A Worthy Cause
The Hazing Prevention Center at Medaille College is dedicated to raising awareness regarding an issue institutionalized in society. Hazing, in my opinion organized bullying, has long been present in our schools and locker rooms. Kids today, like generations before them, expect it to happen.
Launched October 11, 2011, the Hazing Prevention Center stands as an outpost on a frontier stained with terror. Under the direction of Student President Rocco Zambito, Jr., the center is mounting an all-out effort to end the abuse. Located on the website for Medaille’s Sport Management (SPM) Program, the endeavor begins its battle with relevant articles prepared by Rocco and other Medaille students. Down the road, we intend to use a variety of media alternatives to deliver our message.
I am proud to be part of this important mission and, with Rocco at the helm, am confident we will have an impact.
A special thanks goes out to Dr. Richard L. Jacob, director of the Sport Management Program. His vision and input made our goal a reality.
David B. Lukow, Esq.
Faculty Advisor
ARTICLE VI (February 2012)
Hazing and Psychology
The second driving force behind hazing that I will cover is the psychological causes. There have been several documented mental factors that explain why the act of hazing is committed. Norman Pollard, Alfred University’s Director of Counseling, points to offenders’ need to confirm their own success of enduring hazing. After conducting a series of studies, Pollard arrived at the conclusion that “the teammates who perpetrate the hazing are the ones who suffered it the year before, and they want to make it that much more dangerous, to validate their experience. It gets a little worse each year.”
These students often attempt to leave their own personal mark on the rituals by outdoing previous generations. This goal certainly sets the stage for a vicious cycle of ongoing and appalling hazing. Revenge is also cited by many researchers as a reason that victims turn into hazers themselves. After being wronged in the past, those who have been hazed feel the need to get even and indirectly take their misfortune out on new group members. Tragically, this desire for revenge has led to numerous deadly retaliations against the initial hazers as well.
Hazing expert Susan Lipkins outlines a number of other psychological factors that influence people to haze. She cites an identification with past authority figures who treated them forcefully, the need to express their own aggressive, sadistic or sexual desires to prove their masculinity and a general failure of empathy as reasons that people haze. The psychological phenomenon of groupthink also contributes to hazing. Groupthink occurs when “bad decisions are made by members of a cohesive group who temporarily suspend good judgment and moral reasoning because of the pressure to belong.”
This means that when placed in a group, individuals are willing to act in a way they would not on their own. Others haze because they believe it is a time-honored tradition that they have the right and duty to carry on. Seeing that many people in their position before them have hazed, some feel as though hazing is simply the right thing to do. Mindlessly making the decision to haze due to tradition without considering the reasoning behind it is common in the tradition-laden atmosphere of universities.
Upon deliberating the mental origins of hazing, we can produce more preventative approaches. For those who have been severely hazed, it is vital to get them appropriate counseling. Doing so has two major benefits. First of all, it will allow victims to properly cope with the post-traumatic stress hazing has been proven to cause. Second, this will reduce the rage that commonly turns the victim into an aggressor. Therefore, the cycle of hazing will be broken by reducing the available stream of potential offenders. Without this counseling strategy in place, victims are the ones who continue to carry on the practice. Moreover, psychologists themselves need to become more educated on recognizing and handling the effects of hazing so that they can give potential hazers adequate treatment. With proper knowledge, psychologists will be able to identify candidates at risk of becoming hazers and work with them to overcome such problems before they are embodied through hazing. Counseling of those who have been hazed and of those who display the emotional issues apparent in hazers is the first approach to taking on the psychological causes of hazing.
In order to combat the psychological thrusts of groupthink that leads offenders to haze, it is critical to get bystanders involved with bringing hazing to an end as well. The very group nature of hazing means there are plenty of bystanders watching. These bystanders are not involved with the act, but allow it to happen. It is admittedly too optimistic to hope these individuals will stop the actions they witness, but they can prevent future hazing by informing a school authority.
