Hazing? Really? This is still an issue?

[Acsenray]

In reaction to a government release of information relating to a hazing death in November at Florida A&M University -- http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ers-fraternity

I can't believe that this is happening anywhere these days. When I was in high school about 25 years ago, hazing was something people talked about in the past tense. I am stunned that this kind of idiocy still goes on now. What is wrong with people?

What is so hard about getting this lesson through people's heads -- there's no good reason to torture people physically or mentally, even if you think it's just for fun. I mean, college organizations don't engage in ritual murder (except in extraordinary circumstances, I guess). How is hazing any different?

[John Mace]

I suspect that hazing is deeply rooted in human nature and although you can legislate against it and try to minimize it, you will never eliminate it.

How can you be shocked that hazing "is happening anywhere these days"? We read about it happening all the time. Have you ever known a culture to exist that didn't have some form of hazing in it?

[Bryan Ekers]

Group-membership rituals are inevitable, and in many cases useful. As I understand it, though, hazing goes off the rails when the rituals aren't strictly codified and enforced, where members who endured the rituals only a few years earlier are put in charge of inducting new members and decide to make the ritual more extreme, which leads to those new members making it more extreme for their successors, leading to a gradually worsening cycle ending in someone's death.

What is needed is the oversight of someone (ideally several someones) who plan to be around for several decades, i.e. a career military officer (commissioned or not) who can keep things in check. A frat (or, it seems, a marching band) at a four-year college might get no such oversight.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

In reaction to a government release of information relating to a hazing death in November at Florida A&M University -- http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ers-fraternity

I can't believe that this is happening anywhere these days. When I was in high school about 25 years ago, hazing was something people talked about in the past tense. I am stunned that this kind of idiocy still goes on now. What is wrong with people?

What is so hard about getting this lesson through people's heads -- there's no good reason to torture people physically or mentally, even if you think it's just for fun. I mean, college organizations don't engage in ritual murder (except in extraordinary circumstances, I guess). How is hazing any different?

Do you think the people you were in high school with 25 years ago are the ones doing the hazing now? That's a ridiculous question, you obviously know those people are in their 40s now.

But that's why the lesson won't stick - they're new mean nasty people who need to be taught every year. Unfortunately people are mean and nasty, but asking why we can't teach these people and make it stick is like asking why we have to teach high school kids to fucking drive every single year. Won't the ever learn!?

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop

Do you think the people you were in high school with 25 years ago are the ones doing the hazing now? That's a ridiculous question, you obviously know those people are in their 40s now.

My point is that 25 years ago, hazing was considered an abomination of the past, like lynching or slavery. Are you suggesting that today's youth are likely to bring those back as well?

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

My point is that 25 years ago, hazing was considered an abomination of the past, like lynching or slavery.

Sure it was, in polite society. As it is today. But we don't live 24/7 in polite society.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Sure it was, in polite society. As it is today. But we don't live 24/7 in polite society.

I'm not sure I would consider my high school to constitute polite society.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I'm not sure I would consider my high school to constitute polite society.

And you really think that no hazing occurred in your HS? Or at your local college?

[Acsenray]

World would have gotten around.

[Dogzilla]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

My point is that 25 years ago, hazing was considered an abomination of the past, like lynching or slavery. Are you suggesting that today's youth are likely to bring those back as well?

Not on my college campus. I started college about 25 years ago and the fraternities and even some of the sororities were notorious for hazing. I think maybe in the last ten years or so some organizations have been losing their charters due to hazing related incidents (some of which may have resulted in death).

I don't know where you lived 25 years ago, but it sure sounds nice, what with all the unicorns and rainbows.

[Gedd]

I'll offer a point of view from only 10 years ago. In my college marching band there was hazing, each freshman got thrown into the pond. That's all. Hardly torture. They even did it at the end of rehearsal so it was refreshing.

I guess hazing made a comeback somewhere in the past 10 - 25 years, or maybe your school just didn't have it. Think of all the traditions in the world and how many of them are stupid but happen anyways.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Gedd

I'll offer a point of view from only 10 years ago. In my college marching band there was hazing, each freshman got thrown into the pond. That's all. Hardly torture. They even did it at the end of rehearsal so it was refreshing.

And that's amusing as long as it went no further, i.e. someone deciding that a newbie hasn't received the whole "pond experience" and holds his head underwater, leading to things gradually worsening.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Gedd

I guess hazing made a comeback somewhere in the past 10 - 25 years

I very much doubt this, and I also remember anti-hazing campaigns during that time. The big problem is that traditions die hard and it can be hard to get people to think about them critically. Sometimes they don't even pull the plug if something terrible happens if there is not enough outside pressure- the Florida A&M band has gotten in trouble for this before and I believe there have been lawsuits, but I don't think anybody died.

