What He Should Have Known: Northwestern Football, Hazing and a Coach's Responsibility

Timeline

1. Nov 2022An anonymous player reports hazing in the football program.
2. Dec 2022Northwestern opens an independent investigation led by Maggie Hickey of ArentFox Schiff.
3. 7 Jul 2023The university releases a summary, suspends Fitzgerald for two weeks and ends the Kenosha camp.
4. 8 Jul 2023The Daily Northwestern publishes a former player's account; Schill says he may have erred.
5. 10 Jul 2023Northwestern fires Fitzgerald; former players allege racism in the program.
6. 18 Jul 2023A former player sues the university, Fitzgerald and university leaders.
7. Oct 2023Fitzgerald files a $130 million wrongful-termination lawsuit.
8. 21 Aug 2025Fitzgerald and Northwestern settle; terms are not disclosed.

The ethical issues

• Leaders' responsibility for culture they did not see.
• Fair discipline when knowledge is not proved.
• Protecting whistleblowers and survivors.
• Consent and hazing.
• Institutional reversals under public pressure.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Players subjected to hazing	Safety, recognition and redress.
The whistleblower	Being heard and protected.
Pat Fitzgerald	His reputation and contractual rights.
Northwestern University	Student welfare, legal exposure and reputation.
Current players and recruits	A safe program.
Alumni and supporters	The program's legacy.
Other universities	A clear standard for coach responsibility.

The case

Background

Pat Fitzgerald was a Northwestern icon. A star linebacker for the Wildcats, he became head coach in July 2006 and stayed for 17 years, turning down interest from bigger schools ^[5]. He finished with a 110-101 record, two Big Ten West titles and five bowl wins ^[3].

In November 2022, after the season, the university received an anonymous complaint from a football player about hazing ^[2]. In December it engaged an outside investigator, Maggie Hickey of the law firm ArentFox Schiff, a former Illinois inspector general. Her team interviewed current and former players, coaches and staff and reviewed thousands of documents ^[1].

The rules and governance

Universities ban hazing and require staff to report it. Northwestern’s training would later stress “the fact that hazing is not acceptable regardless of consent” ^[1]. Coaches are employed under contracts that may define cause for termination; Fitzgerald’s lawyers would argue he had been assured of no further punishment beyond a suspension ^[5].

Decision point: the suspension

On 7 July 2023, Northwestern released an executive summary. The whistleblower’s claims “were largely supported by the evidence.” The investigation “did not discover evidence that coaching staff knew about ongoing hazing,” but investigators said there had been “opportunities for them to discover and report the hazing conduct” ^[1].

The university permanently ended training camps in Kenosha, Wisconsin, set up a locker-room monitor who did not report to the football staff, and introduced an anonymous reporting tool and new training ^[1][2]. Fitzgerald received a two-week suspension without pay. “Although I was not aware of the alleged incidents, I have spoken to University officials, and they informed me of a two-week suspension, effective immediately,” he said ^[1].

Decision point: the reversal

On Saturday 8 July, The Daily Northwestern published an account from an anonymous former player who described “vile and inhumane behavior.” Players selected for “running,” he said, would be restrained by eight to ten upperclassmen in masks in a dark locker room and subjected to sexualized acts ^[3]. He alleged that Fitzgerald knew about the hazing; the investigation had not found evidence of that ^[1][3].

That day Schill wrote: “Upon reflection, I believe I may have erred in weighing the appropriate sanction for Coach Fitzgerald… I focused too much on what the report concluded he didn’t know and not enough on what he should have known” ^[2]. He said the confidentiality of the investigation meant he had only just learned the name of the player who first reported the allegations; he called the player’s family and apologized ^[2].

On Monday 10 July, Northwestern fired Fitzgerald. Schill said 11 current or former players had acknowledged the hazing, which was “well-known by many in the program.” “The head coach is ultimately responsible for the culture of his team,” he said. “The hazing we investigated was widespread and clearly not a secret within the program, providing Coach Fitzgerald with the opportunity to learn what was happening” ^[3]. He said he had received “hundreds and hundreds of emails” supporting Fitzgerald ^[3]. The same day, three former players made allegations of racism in the program dating back to the late 2000s ^[3].

Aftermath

On 18 July a former player on the 2018-22 teams sued anonymously in Cook County, alleging “sexualized hazing and physical abuse.” Defendants included the university, its trustees, Fitzgerald, Schill, athletic director Derrick Gragg and former president Morton Schapiro ^[4]. Further lawsuits alleged sexual abuse and racial discrimination, and similar allegations spread across several sports ^[7].