Getting bystanders to turn in offenders is difficult for a number of reasons. First, they do not want to break the trust of their friends in the group or lose their valuable position within the group. Additionally, they themselves ordinarily suffer from the punishment for revealing hazing – whether it is the cancelation of a team’s season, the closing of a fraternity, or the suspension of their group. Therefore, schools should promote such notifications by rewarding the bystander who takes such a stand against hazing. While another option would be punishing bystanders who do not break the code of secrecy, this could cause an issue over Fifth Amendment rights. It should be the foremost ambition of universities to support courageous bystanders who expose hazing and attempt to avoid adversely affecting them with the punishments handed out.
Keeping the anonymity of the whistleblower a priority is also critical to helping he or she avoid any chastisement they might receive from the group otherwise. To increase the efficiency of allowing students to alert supervisors about hazing without facing repercussions from their group, anonymous tip-lines, suggestions boxes, e-mail addresses or websites should be utilized. This would give students a safe place to relay information. One recent study showed that 36 percent of students who would have otherwise reported hazing, did not merely because they did not know whom they could notify. Similar research found that 88 percent of students believe it is important to empower bystanders and 70 percent thought there should be an anonymous way to disclose hazing information.
The last psychological issue is the desire to continue traditions. To deal with the students’ psychological desire to continue the tradition of hazing, colleges should reconsider the value of all school group traditions. Many universities have acquired numerous traditions throughout their histories. While many of these traditions boost school pride, some (such as hazing) do nothing but create a negative environment. It is quite simply fallacious to continue carrying out a practice that is destructive only because it is a tradition. Many of the finest preventative strategies for hazing come from the analysis of its psychological causes.
-Rocco Zambito, Jr.
Student President
ARTICLE V (December 2011)
Hazing and Sociology
The sociological support for hazing in many groups is perhaps the biggest obstacle that must be overcome to achieve its elimination. Hazing is used to represent and further social dominance and hierarchy. While some of the sociological results that many claim justify hazing may actually be true, most are not.
The most prevalent claim over the years has been the belief that hazing builds team cohesion and conformity. Even though this seems to be the main motive for the use of hazing, a variety of studies have proven it to be false. Conversely, in 2007, a study revealed that increased hazing activities lead to less team cohesion rather than more. All in all, there is a great deal of evidence that hazing can be divisive of group members. Still, when developing prevention strategies it is important to remember that the theory of advancing team cohesion is a key justification of hazing in the minds of many.
Some experts have suggested that hazing may promote loyalty to the group, as well as increase the attractiveness of joining the group for outsiders. Yet, even the possible truth of these claims should be used as an argument against permitting hazing. The fact that these heinous actions draw in new members and boosts their allegiance to leaders who are then abusing them only shows why it is so important that hazing be stopped. In this regard, world-renowned hazing expert and Buffalo State College graduate Hank Nuwer describes hazing as “addictive.”
Hazing is addictive in its ability to suck victims in and increase their dependence on the harmful group. Certainly, it is troublesome for victims to be lured into and become addicted to something that puts them in danger. Additionally, the group atmosphere of hazing has frequently led offenders to relegate the blame for their atrocious actions on the group, rather than recognizing their own responsibility for what had occurred. This reduction of moral responsibility is hazardous in its ability to empower hazers to act without the restraint of ethical standards. As such, developing a comprehensive sociological understanding of why groups haze is critical.
With the knowledge that groups commonly use hazing to achieve sociological goals, it is easier to prescribe strategies to stop it. For instance, many aim to use hazing to establish stronger bonds among teams and organizations. So, to counteract this objective it would be wise to punish those who have been discovered as hazers by removing them from the group they are attempting to improve. The existence of such a penalty would likely be discouraging enough to some of those who haze to influence them to end their actions. Unquestionably, someone with the goal of building a stronger team would be fearful of performing an activity that could possibly lead to their separation or dismissal from the group. Moreover, one reason that some group supervisors, like coaches, marching band instructors and fraternity and sorority advisors, turn a blind eye to hazing is because they also believe hazing will result in better group cohesion. These leaders should be held exceedingly accountable for any hazing they know of and decide against taking action to end.