[Freddy the Pig]

I'm 52 years old, and I can never remember a time when (a) one did not see news stories from time to time about death or severe injury from hazing, usually at college fraternities or military schools; and (b) every youth organization of note had policies forbidding hazing. Note that (a) and (b) co-exist and always have co-existed.

[Strassia]

Hazing fulfills an important group function. It bonds the group together via the mechanism of "effort justification". The harder it is to achieve something, the more you tend to value it.
I saw this in the military. Everyone (or at least almost everyone) comes out of boot camp immensely invested in their service. Boot camp is basically controlled hazing with a lot of safeguards in place. But it carries on to other areas as well. Being accepted onto a smaller ship crew often involved more informal hazing rituals.
And if kept under control, it improved moral and trust. The problems always came because, as mentioned above, certain individuals always had to go one step further than what was done to them. Then you end up with broken ribs, sexual violations, and worse.

The cure can sometimes be worse than the disease. After the Tailhook scandal the Navy had a huge anti-haze push. No tolerance was the word of the day. This came to screeching halt when a seaman on the USS Los Angeles committed suicide rather than turn in his fellow sailors for tacking on his dolphins.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

World would have gotten around.

You know what they say about absence of evidence?

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Strassia

The cure can sometimes be worse than the disease. After the Tailhook scandal the Navy had a huge anti-haze push. No tolerance was the word of the day. This came to screeching halt when a seaman on the USS Los Angeles committed suicide rather than turn in his fellow sailors for tacking on his dolphins.

I don't buy for a second that the banning of hazing caused the guy to commit suicide. Suicide is the result of complex mental and emotional disorder, not just difficult decisions.

And I really have no idea what "tacking on his dolphins" means, but if it means using physical, mental, or emotional distress in a manner that causes pain, humiliation, or extreme discomfort or has the potential to result in permanent harm or death, then, really, fuck the seamen and their adolescent bonding.

To the extent that ritual is desirable, then it should be public, supervised, regulated, safe, and dignified. Anybody who can't deal with that needs to be properly trained, supervised, educated, or punished.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I don't buy for a second that the banning of hazing caused the guy to commit suicide. Suicide is the result of complex mental and emotional disorder, not just difficult decisions.

And now having read the article linked to, I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't the fact that hazing was banned that was the problem, but the manner in which the incident was investigated and the fact that the victim of the hazing was being victimized both by his superiors and by his shipmates.

The guy was beaten to bruises by his shipmates and then threatened if he revealed their names. Those shipmates who did that—assaulted a colleague, violated the rules, and then threatened their victim—I don't have any sympathy for them or for their need for "effort justification." They're criminals, plain and simple, and they should have been punished.

The fact that the Navy botched the investigation is simply another in a long line of incidents in which the Navy leadership has shown its bad judgment, including allowing Tailhook to happen in the first place, its persecution of homosexuals, and this.

[Rucksinator]

There is a whole spectrum of hazing, from throwing someone in a pond, to having somehold a lit match while reciting something, to paddling, to worse.
Then there are other things. For example, is it hazing for a group to peer-pressure someone into trying to drink 21 shots in 21 minutes on their 21st birthday?

I would have actually liked to try the burning match thing to see how good my memory was under pressure. Even if I failed I would have put it out and not burned my fingers. But my fraternity wouldn't allow even that.

Actually, we did throw people in a pond if they lavaliered their girlfriend. But this wasn't done to pledges (as a pledge didn't have letters to give). I never considered it hazing until Gedd's post. Actually, in our case, I still don't. Everybody knew that this was what happened when you gave your girl your letters. The girls understood that it was their job to grab towels on the way out.

[Cliffy]

I too went to high school ~25 years ago, and we got hazed (in a mild, fun way) in my high school marching band. Freshmen had to carry the seniors' instruments to practice, they had to sing the alma mater at breakfast one morning at the, um, camp where you learned to do band stuff. (American Pie ruined that phrase forever.) Silly shit like that. I was once ordered to give a senior a foot massage -- at 14, it was the most sexual contact I'd ever had with a girl, and I jumped at the chance. But hazing never went away.

--Cliffy

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

There is a whole spectrum of hazing, from throwing someone in a pond, to having somehold a lit match while reciting something, to paddling, to worse.

