Rituals of hazing can be gruesome, sometimes deadly. Since 1970, there has been at least one hazing-related death on a college campus each year. To learn more about what’s being done to stop the practice, the Orlando Sentinel Editorial Board contacted HazingPrevention.org, and sought out Gregory S. Parks, a law professor at Wake Forest University.
Q: Is there a reliable gauge for the prevalence of college hazing?
A: There isn’t enough investment in hazing research. As such, my sense is that there is no ongoing assessment of hazing and its prevalence. However, in 2008, Drs. Elizabeth Allen and Mary Madden issued a report on a national hazing study they conducted. They found that roughly 50 percent of high-school students experience hazing.
Q: Are reported incidents of hazing increasing or diminishing?
A: As far as whether it is increasing or decreasing, I’m not sure. One thing I’ll say is that, at least in African-American fraternities, the hazing has become more physically violent, at least since the 1950s. I imagine that in many ways, hazing has evolved over the course of the 20th and 21st centuries. A more nuanced assessment, however, would require some empirical analysis.
Q: Why does the practice of hazing persist in Greek life and sports?
A: Part of the reason is because it operates in the realm of unknown-unknowns. We haven’t even begun to ask the right questions about hazing, probably because we don’t know what questions to ask. As such, we’re guided by a handful of studies and theories that don’t rise to the level of the problem. In addition, and similarly, the way we think about hazing often borders the simplistic — e.g., bad teenagers, need to belong, alcohol use. It’s hard for us to think about hazing in all its complexity. Accordingly, our problem-solving efforts focus on limited and disparate components of the problem. That’s not a recipe for success.
Q: Why do young people agree to subject themselves to hazing?
A: There are any number of reasons that may work in concert with one another. HazingPrevention.Org recently submitted an amicus brief in a hazing case (Martin v. Florida) before the Florida Supreme Court. The brief provided a variety of reasons why victims acquiesce to hazing. One is that, if you think about hazing in college, hazing victims may have become habituated to it by being hazed at an earlier point — e.g., high-school athletics.
Also, hazing victims may not know what they’re getting into. For one, they have little incentive to independently learn about the risks associated with hazing. Nobody can know everything, and unless given a reason, hazing victims may not do their due diligence with respect to it before the hazing begins. … In the context of hazing, perpetrators not only have an incentive to keep the history, culture and risks associated with it secret vis-à-vis potential hazing victims. They also have an incentive to lie to potential hazing victims to increase the likelihood that the potential victim becomes an actual victim. …
Q: Why do Greek organizations, sports teams and other groups still practice hazing?
A: … Members persist in hazing because they think it provides value to the group experience. They believe it screens out individuals who may fail to commit to or invest in the group. They believe that hazing facilitates liking for the organization, its members and builds bonds between those being hazed. They believe that it is organizational tradition, one worthy of perpetuating. They’re convinced of its value by the “war stories” they hear from older and alumni members. At the end of the day, they still practice it because no meaningful set of solutions has been brought to bear on the problem.
Q: What are the psychological consequences of hazing?
A: I think the most common psychological consequences of hazing are poor self-esteem, PTSD and depression. In rare circumstances, the depression may become so great that the victim commits suicide.
Q: Should colleges and universities be required to track and report hazing and turn over reports to law enforcement?
A: The short answer is yes. My sense is that more and clearer information and data are best in trying to solve problems.
Q: Should anti-hazing educational programs be mandatory?
A: In short, yes. Research in the areas of deviant, financial, health-related decision-making suggests that individuals with greater risk awareness are less inclined to engage in risky behavior. The only way to have a meaningful appreciation for risk in any context is to be educated on it. Employing this body of research, some colleagues and I conducted a study in which we investigated the risk awareness of members of African-American fraternities and sororities with respect to hazing. As predicted, those who were more aware of the risks associated with hazing were less inclined to engage in it. It’s important to note, however, that not all education is the same. Information is likely to be more effective to change human behavior when its presented substantively and in ways that research suggests are more likely to effectuate learning.
Q: What are some recommendations for colleges to curtail hazing?
A: First, colleges should provide basic, mandatory anti-hazing training to all incoming freshmen. The training must be designed to not simply provide “some” information that washes over students. Rather, colleges should educate them on this issue the same way they seek to educate students in the classroom — i.e., using effective teaching and learning methods. Moreover, students should be taught actual skills to address hazing, from bystander intervention to reducing one’s own cognitive biases.
Second, colleges should provide in-depth, mandatory anti-hazing training for members and prospective members organizations that are most at risk for hazing — e.g., fraternities, sororities, athletics, marching bands.
Third, colleges should provide their front-line staff with the tools needed to combat the issues. That would include training, whether on-campus or sending them to retreats or conferences — e.g., HazingPrevenetion.Org.
Fourth, colleges should keep better data on hazing on their respective, campuses. It’ll be easier to get their heads around the issue if they can ascertain its prevalence, nature and scope in quantifiable ways.