These are the individuals trusted to protect the best interests of group members. When they fail to live up to this duty, they should be punished severely. Otherwise, there is no reason for them to stop an act they only deem as beneficial. Another way to break the cycle of hazing is by introducing positive team building rituals. As a result, these new activities will take the place of hazing and render it unnecessary. There is no reason that initiations and rites of passage have to be degrading. Yet, a mere 20 percent of students currently participate in only positive initiation activities. A push to implement this tactic is already being made in Minnesota, where many positive events such as potluck dinners have been adopted. Team trips are another healthy way to build strong organizational connectedness. Likewise, group members would build cohesion by working on productive projects together. Working on tasks like community service projects accomplishes many of the goals of hazing, without containing the troubling drawbacks. It is only through an acclimation for the sociological roots of hazing that it is possible to develop strategies for its abolition.
- Rocco Zambito, Jr.
Student President
ARTICLE IV (November 2011)
Enactments Reflect Hazing Crisis
Some high-profile cases of hazing have shed light on the terror many have faced in silence for years. Consequently, there have been a series of laws passed in attempt to curb the cruelty. New York was actually the first of many states to pass laws making hazing illegal.
The movement to criminalize hazing was jump-started after the death of an Alfred University student in the 1970s. While the governor of New York at the time had originally planned to veto the bill making hazing illegal, another hazing death of a student at Ithaca College swayed his opinion. In 1999, the South Carolina Senate passed a bill making it an obligation of the state’s Department of Education “to work to end hazing in its schools.” As the result of a particular 2001 hazing episode, a law was passed making death or serious bodily injury resulting from hazing a third degree felony in Florida.
The law was named after Chad Meredith, a University of Miami student who drowned while swimming across a lake infested with alligators as an act of initiation. The first students to be charged in violation of the anti-hazing law were members of the Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity at Florida A&M University in 2005. By 2002, 43 states had passed legislation prohibiting hazing. As an example, Ohio’s Bill 444 criminalized “doing any act or coercing another, including the victim, to do any act of initiation unto any student or other organization that causes or creates a substantial risk of causing mental or physical harm to a person.” Similar laws nationwide take a step in the right direction for stopping the hazing crisis.
Today, certain law firms have chosen to specialize in hazing cases and some even put out specialty publications on the issue. New York State’s anti-hazing laws remain among the strictest in the United States. Nevertheless, most of this legislation has hardly been enough to stop hazing from continuing at establishments of higher learning. Some experts point to the fact that there are far too few law enforcement officers to be able to handle any serious percentage of hazing cases. Legal loopholes have also been used to avoid the punishment specified by regulations.
Laws against hazing by fraternities and sororities in Washington, Pennsylvania and a number of other states have been avoided when the hazing took place in other settings. Simultaneously, the penalties for hazing are extremely lenient, as the majority of states classify hazing as a misdemeanor. Even in cases of death, punishment for offenders is typically limited to community service or very brief jail sentences. As a result, the prevailing trend is for incidents to generate civil rather than criminal charges. Legal punishments for hazing need to be significantly stiffened to impede its use. With only weak penalties looming, offenders do not think twice about continuing.
- Rocco Zambito, Jr.
Student President
ARTICLE III (November 2011)
Hazing Comprehension
Due to poor comprehension of what constitutes hazing and the unwillingness of most to report the acts, hazing frequently occurs without proper documentation. A recent study on hazing in college athletics is among the most extensive ever performed on the issue and helps bring to light many truths of the matter.