I think my prior posts set out at least one definition of what I consider hazing. Not just any initiation ritual would be hazing. It would have to be extreme physical, mental, or emotional distress, such as humiliation, pain, or something that could result in injury of death. Beatings, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, something involving extreme physical feats, excessive alcohol ingestion, something to do with noxious substances (urine, vomit), law-breaking, etc. Harmless rituals like singing or reciting pledges or runninh simple errands aren't hazing in my mind.

Then there are other things. For example, is it hazing for a group to peer-pressure someone into trying to drink 21 shots in 21 minutes on their 21st birthday?

I think that there is an assumption that hazing takes place within the context of membership in an organization or institution of some kind. If it's just a group of friends not sharing some kind of affiliation engaging in this kind of behavior, it might be extraordinarily stupid, perhaps even punishable, depending on whether they were subject to some kind of code of conduct or liability, but I'm not sure I would call it hazing.

Actually, we did throw people in a pond if they lavaliered their girlfriend. But this wasn't done to pledges (as a pledge didn't have letters to give). I never considered it hazing until Gedd's post. Actually, in our case, I still don't. Everybody knew that this was what happened when you gave your girl your letters. The girls understood that it was their job to grab towels on the way out.

If you threw someone into a pool and he drowned, would you expect to be held responsible?

[Rucksinator]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I think my prior posts set out at least one definition of what I consider hazing. Not just any initiation ritual would be hazing. It would have to be extreme physical, mental, or emotional distress, such as humiliation, pain, or something that could result in injury of death. Beatings, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, something involving extreme physical feats, excessive alcohol ingestion, something to do with noxious substances (urine, vomit), law-breaking, etc. Harmless rituals like singing or reciting pledges or runninh simple errands aren't hazing in my mind.

Well, I think that's a pretty high and strict definition. My pledge manual gave several examples of practices that were considered hazing and were forbidden. Some I would have considered fun. But I still think that they are hazing. The problem is that mild hazing leads to less mild, and it ramps up until something bad happens. Then it gets cut out completely.

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I think that there is an assumption that hazing takes place within the context of membership in an organization or institution of some kind. If it's just a group of friends not sharing some kind of affiliation engaging in this kind of behavior, it might be extraordinarily stupid, perhaps even punishable, depending on whether they were subject to some kind of code of conduct or liability, but I'm not sure I would call it hazing.

The problem was (and I'm assumming, probably still is) that if 3 or more fraternity members were involved, then it was considered a fraternity event. [Eg. Me and my 3 roommates (all brothers) couldn't have a keg in our appartment because it would be considered a fraternity event, and we could get our charter pulled.] Also, my college's IFC didn't think that hazing could only be done to a pledge. So if 2 brothers peer-pressured a 3rd into drinking 21 shots in 21 minutes, and it went bad (as, I would imagine, it usually would), then the fraternity was also liable. *

Originally Posted by Acsenray

If you threw someone into a pool and he drowned, would you expect to be held responsible?

Somewhat, I would say. I can't imagine it happening, but I guess if he hit his head on a rock somehow, I would be partially responsible. Since I would not have been attempting to physically harm him, I think it would be a terrible accident and I'd probably be able to avoid the chair.

Wait.... are you saying that this IS hazing? Or that it's only hazing if something goes terribly wrong?



* [OT] Incidentally, this is why fraternities have to pay a lot of money for insurance. If the 21 shots kid dies and he and the 2 friends are just friends, then there aren't deep pockets for the parents to go after. But if they all belong to the same fraternity, then the parents can go after the chapter and the Fraternity as a whole. So brothers have to pay dues to pay for insurance, which leads to accusations of "buying friends".

[billfish678]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

.

And I really have no idea what "tacking on his dolphins" means, but if it means using physical, mental, or emotional distress in a manner that causes pain, humiliation, or extreme discomfort or has the potential to result in permanent harm or death, then, really, fuck the seamen and their adolescent bonding.

You need to look that up.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

Well, I think that's a pretty high and strict definition. My pledge manual gave several examples of practices that were considered hazing and were forbidden. Some I would have considered fun. But I still think that they are hazing.

As I said before I believe that initiation rituals should be public, regulated, safe, and under the direct supervision of authorities. That would help suppress tendencies to ramp things up.

The problem was (and I'm assumming, probably still is) that if 3 or more fraternity members were involved, then it was considered a fraternity event.

Well, under my definition, there is s shared affiliation, so sure.

Somewhat, I would say. I can't imagine it happening, but I guess if he hit his head on a rock somehow, I would be partially responsible. Since I would not have been attempting to physically harm him, I think it would be a terrible accident and I'd probably be able to avoid the chair.

Wait.... are you saying that this IS hazing? Or that it's only hazing if something goes terribly wrong?

Throwing someone into a pool is an inherently dangerous act. At the very least it's assault.

