The Truth about Hazing: Featuring Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development
Leah E. Shaw
Kent State University
Hazing can easily be considered one of the most debated and controversial issues in Greek Life. Although hazing is illegal (in most states), people continue to do it. Why? Greek letter organizations are deeply rooted in tradition, ritual, and encourage perpetuity. Consider the following quote:
I have been hazed, and I now haze our pledges. If you people ever decided to join an organization that does this, you would understand the purpose it stands for. There is a purpose. It teaches the pledges togetherness, communication, respect, courage, and a huge sense of accomplishment. I can't tell you the feeling I got when at the end of hell week I was able to take off my blind fold and all of the sisters were gathered around us and a banner saying congratulations was there. I had earned something. I had accomplished something. And for that I am a much stronger person and I can accomplish anything I want to no matter how big or small. (Prohazing Comments, 2005)
There are countless others who share those sentiments. As a member of a sorority who was not hazed, I’ve always had a very hard time understanding why people defend this practice. We all took an oath to protect our beloved organizations; yet, people continue to put the livelihoods of those same organizations at risk. In this paper I will define several types of hazing and identify the legal definitions of hazing. Further, I will use Lawrence Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development as an analytical framework to help understand why fraternity men and sorority women willingly subject others to hazing.
What is hazing? That’s part of the problem. Everyone has their own definition of hazing. According to StopHazing.org, there are three different types of hazing – subtle, harassment, and violent.
Table 1
Three Categories of Hazing
Type of Hazing |
Description |
Subtle |
Participant endures ridicule, embarrassment and must complete humiliating tasks in order to feel like part of the group. Activities include but are not limited to:
- Assigning demerits
- Name calling
- Line-ups and Drills/Tests
- Expecting certain items to be in one’s possession
|
Harassment |
Participant endures frustration, confusion, stress, and physical discomfort in order to feel like part of the group. Activities include but are not limited to:
- Verbal abuse
- Degrading, crude or humiliating acts
- Sleep deprivation
- Perform personal service to initiated members
|
Violent |
Participant endures physical, emotional, and/or psychological harm in order to feel like part of the group. Activities include but are not limited to:
- Forced or coerced alcohol/drug/water consumption
- Beating, paddling or other forms of assault
- Forced or coerced ingestion of vile substances or concoctions
- Bondage/Abductions/Kidnaps
|
|
|
Note. Information from the table obtained from www.stophazing.org
What does the law say about hazing? Currently, 44 of the 50 states have anti-hazing laws. The state of Ohio defines hazing as “doing any act or coercing another, including the victim, to do any act of initiation into any student or other organization that causes or creates a substantial risk of causing mental or physical harm to any person” (StopHazing.org). Thus, engaging in such behaviors would be breaking the law. So why do people continue to do it? Considering this question in light of individuals’ moral development may offer some insight.
Lawrence Kohlberg began studying moral development in 1958. He was especially interested in exploring how people make moral judgments. (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998, 173). Kohlberg’s theory has three levels, each containing two sub-stages.
Table 2
Levels and Stages in Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development
Level |
Sub-stages |
Pre-Conventional |
Stage 1: Heteronomous Morality
Stage 2: Individualistic, Instrumental Morality |
Conventional |
Stage 3: Interpersonally Normative Morality
Stage 4: Social System Morality |
Post Conventional |
Stage 5: Human Rights and Social Welfare Morality
Stage 6: Morality of Universalizable, Reversible, and Prescriptive General Ethical Principles. |
|
|
Note: Evans, et al., 1998, pp. 174-5.
In stage 1, it’s all about me. I act selfishly – only doing things (or not doing things) to keep me out of trouble. In stage 2 it’s still all about me, but I’m starting to understand your point of view a little more. Once in stage 3, not only do I see you, but also I worry about what you think of me. I want to impress you in order to gain your approval. In stage 4 I see that there are rules. I do things not to stay out of trouble, but because it’s the right thing to do. Rules are here to protect me, and in stage 5 I also realize there are reasons behind those rules. Although it’s rare, maybe I’ll reach stage 6 – total selflessness.
I will now use Kohlberg’s theory, as an analytic lens through which to view and understand the behavior and choices of Amber, a junior at Shaw State University. Amber has been a member of Kappa Sigma Zeta Sorority since her freshman year. She was hazed and hated it, but she was told that’s what she had to do in order to be a part of the group – everyone else had to do it. Amber swore that if she ever got the chance to be New Member Educator (the chapter refers to her as the Pledgemaster) she would do exactly what had been done to her, but somewhere along the way her feelings changed. Next I will show how Kohlberg’s theory can apply to this situation.
Stage One
Amber wants to be the best Pledgemaster her chapter has ever seen. Even though she did not enjoy being hazed, she knows in order for her to maintain her position, she cannot take it easy on the pledges. If she does, she knows she will be in trouble – with members of the chapter. Amber is committed to following the rules of her chapter. Looking at this stage through the lens of Kohlberg’s theory, one can see that Amber is acting selfishly; only doing things to stay out trouble. In this case, however, Amber defers to the rules of the chapter – not the rules of the university or the state.
