“It is a new day for The University of Alabama.”

So said Assistant Dean of Students Lowell Davis on Thursday, speaking to the convened Interfraternity Council presidents. He then declared fraternity pledgeship over for the rest of the semester. Davis made that clear: “Pledgeship is over… there are no ifs, ands or buts about it,” he said.

While it is clear that the University declared an end to pledgeship, we hope the University administration stands behind Davis’ sentiment. Less than five hours later, the University community received a somewhat conflicting message from Vice President for Student Affairs Mark Nelson.

“The policies that were in place [under former President Robert Witt] are the policies that have brought us to this point,” he said.

Since the supposed adoption of these policies in 2003, the University has never made a step as decisive as it did on Thursday afternoon in regard to promoting change in the greek community. Was this because hazing didn’t exist at Alabama before 2012? No.

Perhaps the University hadn’t acted because it couldn’t enforce policies banning what it found difficult to define.

Part of the problem with hazing is that its very definition lies in a gray area. Volunteer hours, homecoming “pomping” and chapter meetings, while forced activities for new members, would not fall under the conventional definition of hazing. However, the physical and psychological abuse reported by The Crimson White last week would definitely constitute hazing – and abusive hazing, at that.

Nelson spoke against this very vagueness in his press conference on Thursday. He then pointed to the specificity of the tips to the hazing hotline and the investigations that specificity allowed as a prime factor in his decision to end pledgeship. In the presence of all the vagueness surrounding the definition of hazing, Nelson made a stand.

He may have done so to head off negative media coverage of the University or out of a genuine sense of concern for the immediate safety of a group of students. Regardless, the step they took brings us closer to a concrete definition of the abusive hazing that should be banned by a no-tolerance policy.

For that reason, we applaud University officials for responding quickly and seriously to correct abusive behavior in organizations that haven’t had to withstand much scrutiny from administrators in the past.

This leadership sets a precedent, and we are optimistic that Lowell Davis was right, that this is a new day at the University. If suspending pledgeship university-wide is not a technical departure from the policy of the Witt era, it still constitutes a significant break in practice.

This should be a new day. We can’t let the abusive hazing that has been allowed to take place in the past continue.

But further, the University’s decisive action gives us a reason to be optimistic as we look forward – in many areas beyond the greek system.

Whatever their motives, Nelson, Davis and other administrators took a stand against the vagueness surrounding hazing because students did first.

No one is better suited to define hazing than someone who has been hazed. Several of those people took a stand last week and gave Nelson what he needed to act – specifics.

They did so in the face of possible repercussions from a select few of their older fraternity brothers. They gave Nelson the chance to show real leadership and show that the University administration can be truly responsive to its students when they call for action.

Fortunately, Nelson did just that.

Our View is the consensus of The Crimson White editorial board. Managing Editor Ashley Chaffin did not participate in this editorial.