I'd say any act that involved one person submerging another in water or bodily throwing that person in uncontrolled or unsupervised circumstances is inherently dangerous.

Also forced overeating.

[Strassia]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

And now having read the article linked to, I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't the fact that hazing was banned that was the problem, but the manner in which the incident was investigated and the fact that the victim of the hazing was being victimized both by his superiors and by his shipmates.

The main problem was the zero tolerance issue and the way the command tried to carry it out. Anyone he turned in would be kicked out of the Navy and basically have their lives ruined. Early on several members of the crew tried to negotiate a deal to come forward and be punished if that end the issue. They were told no. That put the kid in the position of ruining the lives of people he considered friends (and he did consider them friends, believe me) or screwing over the entire crew by keeping them on the boat instead of home with their families.

The guy was beaten to bruises by his shipmates and then threatened if he revealed their names. Those shipmates who did that—assaulted a colleague, violated the rules, and then threatened their victim—I don't have any sympathy for them or for their need for "effort justification." They're criminals, plain and simple, and they should have been punished.

Here you have no idea what you are talking about. Dolphins are a pin you earn when you qualify as a submariner. You have one year after being assigned to a sub to earn them. They signify that you are now officially part of a submarine crew. Tacking the on means hitting the pin into you chest. This guy would have had a bruise on his chest and possibly two small wounds where the pins can break the skin. He would most likely been very proud of it. I was proud of mine, and everyone I knew in the service was proud of theirs. Crew members no one liked didn't get their dolphins tacked.

I understand and agree with the need to stop this because people are idiots. Most of the time, tacking leaves nothing but a bruise that fades in a few days and feeling of belonging to the group. You know you are one of the crew. That is important in a situation where you can make a mistake that can kill everyone on your boat. A submarine holds about 100 people who depend on each other to stay alive.

But as I said people are idiots. A punch on dolphin doesn't hurt much more than running into a door knob, but some people up the ante and I have heard stories of morons using heavy wrenches or swinging on pipes to kick the new guy in the chest.

The fact that the Navy botched the investigation is simply another in a long line of incidents in which the Navy leadership has shown its bad judgment, including allowing Tailhook to happen in the first place, its persecution of homosexuals, and this.

I can't disagree with this. My point was that while cracking down on hazing may be necessary, trying to completely wipe it out in a hamfisted manner the way the navy did can backfire.

[Rucksinator]

Originally Posted by Strassia

.... Dolphins are a pin you earn when you qualify as a submariner. You have one year after being assigned to a sub to earn them. They signify that you are now officially part of a submarine crew. Tacking the on means hitting the pin into you chest. This guy would have had a bruise on his chest and possibly two small wounds where the pins can break the skin. He would most likely been very proud of it. I was proud of mine, and everyone I knew in the service was proud of theirs. Crew members no one liked didn't get their dolphins tacked.....

Oh, I get it. Something very similar happened to my brother when we made Airborne. (He also began calling me a dirty, filthy leg.) I would consider this hazing, but the relatively benign kind of hazing that you know that you are signing up for.

Originally Posted by Strassia

.... But as I said people are idiots. A punch on dolphin doesn't hurt much more than running into a door knob, but some people up the ante and I have heard stories of morons using heavy wrenches or swinging on pipes to kick the new guy in the chest.....

Yeah, that's assholish, and a huge leap from a punch or slap. It doesn't seem difficult to me to have a peer-established rule that only hands are allowed. I don't remember the exact story that my brother told me, it was over 20 years ago, but I think all of the punching happened right as he got pinned (without the 2 whatchamacalit's cliped onto the points). Were the pipes and wrenches being swung at the ceremony, or days later when the 2 whatchamacalits would have been attached?

[Strassia]

Originally Posted by Rucksinator

Oh, I get it. Something very similar happened to my brother when we made Airborne. (He also began calling me a dirty, filthy leg.) I would consider this hazing, but the relatively benign kind of hazing that you know that you are signing up for.



Yeah, that's assholish, and a huge leap from a punch or slap. It doesn't seem difficult to me to have a peer-established rule that only hands are allowed. I don't remember the exact story that my brother told me, it was over 20 years ago, but I think all of the punching happened right as he got pinned (without the 2 whatchamacalit's cliped onto the points). Were the pipes and wrenches being swung at the ceremony, or days later when the 2 whatchamacalits would have been attached?

I was in in the mid to late 90s. Tacking was officially forbidden. It would normally happen over the course of the day. Basically when someone saw you in for the first time wearing your pin they would congratulate you and tack them on. After the first day, you would only wear the pin in dress uniform and wear a patch in working uniform, so this had a built in time limit. The wrenches and feet thing would happen in the engine room. Machinists Mates tended to play rough.