In October 2023 Fitzgerald sued for $130 million, alleging wrongful termination ^[5]. On 21 August 2025 the parties settled, on undisclosed terms. Northwestern said the litigation had “brought to light highly inappropriate conduct in the football program,” but discovery “did not establish that any player reported hazing to Coach Fitzgerald or that Coach Fitzgerald condoned or directed any hazing” ^[6]. Fitzgerald said: “Through discovery, I learned that some hazing did occur in the football program at Northwestern. I am extremely disappointed that members of the team engaged in this behavior and that no one reported it to me” ^[5]. He called his firing a “rush to judgment” ^[5]. In September 2025 Schill announced he would resign, after a three-year tenure also marked by a federal funding freeze by the Trump administration ^[7].

The core dilemma

An investigation found widespread hazing in a program a coach had led for 17 years, but no evidence he knew. Is a leader responsible, and fireable, for what he should have known? And was it fair for the university to replace one sanction with a harsher one days later?

Competing values

• Accountability vs. proof: responsibility for culture against proof of knowledge ^[1][3].
• Care for victims vs. fairness to the accused: responding to harm against due process for the coach ^[2][3][5].
• Consistency vs. correction: sticking with a decision against admitting an error ^[2].
• Loyalty vs. responsibility: support from alumni against duties to current students ^[3].

Strongest arguments

For the firing: a head coach controls the program’s culture, and hazing that was “widespread and clearly not a secret” was something he could have found ^[3]. The investigation said there were opportunities to discover it ^[1]. Players’ welfare comes first, and leaders set the tone.

Against the firing: the investigation, and later discovery, found no evidence that he knew, condoned or directed hazing ^[1][6]. He had accepted a suspension he understood to be the final sanction ^[5]. Reversing that after a newspaper story looks like discipline driven by publicity rather than new facts.

For the reforms regardless: independent monitoring, anonymous reporting and training address the root problem whoever is to blame ^[1].

Applying the frameworks

Care

Care ethics centres the players harmed and the whistleblower who came forward ^[2][3]. It asks whether the program’s relationships, between coaches and players and among players, protected the vulnerable. Schill’s apology to the whistleblower’s family is one care response ^[2].

Kantian

A Kantian would see hazing as treating people merely as means to group identity, which consent does not cure ^[1]. Kantian duty also applies to the university: punishing someone for unproven knowledge, or for public relations, would fail to respect him as a person.

Justice

A justice lens examines procedure: notice, proportionality and stability of sanctions ^[2][5]. It also asks whether the system treated victims justly, with fair access to remedies ^[4].

Utilitarian

A consequentialist would weigh deterrence across college sport, the costs of litigation and the effect on players against fairness to one coach ^[3][4][5].

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Identify the problem: hazing was widespread in a program, and the leader’s knowledge is unproven.
2. Gather the facts: the investigation findings, player accounts and contract terms ^[1][3][5].
3. Identify the stakeholders: victims, the whistleblower, the coach, players, the university and alumni.
4. Consider the options: suspension, termination, or reforms with continued oversight.
5. Apply values and frameworks: care, fairness, accountability and deterrence.
6. Decide and review: decide once on full facts, publish standards and monitor the culture.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: the investigation found hazing but no evidence coaches knew; Fitzgerald was suspended, then fired; lawsuits followed and his own suit settled in 2025 ^[1][3][4][6].

Contested: whether “should have known” is a fair basis for firing, and whether the university’s reversal was justified.

Why this case matters

Leaders’ responsibility for culture is a theme across college sport. Compare Jordan McNair’s Death and Maryland Football’s Culture, Baylor University and the Football Sexual Assault Scandal and Are College Athletes Employees? Northwestern, Dartmouth and the Right to Unionize.

Key terms

Hazing

Ritualized initiation practices, often defended as tradition, that humiliate, endanger or harm newcomers.

Whistleblowing

Disclosure of wrongdoing in the public interest by someone inside or close to an organization: a moral safety valve.

Institutional accountability

Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Duty of care

The responsibility of coaches, organizations and institutions to protect the health, safety and well-being of those in their charge. It is not a license for total control.

Due process

Fair procedures before a sanction: notice, a chance to respond, an impartial decision-maker and a right of appeal.

Consent and autonomy

Whether people have agreed freely and with full information, and whether their right to make their own choices is respected.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Should a coach be fired for hazing he was not shown to know about?
2. Was Schill right to change his decision after the newspaper report?
3. What does 'should have known' require of a leader in practice?
4. How can programs protect players who report hazing?
5. Does the 2025 settlement change your view?

Sources

1. Northwestern announces actions to prevent hazing following football investigation — Northwestern Now
2. Update on Hazing Investigation — Northwestern University Leadership Notes
3. Northwestern fires head coach Pat Fitzgerald amid fallout from hazing scandal — Yahoo Sports
4. Former Northwestern football player sues school, Pat Fitzgerald amid hazing scandal — Yahoo Sports
5. Northwestern and former head football coach settle wrongful termination lawsuit stemming from hazing scandal — CNN
6. Former Northwestern coach Pat Fitzgerald settles wrongful termination lawsuit with school — Yahoo Sports
7. Northwestern's president will resign following tenure marked by White House tension — PBS News / Associated Press