Results from the study show that when it comes to college athletes, those who are not hazed are actually the minority. Not only did 70 percent of varsity athletes admit participation in hazing behavior, 60 percent of club-sport members did as well. One would wonder how so much hazing could fly under the radar of the general public. The particularly surprising answer is that even the majority of those being hazed do not realize it. In the study, only 12 percent of college athletes explicitly answered that they had been hazed. However, another 67 percent detailed undergoing behaviors that are considered hazing. Yet, these students did not acknowledge that they had been hazed because they did not realize the actions were in fact considered hazing. Furthermore, of the general student population, up to 90 percent of those who have actually been hazed do not believe they have been hazed. These figures show that a better understanding of hazing is needed not only by bystanders, but also by those involved with hazing. One way of doing this is to outline some of the actions considered hazing.
With a definition as broad as hazing, the actions that fall into the category are almost endless. Hazing has a long history, with the first reported incident coming in 1923 at Hobart College. That episode consisted of the beating of a freshman football player, who two older players proceeded to throw into a lake. A few of the tactics used for the purpose of hazing include physical abuse, forced actions that endanger victims, mental harassment, public or private humiliation, sexual acts and degradation.
Another common connection with hazing is the consumption of alcohol, commonly as the forced drinking of copious amounts. Indeed, three recent studies at separate universities show that between 35 percent and 40 percent of hazing involves drinking games or forced alcohol consumption. Another growing aspect of hazing is the use of the Internet to post pictures and videos of the events to increase embarrassment. A number of high profile cases have revealed how despicable the actions of hazing can be.
In 2003, the Northwestern University women’s soccer team made headlines when a night of hazing included sexual exploits, players being tied up, forced exercise and underage drinking. Making the matter even worse, humiliating pictures of the events were subsequently posted online by veteran players.
Other less outrageous actions can also have serious negative effects. At least one coach realizes the importance of stopping any and all forms of hazing. New York state football coach Dave Falco says of his team, “There’s no hazing at all. No singing songs, no push-ups, no carrying water or equipment, nothing. It always starts with the little things”. It is important to give these incidents as much consideration as those that shock us, as they both are harmful to students. It is quite possible that proper hazing education is the first major step to preventing it.
- Rocco Zambito, Jr.
Student President
ARTICLE II (October 2011)
Hazing Defined
Hazing transpires and continues for a number of reasons. Analyzing these factors helps us to not only understand why hazing happens and persists, but also provides insight into how the problem of hazing can be stopped. There are roots for explanations of hazing in the fields of sociology, psychology and biology.
Furthermore, an evaluation of cultural factors supplies enlightenment into both why hazing occurs and also why it is allowed to resume. An examination of these causes can help us to discover how hazing can be prevented, how it can be dealt with once it begins to occur and more specifically, how it should be handled in different situations. In spite of the usefulness of such information, it is of no value if it falls on deaf ears. As such, a prime objective is to inform others of the anguish that hazing brings to the lives of its unfortunate victims. Upon the consideration of enumerable findings and incidents, this should not be that difficult. Future articles produced by the Hazing Prevention Center will attempt to analyze all of these issues. To start with, it is essential to first answer a much simpler question: what exactly is hazing?
A recent study showed that only 40 percent of students could properly define what hazing is. While definitions may vary, hazing is most frequently classified as “any activity expected of someone joining a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers, regardless of the person’s willingness to participate”.
There are a few aspects of this description that are of special significance. First, it is imperative to point out that hazing does not have to be an act of physical violence. Just as often as not, hazing consists of non-physical degradation. Many people believe that since an action does not cause bodily injury, it is really not that bad. This line of thinking is highly flawed. To the contrary, mental and emotional attacks can commonly be even more devastating than physical damage. If we are trying to protect students from harm, it is crucial to guard them from psychological abuse as diligently as we do from physical violence.