[BigT]

I don't understand it either. If someone form a group hurts me, and that action is sanctioned by the group, my reaction is one of wanting to get them back. And yet I've never heard of upperclassmen being worried about being hazed by their lower classmen.

I could understand how, if you were allowed to get back at the upper classmen, it might work as a bonding exercise. But without that, I can't see how it doesn't just create enmity, and, as mentioned escalate indefinitely. Unless every frat boy winds up with Stockholm syndrome or something.

Oh, and OP, while I never experienced it personally, I have at least seen stories about it. What flabbergasts me is not that it happens at colleges, but at high schools. That almost certainly has to be led by the adults. At least at college, there's the idea that the adults don't know--because, if they did, hazing was a mandatory reporting offense. (The quoted reason was that it was quite likely a hazed student would sue the school, and that it had happened before.)

[BigT]

Oops, I forgot something. I mention the group thing because, if it were not sanctioned, my reaction would be to try to get the person kicked out. Plus I forgot to mention that I might not actually act on my desire to get them back, but I would, at the very least, leave any group that condones that sort of thing.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Strassia

The main problem was the zero tolerance issue and the way the command tried to carry it out.

I don't see that "zero tolerance" was a problem. There are plenty of things that zero tolerance applies to in organizations and institutions. The problem was with how that zero tolerance policy was implemented.

Anyone he turned in would be kicked out of the Navy and basically have their lives ruined. Early on several members of the crew tried to negotiate a deal to come forward and be punished if that end the issue. They were told no. That put the kid in the position of ruining the lives of people he considered friends (and he did consider them friends, believe me) or screwing over the entire crew by keeping them on the boat instead of home with their families.

Maybe they shouldn't have done it then, knowing that there was a zero tolerance policy. I'm having trouble working up much sympathy. I'm sympathetic toward the person who committed suicide, because obviously he was suffering from some serious problems. But I'm not sympathetic to those who put them in that position.

Here you have no idea what you are talking about.

Thanks for the information. However, I don't really see how anything you said contradicts what I said.

He would most likely been very proud of it. I was proud of mine, and everyone I knew in the service was proud of theirs.

Yeah, there are things that people like that organizations should still put a stop to, because people apparently don't always have the best judgment. And I would say this applies even before such practices escalated. I see no reason to tolerate people being hit in the chest so that they're bruised or cut by the pin. Even if, or maybe even especially if, that kind of thing makes them feel pride. Better to sublimate that pride to a public ritual that is supervised by authority figures and which doesn't involve physical injuries, regardless of how minor.

trying to completely wipe it out in a hamfisted manner the way the navy did can backfire.

Perhaps the Navy ought not to be allowed to run the Navy.

[Beware of Doug]

Maybe the Navy doesn't really want to wipe it out because they understand how essential it is.

[Rucksinator]

[I can't be arsed to fix the coding on this]
I think that the main gist has been covered already, but I’ll give my own take on it.

Most fraternities were founded around the time of the Civil War. Mine was founded just before it started. After the war was over people realized a fact about enduring hellish conditions: Going through hell tends to make you form a tight bond with those that go through it with you. This was the original logic behind hazing: The harder the pledge period is, the tighter the bond. There are 2 obvious and logical problems with this:

1. 1.) Since the hellishness is mostly artificial (i.e. There’s a difference between fighting a war and pledging a fraternity), the effect is somewhat diminished.
2. 2.) The bond that is forged is equally balanced by the hatred for the upperclassmen that created this artificial hell. So, while you might form a tight bond with those in your pledge class, you have an equal lack of a feeling of bonding with the upperclassmen. So, instead of having a tight-knit brotherhood, you have a number of tight-knit pledge classes who

1. a.) hate the elders of the group, and
2. b.) feel like they are entitled to put the next pledge class through the same kind of hell.

So the cycle continues. When pledges are going through this artificial hell they are thinking “I can’t wait to be on the other side of this.” Because nobody wants to go through the hazing, and then find out that they aren’t allowed to ‘pay it forward’. “I did it like everyone before me. This next class should do it too.” That would be like finding out that you are the last to join a pyramid scheme. That would be like getting stuck with the hot potato. That would be like congressmen voting themselves a pay cut. That would be like taxpayers saying “Yeah, let’s raise taxes. We need to pay off our parents’ debt and I don’t want to leave any debt to my children.”

....so it continues, until it gets so bad that it has to be squashed like kudzu growing up the side of your house.