Fifth, colleges should allocate funds for faculty and divisions that seek to do research on the topic. One of the chief things that undermines our ability to understand hazing is that there is such limited research on the issue.
Sixth, we need honest dialogue within organizations and on campuses about race and gender. Some of my research has shown that hazing manifests itself differently in organizations in racialized ways. For example, black fraternities and sororities have far more violent hazing than white fraternities and sororities. Hazing also seems more violent in Asian-American fraternities. White fraternities and sororities, on the other hand, have hazing that is much more defined by alcohol use. In addition, hazing seems to be much more perverse in male organizations than female organizations. We must get to the root of these issues and be able to discuss them.
Seventh, as I noted, the laws must reflect what the social science dictates. For example, my colleague Jonathan Cardi did a study in which he found that criminal sanctions serve as a more deterrent force than civil sanctions. With that in mind, anti-hazing statutes should have more bite than the current bark they tend to demonstrate. Arguably, more statutes must criminalize hazing at the felony level.
Eighth, and last, I think the most controversial aspect of addressing hazing is taking a hard look in the mirror. The question is: Who should be looking in that mirror? I think we accept that hazers should look. I think we feel wrong for saying that parents of hazing victims should look. I think we feel really wrong for saying that hazing victims should look. I think it doesn’t dawn on us that legislators, and judges, and lawyers and the insurance industry should look. Looking in the mirror isn’t about assigning blame, necessarily. It’s about asking where the greatest point of intervention is to move toward eradicating hazing. No single person or institution or person is responsible. Hazing exists because of an entire system of people and institutions that propagates it.
With that said, I think the greatest point of intervention is organizations. Much of my research has focused on hazing in black fraternities and sororities. Within these organizations whether or not to address hazing, the amount of resources to be directed at the problem, what voices who get heard or silenced, almost entirely boils down to the decision of one person — i.e., the national head. If he or she don’t understand the problem, isn’t interested in addressing it, too insecure to acknowledge a lack of insight and look for legitimate help, the problem won’t get solved. Ultimately, across organization type, you need chief decision-makers — leaders — who are deeply committed to addressing this issue. The challenge is that given organizational politics and models for leadership ascension, it may be virtually impossible to get such decisionmakers.
Q: What do you think about talk of hazing legislation that would apply specifically to athletics or outlaw consent as a defense for perpetrators?
A: As far as laws specifically targeting athletics, that doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. I’m not convinced that athletic hazing is so distinct from hazing in other contexts to warrant its own, narrowly focused legislation. As far as removing consent as a defense, thoughtful legislation here could be helpful. Law is a tool to shape and control human behavior. With that said, unless you understand the roots of the behavior that you’re seeking to shape and control, simply providing sanctions for it may be of little effect. I think the pervasive attitude among anti-hazing advocates is that hazing victims can never consent to hazing. If that’s the case, anti-hazing legislation should always have non-consent language. While I think the social science supports the notion that hazing consent is quite difficult to give, I’m not sure that in some rare contexts it isn’t possible. I realize that such an assessment from someone like me may be jarring to readers. However, I think if we find ourselves more committed to the research and the data we can find more effective solutions to hazing than if we’re largely guided by emotions and what we would like to see.
Q: What changes would you recommend?
A: The road forward isn’t straightforward and narrow. We won’t dramatically reduce hazing by sanctioning hazers more harshly. Our approach must be sophisticated in ways that it, heretofore, hasn’t been. First, embrace the idea that hazing isn’t about one issue. Rather, it is about a whole host of factors at many different levels, many of which interact with one another in complex ways. Second, we must be committed sifting through data, research, theories and best practices in a range of areas even — especially — where that information hasn’t traditionally focused on hazing. Third, put your money where your mouth is. We need more concrete answers, and the only way we can discover them is through funded research. Fourth, education is the key. Students, aspiring organization members, organization members, and anti-hazing advocates need more information. If you want to address hazing but haven’t read the research and writings on it, you’re ill-equipped to address it. Teenagers and young adults seeking organizational membership — as well as their parents — or who are organization members have little incentive to educate themselves about hazing. Accordingly, individuals who and institutions that want to eradicate hazing must provide meaningful education on the issue. That education must be deeply substantive, be taught in a way designed such that it is learned, and evaluated to ensure that it is internalized and understood.
Q: Is it realistic to think hazing can ever be eliminated?
A: No, but I’m not sure that should be the goal. I believe that we should be asking ourselves: What is the fullest breadth and depth of hazing we can conceptualize with the research, data and theories currently available to us? What is the fullest range of solutions that can be brought to bear on the problem in all its complexity? What are the ways in which these solutions can be brought to bear on the problem? And what are the obstacles — including us — that are in our way with respect to implementing these solutions? If we can move toward honest and meaningful answers to these questions, I’m optimistic that while hazing may exist at some low-level in various places, we wouldn’t need to worry much about deaths, injuries and liability issues.