Stage Two
The pledge process has started. Amber stuck to her convictions – by no means is she letting the pledges have it easy. She is starting to notice how hard of a time the pledges are having but she cannot care. Amber is still committed to following the rules of her chapter. She is proud of the status that being the Pledgemaster has given her. What’s more important here – her position or the pledges’ feelings? Just as in stage two of Kohlberg’s theory, Amber is still only concerned about her own well-being. However, Amber is now starting to understand that pledges are being treated fairly, but the rules of the chapter still take precedent over university policy and state law.
Stage Three
Amber is conflicted. The chapter is impressed with her actions as Pledgemaster. However, Amber is starting to care more about how the pledges feel about her rather than the chapter. The pledges were told that Amber is the person that is going to look out for them; she’s the person they should trust. Yet, whenever Amber’s around bad things seem to happen. As Amber gains credibility in her chapter, the trust her pledges once had in her is quickly fading. Kohlberg’s theory would say that Amber wants approval, but in this situation she’s not exactly certain whose approval she is looking for.
Stage Four
According to stage four of Kohlberg’s theory, this is the point where Amber should start realizing that there are truly rules in place. She doesn’t care if the chapter forces her to step down from her position – enough is enough. Amber knows that hazing is wrong – it’s illegal. What if someone gets hurt? What if they got caught? What would that teach their pledges? Amber can no longer help to inflict physical and mental anguish on the pledges. Amber knows that there has to be a way to create the bonds of sisterhood without bondage. As Kohlberg’s theory shows, Amber is beyond following rules to stay out of trouble. Amber is starting to see the big picture – she’s learning how to figure out “the right thing to do.”
Stages Five and Six
The chapter is furious with Amber and wants to remove her from her position as Pledgemaster. In order to defend herself to the chapter, Amber decides to do a presentation on the dangers and consequences of hazing. Amber challenges the chapter members to think about their sorority and how hazing continues to place it in jeopardy. According to Kohlberg’s theory, Amber is now realizing (and even teaching) why rules are in place and the purpose they serve.
Amber got through to a great deal of her sisters, however, most still felt that they were in too deep to change things now. Amber was asked to step down from her position, but she was also asked to come up with ideas for what the chapter could do for next pledge class. Amber is a bit disappointed that she did not get the outcome she desired, but she is happy that her chapter is willing to make some changes. Amber is not on verge of total selflessness as Kohlberg calls for in stage six, but she is in a much better stage than when she first started.
Implications for Practitioners
Although this scenario had a semi-happy ending, it is not always reality. Most students in hazing situations never make it beyond stages two through four – even if they see a problem, most don’t have the courage to stand up and do anything about it.
Hazers . . . are nothing more or less than addicts in an addictive system. For hazing to continue to survive within the education system, as it has for thousands of years, requires dependence and tolerance—the two common characteristics of addiction…on the parts not only of hazers and the hazed but also of those who supervise them. (Nuwer, 1999, pp. 114–15)
We as college administrators cannot turn a blind eye to hazing. We cannot read about hazing incidents occurring on other campuses and think that it’s not happening on our own.
Barbara Hollaman, in “Hazing: Hidden Campus Crime” gives eight strategies administrators can implement in their attempts to prevent hazing:
- Get Our Ducks in a Row: Make sure your institutional policies address hazing in a consistent manner. Consequences should be clear and taken seriously.
- Communicate Clearly and Provide Educational Programs: Training programs on confronting hazing should be developed. Education should be ongoing and proactive – not reactive!
- Attack High-Risk Alcohol Consumption: High-risk alcohol consumption and hazing have been known to go hand in hand. Again, be proactive – not reactive!
- Monitor Activities of Student Organizations: We as administrators should always know what is going on in our student organizations. We should communicate with advisors and members about initiation practices.
- Investigate and Enforce: Just as we expect students to take hazing policies seriously, administrators must take hazing reports just as seriously. Students and staff must be held responsible for their actions.
- Build Relationships with National Organizations: Campus administrators need to work with the leadership of fraternity and sorority national offices in order to prevent, educate, and discipline on hazing issues.
- Facilitate Alternative Team Building Initiation Rites: We should provide resources to assist students in selecting team-building activities. If we tell students not to haze, we must be prepared to offer alternatives!
- Provide Student Leadership Education and Transition: Students must feel like they are a part of this process. Administration should not only provide hazing education, but also leadership training that can be passed down throughout the years.
Hazing is a problem that has continued to plague Greek letter organizations for hundreds of years. Sororities and fraternities have a lot to offer our undergraduate students. Greek letter organizations help cultivate leadership, problem solving, organizational, and interpersonal skills.
Kohlberg’s theory helps to shed some light on why students justify hazing their peers. Kohlberg’s theory also gives insight on how our students can overcome that mindset. When armed with that knowledge, student affairs practitioners can and must make every effort possible to educate our students about the dangers of hazing, to train our students on how to confront hazing, and discipline students involved with hazing – in order to protect the livelihood of our students, their beloved organizations, and the safety of our campuses.
References
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S. & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student Development in
College. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Hazing Defined. (2005). Retrieved November 25, 2006, from http://www.StopHazing.org/definition.html
Hollaman, B. (2002). Hazing: hidden campus crime. New Directions for
Student Services, 99, 11-23.
Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of passage: fraternities, sororities, hazing, and binge
drinking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Ohio Hazing Law. (2005). Retrieved November 25, 2006, from
http://stophazing.org/laws/oh_law.htm
ProHazing Comments. (2005). Retrieved November 25, 2006, from
http://www.stophazing.org/pro-hazing/112006.htm
|