[Rucksinator]

Originally Posted by BigT

Oops, I forgot something. I mention the group thing because, if it were not sanctioned, my reaction would be to try to get the person kicked out. Plus I forgot to mention that I might not actually act on my desire to get them back, but I would, at the very least, leave any group that condones that sort of thing.

Usually you know that this is part of the deal before you join the group.

Also, it probably wouldn't be one person. So you would try to get the majority of the group kicked out of a group that you just joined? Good luck.

[Strassia]

Originally Posted by BigT

I don't understand it either. If someone form a group hurts me, and that action is sanctioned by the group, my reaction is one of wanting to get them back. And yet I've never heard of upperclassmen being worried about being hazed by their lower classmen.

I could understand how, if you were allowed to get back at the upper classmen, it might work as a bonding exercise. But without that, I can't see how it doesn't just create enmity, and, as mentioned escalate indefinitely. Unless every frat boy winds up with Stockholm syndrome or something.

Oh, and OP, while I never experienced it personally, I have at least seen stories about it. What flabbergasts me is not that it happens at colleges, but at high schools. That almost certainly has to be led by the adults. At least at college, there's the idea that the adults don't know--because, if they did, hazing was a mandatory reporting offense. (The quoted reason was that it was quite likely a hazed student would sue the school, and that it had happened before.)

Maybe you have never been in this type of situation, but that is not at all how it works. You feel pride that they are doing this to you and you can take. Whether you agree with it or not, joining a group through a hazing ritual is something the people being hazed usually want. It means you are accepted by the group and are part of it. If you are not hazed, then they don't want you. If you don't want to be part of the group then they will not want you either, but it never works that way.

My only real hazing experience was on a submarine(unless you count boot camp). That is an environment that most people will never experience. You can spend up to 3 months under the ocean with the same 100-120 guys in a metal tube. You can't get farther than 300ft from any of them, ever. You are breathing recycled air and sleeping 18 inches apart, stacked 3 or 4 high in bunks smaller than coffins. You are on an 18 hour clock which means you can never get a good night sleep. Things are either boring as hell or deadly serious. You are so deep in the ocean that the escape hatches are only good for a place to hide out. If you are lucky there is a exercise bike stuffed between 36 inch high pressure steam tubes so you can get some exercise. The fresh fruits and vegetables can last a week, the frozen food a month or so, then you are on dehydrated and cans. And you still need to be able to safely operate a nuclear reactor the whole time. If you aren't a part of the group, you will go crazy. You can't be some above it all, too cool for school, iconoclast in that kind of situation. You are part of the crew, or you shouldn't be there.

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I don't see that "zero tolerance" was a problem. There are plenty of things that zero tolerance applies to in organizations and institutions. The problem was with how that zero tolerance policy was implemented.

The problem with the that, and many other zero tolerance, policies was there was no room for judgement. The kid involved was not hurt or traumatized by the hazing, but the punishment for everyone involved, not matter how light the tap, would have been an other than honorable discharge. Aspirin should not be treated the same as cocaine on school grounds and tapping a pin should not be treated the same as sticking a grease gun up someone's ass.

Maybe they shouldn't have done it then, knowing that there was a zero tolerance policy. I'm having trouble working up much sympathy. I'm sympathetic toward the person who committed suicide, because obviously he was suffering from some serious problems. But I'm not sympathetic to those who put them in that position.



Thanks for the information. However, I don't really see how anything you said contradicts what I said.



Yeah, there are things that people like that organizations should still put a stop to, because people apparently don't always have the best judgment. And I would say this applies even before such practices escalated. I see no reason to tolerate people being hit in the chest so that they're bruised or cut by the pin. Even if, or maybe even especially if, that kind of thing makes them feel pride. Better to sublimate that pride to a public ritual that is supervised by authority figures and which doesn't involve physical injuries, regardless of how minor.



Perhaps the Navy ought not to be allowed to run the Navy.

Look, there is a reason groups haze. The reason is that it works. It doesn't have to be stupid, reckless, or brutal to work, but it does work. Groups that haze are tighter than groups that don't. And in my experience, you usually don't hate the hazers unless they are over top sadistic.

[Deegeea]

Maybe basic training sergeants from nearby military bases could come teach fraternities and sororities how to haze, and also train submarine crews and so on? Since they seem to be the experts apparently? National fraternity organizations can employ ex military personnel to go around giving the training to the universities not sufficiently near to a military site...

To emphasize that the purpose is unit cohesion rather than payback, for one thing. And to weed out and disallow from participation the excessively vengeful or intemperately cruel.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Strassia

You feel pride that they are doing this to you and you can take. Whether you agree with it or not, joining a group through a hazing ritual is something the people being hazed usually want. It means you are accepted by the group and are part of it. If you are not hazed, then they don't want you.

