtorch burns, and the insertion of razor handles, claiming these acts were ritualized and required for team participation.
• The suit accuses head coach Red Berenson and assistant Mel Pearson of knowing about the abuse and concealing it, while the university denies responsibility, citing its 1982 anti-hazing policy.
• Berenson stated he did not promote the hazing but acknowledged seniors orchestrated it, while the university notes it adopted anti-hazing measures decades before the alleged incidents.
• Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and mandatory hazing prevention training, alleging the university’s inaction violated Title IX and caused long-term trauma for the victims.

Background

This lawsuit follows a 2022 WilmerHale investigation that led to the firing of former coach Mel Pearson for misconduct, and a 2022 $490 million settlement with victims of former team physician Robert Anderson. The current suit is part of a broader pattern of athletic department scrutiny, including recent NCAA investigations into football recruiting and coaching conduct.

How outlets are covering it

USA Today emphasizes the 'torture' aspect of the abuse and the university’s denial of liability, highlighting the contrast between the 1982 anti-hazing policy and the alleged 1984-2001 incidents. The Detroit News provides additional detail on Red Berenson’s response, noting he claimed he did not encourage the hazing but acknowledged it was 'orchestrated by seniors,' and contextualizes the suit within recent athletic scandals, including the firing of Athletic Director Warde Manuel and NCAA probation for football.

Why it matters

The case tests the limits of institutional liability for historical hazing and highlights ongoing concerns about athletic program culture. It may set a precedent for Title IX claims related to peer-on-peer abuse and could influence hazing prevention policies across collegiate sports.

What to watch

The lawsuit will proceed in federal court, with the university likely challenging the statute of limitations and the scope of its duty of care. Plaintiffs may seek further discovery regarding coaching communications and hazing policies from the 1980s and 1990s.