The second piece of the definition worth pointing out is that an act is considered hazing independent of whether the victim is willing to participate. Making this distinction is not only important to understanding what constitutes hazing; doing so will also play a key role in the discontinuation of hazing. One reason hazing is commonly allowed to persist is that its victims frequently show minimal signs of resisting the action. This is because the main objective of victims while being hazed is usually to endure the punishment to prove their worth to the team or group. As a result, those being hazed will usually appear willing to participate. Instead of being a reason for allowing hazing to continue, this is actually further support for the prevention of hazing. It shows that hazing creates challenging circumstances in which people permit themselves to suffer for what they believe will ultimately result in a greater good. With hazing abolished, such agony would not have to be endured for futile reasoning.
Indeed, studies reveal that hazing is ineffective at accomplishing its goals. One of the most widely held misconceptions of hazing is the belief that it can actually develop better teams by building cohesion among members. Research shows that for this reason most of those being hazed are willing to put up with it, rather than exposing the offenders or simply distancing themselves from the situation. One count approximates that only 15 percent of those hazed considered informing anyone, while 96 percent of athletes being hazed do not even consider quitting a team just because of the hazing. If hazing were to be eliminated, students would not be forced into these difficult situations and the pain they result in. My next article will focus on not only how extensive hazing is, but also upon how poorly it’s understood.
- Rocco Zambito, Jr.
Student President
ARTICLE I (October 2011)
Center President Addresses Hazing
Deeply entwined within the fabric of our country, there lies an obstacle for many students that has persisted for far too long. Across the nation, our children, friends, brothers and sisters alike are burdened by this unnecessary adversity. While there is hardly a setting in which it does not occur, perhaps it is most disappointing that we allow it to take place in our schools. It has long maintained its place in locker rooms, athletic fields, dormitories and other student housing. By almost any interpretation of the law it is abuse, yet, very little it being done to combat it. Some attempt to justify it, most simply ignore it, but one thing is for sure: it is time for our society to get serious about the prevention of hazing.
A simple evaluation reveals that hazing is plaguing our nation. A 2010 study revealed that over 1.5 million high school students have been hazed. It also happens in clubs and even at the workplace. However, hazing has proven to be most prevalent at institutions of higher education. Research shows that 47 percent of college freshman have already been affected by hazing. At American colleges and universities, hazing has served for decades as a rite of passage for acceptance into sports teams, fraternities and sororities, marching bands and other groups. Some recent high-profile cases of hazing have shed light on the terror many have faced for years in silence. Subsequently, we have seen some laws be passed in underwhelming attempts to curb the cruelty. Nevertheless, this was hardly enough to stop hazing from continuing at establishments of higher learning. Far too few care enough to significantly reduce events of hazing, and even fewer understand the proper strategies for combating it.
As a matter of fact, a dismally low percentage of the population truly has a proper grasp on what exactly hazing is. If these people better understood what hazing was, who it affects, the affects that it has, why it occurs and how it should be handled, it is likely that we could drastically limit the trials and tribulations caused by hazing. Accordingly, it is essential for tactics, initiatives, policies and methods to be developed and implemented that extremely reduce occurrences of hazing in our country’s colleges and universities.
This is where Medaille’s Hazing Prevention Center comes in. The goal of this initiative is to raise awareness and ultimately thwart the hazing of students in our nation’s high schools, colleges and universities. The ambition of the Hazing Prevention Center is to educate others about the existence and impacts of hazing through a wide variety of media including: research studies, essays, documentaries and appearances in newspapers, radio interviews and at local schools. Additionally, much of our work will be consistently posted on the Medaille SPM website. This is a great opportunity for all Medaille students, particularly Sport Management majors, to get involved for the betterment of both the college and local communities. If you would like to participate in any way, you can e-mail me at ~ rz47@medaille.edu ~. Any contribution to the Hazing Prevention Center is appreciated and will go a long way towards fighting this problem. So let’s all do what we can to bring an end to hazing and the hardships it causes.
- Rocco Zambito, Jr.
Student President