Funny, I feel like I've been accepted into social groups without having to suffer physical, emotional, or mental pain.

Look, there is a reason groups haze. The reason is that it works. It doesn't have to be stupid, reckless, or brutal to work, but it does work. Groups that haze are tighter than groups that don't.

Groups that commit ritual slaughter and cannibalism together, I'm sure, are tighter than groups that don't. And, hey, such groups did it because it works.

The point is that we draw the line somewhere. And perhaps your having been in that situation personally gives you a skewed perspective of exactly where that line should be drawn.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Groups that commit ritual slaughter and cannibalism together, I'm sure, are tighter than groups that don't. And, hey, such groups did it because it works.

Well, cannibalism aside, the military does indulge in ritual slaughter, or at least that's what they train for - to push the various buttons and pull the various triggers to end the lives of other people.

If not, what's the point in having a military?

[ElvisL1ves]

Please. That's hardly "ritual"; there's a strong practical purpose behind it.

In other news, Champion wanted to be hazed, says one of the defendants.

[Beware of Doug]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Funny, I feel like I've been accepted into social groups without having to suffer physical, emotional, or mental pain.



Groups that commit ritual slaughter and cannibalism together, I'm sure, are tighter than groups that don't. And, hey, such groups did it because it works.

The point is that we draw the line somewhere. And perhaps your having been in that situation personally gives you a skewed perspective of exactly where that line should be drawn.

Like many who have been in that situation, Strassia stops short of fully explaining it. At some point, I imagine, you have to stop examining such a situation and simply go with it.

[Rucksinator]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Funny, I feel like I've been accepted into social groups without having to suffer physical, emotional, or mental pain...

Did any of these social groups involve fighting to the death your country's enemies?

Originally Posted by Acsenray

The point is that we draw the line somewhere. And perhaps your having been in that situation personally gives you a skewed perspective of exactly where that line should be drawn.

Agreed. But I think the line will be different for the military than it will be for a knitting club. YMMV.

[Acsenray]

Yeah, the military is known for claiming that its bonding rituals are incomprehensible to mere mortals. Noooo, racial integration won't do ... noooo, can't have women in combat .... noooo, homosexuals destroy unit cohesion. Every time there's a uniform change, there are service members who throw a fit.

But the fact is that people in the military will always resist change, so those earnest claims that they are oh-so-different from regular people have to be taken with a grain of salt. The military has to be subject to the scrutiny of daylight.

Indeed, since we do trust them with the power to kill on our behalf, the military should expect to be held to stricter standards than anyone else. And if the policy decision is "You don't get to bruise each other for your bonding rituals," then they should expect to be held to that standard.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Well, cannibalism aside, the military does indulge in ritual slaughter, or at least that's what they train for - to push the various buttons and pull the various triggers to end the lives of other people.

If not, what's the point in having a military?

It's not ritual slaughter. We don't have them kill people so they can feel close to each other. It's done to execute public policy. It's professional and it's public service.

[Jackmannii]

A few years ago I started a thread about hazing. To my amazement, there was a substantial number of people who defended it. It looks like not a lot has changed.

Originally Posted by Strassia

Maybe you have never been in this type of situation, but that is not at all how it works. You feel pride that they are doing this to you and you can take. Whether you agree with it or not, joining a group through a hazing ritual is something the people being hazed usually want. It means you are accepted by the group and are part of it. If you are not hazed, then they don't want you. If you don't want to be part of the group then they will not want you either, but it never works that way.

My only real hazing experience was on a submarine(unless you count boot camp). That is an environment that most people will never experience. You can spend up to 3 months under the ocean with the same 100-120 guys in a metal tube.

Maybe this just got swept under the rug in the accounts I've read of life in U-boats, but what the stories always emphasized was the camaraderie, not inflicting pain and humiliation on new sailors.

My personal take on hazing is that it is a self-perpetuating nastiness that lets people take pleasure from causing harm to others in a socially acceptable fashion, and to make up for their own painful experiences by passing along the hurt to others. I have not heard of a lot of hazing in medicine, but I sense that much of the resistance in certain specialties (i.e. surgery) to cutting back on tremendously long hours is resentment that the new people won't have the undergo the same crap they did.

I support making hazing (in the inflicting of marked physical and/or emotional damage) completely socially unacceptable. Ban the fraternities and sororities involved, reform the military, give the offenders real criminal penalties. "We've always done it this way" should go the way of the dodo. Here's a substitute form of "hazing" for a fraternity - make the new guys do so many hours of community service before they can be accepted as full members, instead of being beaten and/or drinking until they pass out (and hopefully be revived later).

Now that'd be a revolution.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

It's not ritual slaughter. We don't have them kill people so they can feel close to each other. It's done to execute public policy. It's professional and it's public service.

Yes, but in the particular case of the military, you and the people around you may be called upon to kill people, while those people are trying to kill you (and the people around you). Bonding rituals have a greater significance than to, say, some nine-to-five office worker in the Department of Transportation because of the occasional life-and-death aspect of the job where being a good co-worker means more than "don't eat other people's lunches out of the break-room fridge".

Heck, the DOT worker might even more impact on the day-to-day lives of ordinary citizens, but nobody's expecting him to run into a firefight to pull out a wounded buddy.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

I support making hazing (in the inflicting of marked physical and/or emotional damage) completely socially unacceptable. Ban the fraternities and sororities involved, reform the military, give the offenders real criminal penalties. "We've always done it this way" should go the way of the dodo. Here's a substitute form of "hazing" for a fraternity - make the new guys do so many hours of community service before they can be accepted as full members, instead of being beaten and/or drinking until they pass out (and hopefully be revived later).

Now that'd be a revolution.

I gather, though, that "we've always done it this way" is not the problem - if there was a strict set of unchanging rituals, supervised by people who know to not let it get out of hand, it wouldn't be a big deal. The deaths occur when there's an unsupervised tendency to "enhance" the ritual, make it rougher or more alcohol-using or more extreme or what have you.

[Rucksinator]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I gather, though, that "we've always done it this way" is not the problem - if there was a strict set of unchanging rituals, supervised by people who know to not let it get out of hand, it wouldn't be a big deal. The deaths occur when there's an unsupervised tendency to "enhance" the ritual, make it rougher or more alcohol-using or more extreme or what have you.

Hazing is like fire. It can be useful in certain situations, but it must be closely monitored and kept in check because it has a tendency to get out of control very quickly, and if it gets out of control, then people can get hurt or killed. It shouldn't be used at all if it's not necessary, or in fragile circumstances.

[Rucksinator]

I want to reiterate that I'm not defending Ascenray's definition of hazing. There's never any need for "extreme physical, mental, or emotional distress". The "beating in" that happened in that band is ghetto gang bullshit and shouldn't be tollerated in any situation.

And I think the line should be different for different situations. While I don't have a problem with "tacking" when someone earns their airborne wings, if anyone in my fraternity did this with pledge pins or badges I can assure you it would be stopped as soon as responsible brothers found out about it.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I gather, though, that "we've always done it this way" is not the problem - if there was a strict set of unchanging rituals, supervised by people who know to not let it get out of hand, it wouldn't be a big deal. The deaths occur when there's an unsupervised tendency to "enhance" the ritual, make it rougher or more alcohol-using or more extreme or what have you.

I see it a little differently - there shouldn't have to be deaths for the practice of hazing to be perceived as a problem.

The real adults need to step in long before any injury occurs. The species has a violent and stupid history, but we've shown a capacity to change.

[Llama Llogophile]

This thread has been completely baffling to me, particularly the varying definitions of hazing. Perhaps I'm just an odd breed of duck, but I can't for the life of me figure out why any "new guy" in any organization should be subjected to anything remotely approaching hazing.

I've always hated, hated, HATED the territoriality that comes from present employees / members / whatever looking down on the new people. Even when it's pretty well benign, it bothers me. For example, in surfing new learners are supposedly referred to as "hodads". I think even that is out of order. I've run flight schools for a while, and I forbid students to be called anything but "flight students". It's perfectly obvious who is a student and who is a rated pilot, so there's no respect issue that needs to be solved. And they have enough tricky stuff to learn without being made to feel even more inferior.

Same at the workplace. I've always been compelled to help the new guy along - show him how to get a copy made, how to get an outside line, where the best lunch places are - without making him feel like a moron. Want people to behave professionally? Then treat them that way.

Whenever this sort of thing comes up I think about the Metallica documentary that came out a few years ago. After years of hazing their bass player, he finally quit. They realized they had made a big mistake, and were so determined to keep the replacement they hired that they gave him a million dollar signing bonus and went out of their way to treat him as a respected member from the start.

[Quetzl]

I've never heard of a hazing incident where I live.

But I feel like its a product of our culture. I don't understand why anyone would participate in the act though, either the volunteer or the perpetrator. It goes beyond idiocy.

Of course, we didn't evolve with frats. There was always the logical oversight of elders. I suppose this is what happens when there isn't, and a bunch of frat boys get too comfy in their ability to utterly dominate others.