Hazing: A breakdown of Justice
A look at hazing through the lens of student development theory

Eric J. Roach

Hazing is an epidemic that continues to haunt colleges and universities and, as evidence suggests, it is not only a plague found in Greek organizations on college campuses.  I will examine the reasons as to why one would haze and why one would allow him or her self to be hazed by using student development theories, particularly the moral development theories of Kohlberg and Gilligan, and the cognitive development theory of Perry.  By using these theories we can analyze why the hazing activities continue and also offer some solutions to help students develop into moral and responsible citizens that will help rid our society of the negative consequences of hazing.

It is often assumed that hazing stems from only Greek organizations on college campuses.  Yes, hazing does occur within these groups, but hazing is prevalent in other college groups as well.  “Administrators have failed to crack down on athletic groups, bands, spirit clubs, and other organizations that encourage hazing” (Nuwer, 1998, p. 204).  Club sports have been a large haven for hazing and has claimed two known deaths (pp. 259,279).  Evidence also show that students are experiencing hazing before they reach college.  “High school incidents include athletic team hazing, band hazing, cheerleader and pom-pom squad hazing, and club hazing” (p. 213).  What began in Athens around has become a common word and unfortunately a more common activity on college and university campuses and beyond (p. 92).      

The definition of hazing, as according the Supreme Executive Committee of the Kappa Sigma Fraternity, is as follows:

"Hazing is defined as any action or situation created by any Kappa Sigma Chapter or by any member, undergraduate or alumnus, to produce or result in mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment or ridicule or as may otherwise be prohibited by local rules, statutes or ordinances. Some of the prohibited behaviors may include but are not limited to paddling or physical abuse in any form; creation of fatigue including sleep depravation; physical or psychological shocks; kidnapping; scavenger hunts; personal servitude; verbal abuse; required uniforms; morally degrading or humiliating games and activities; lineups; the use of pledge requirements such as signatures or interviews as a means of harassment; any activities which may tend to expose initiates or pledges to physical danger including but not limited to activities involving the consumption of any alcoholic beverage or any other beverage; any other activities which would disrupt public order or tend to bring the Fraternity into disrepute in the local community; and any other activities not consistent with Kappa Sigma Fraternity principles; federal, state, provincial or local laws or the regulations of the host college or university, whether voluntary or involuntary. (Supreme Executive Committee of the Kappa Sigma Fraternity 2001)

Similar definitions of hazing are developed by each individual fraternity and sorority, as well as the NIC (North American Interfraternity Conference), AFA (Association of Fraternity Advisors), NPC (National Panhellenic Conference), FIPG (Fraternal Information & Programming Group), etc.  Colleges and universities also develop their own standards to defining hazing, often outlined in the student handbook or in the student code of ethics. Often times hazing policies are written in a very “black and white” fashion.  Hazing is often defined as a “list” of activities that constitute hazing. According to Perry’s intellectual and ethical model of student development, those students in the dualism stage would view items on this list to be wrong activities. Items not on the list would be acceptable.  The first position in the dualism structure states that everything is seen as right or wrong and that there are no shades of gray.  A hazing policy that list activities can be somewhat ineffective because “undergraduates scan it carefully to find loopholes” (Nuwer, 1999, p. 35).

If policies seem to be ineffective we must then look to student development theories to help us reach a solution.  Our best way to use Perry’s theory to help students better interpret and understand hazing policies would be to look at the Developmental Instruction Model of Knefelkamp and Widick.  This Developmental Instruction Model consists of four variables of challenge and support which are structure, diversity, experiential learning, and personalism (Evans, 1998). The two variables that can be effective in our work with students and helping them to understand hazing policies are the experiential learning and structure variables.  Methods used in the experiential learning would be case studies, role-plays, and reflection (1998).  “Structure refers to the framework and direction provided to the students” (p. 138).  In giving them direction when understanding and interpreting the hazing policies we can use specific examples that reflect the students experience (1998).  In an attempt to better explain the hazing policies to pledges and members, we may need to hold workshops that use the Developmental Instructional Model as a framework.             

            As college and high school students continue to violate hazing policies, they must be lacking the developmental skills to decide what is morally right from wrong.  The moral decisions of students to follow the policies or not follow the policies can be analyzed through the lens of Kohlberg’s theory of moral development.

Level I: Preconvential (“What’s in it for me?”)
Stage 1:  Heternonomous Morality	“Right is considered obeying rules and authority
Stage 2:Individualist, Instrumental Morality	Individual is concerned with satisfying own needs and minimizing the possibility of negative consequences to himself/herself
Level II: Conventional (“Member of Society” Perspective)
Stage 3: Interpersonally Normative Morality	Individual seeks to do what will gain approval of others
Stage 4: Social System Morality	Individual is oriented toward authority, fixed rules and maintenance of social order

(Boucher, 11/20/01)

The Pre-conventional Level (Level 1) of Kohlberg’s theory suggests that judgements and actions are weighted according to the consequences.  If Greek members, athletes, and high school students were able to haze without being discovered, then they would continue to do so until they get caught. When they are caught, the punishments are often only a “slap on the wrist,” then, according to Kohlberg’s theory it is likely that the activities will continue to occur.

Often, hazing continues because students are unwilling or unable to stand up for what they think is right and try to implement change by totally removing hazing from their organizations.  If a student might be seen as a wimp or lose status within the group, then according to Level I, Stage 2 of Kohlberg’s theory, hazing is serving and satisfying their own needs to feel that their actions are justified.  If the hazer is found to be in the conventional level of Kolhbergs theory (Level II), than the hazer’s “concern centers around maintaining one’s image as a good person and gaining the approval of others” (Evans, 1998, p. 174).  If the leadership of the group and the more popular members of the group are involved in hazing activities then other members wishing to be in their shoes will find hazing an acceptable practice.

Kohlberg’s conventional level may also suggest why a student would allow himself or herself to be subjected to moral and physical abuse; they seek to “gain approval of others” (Evans, 1998, p. 174).  Often times I think new students recruited into the Greek system or those recruited to play collegiate sports expect to be hazed in one way, shape, or form.  Sacrificing personal safety and allowing one self to be physically or mentally abused is worth it since they are “striving to preserve the expectations of the family, group, and society regardless of immediate and obvious consequences” (Boucher, 11/20/01).  This attitude of trying to live up to the expectations of the group will allow hazing to continue in an unbreakable cycle.   

Continuing to look at the theory from the point of view of the student being hazed, the first stage of the pre-conventional level forces us to look at who is seen as the “authoritative” figure.  As the role of a pledge too often suggests, they are not in any position of authority. All orders, enforcement, and directions are filtered through the pledge educator, new member educator, or who is sometimes referred to as pledge master.  In this situation, any hazing activities are conducted with the full knowledge of this authority figure and the pledges and new members are inclined to go along with the activities.  The pledges will see these actions as acceptable and will continue to be hazed.

Hazing is not only limited to male student groups.  Since 1970, six sorority women have been killed from hazing or alcohol related activities (Nuwer,1999). Using Gilligan’s theory of women’s moral development we can attempt to identify why women, who are often characterized as caring and nurturing, consciously put other women in harms way, and or allow themselves to be subjected to silly, humiliating, and often dangerous acts.     

From the perspective of Gilligan’s theory, the failure of female pledges and active members to see that hazing is wrong, and that it should be stopped, may be that they “give up their own judgement in order to achieve consensus and remain in connection with others” (Evans, 1998, p. 192).  This decision of consensus is explained by Gilligan’s Goodness as self sacrifice (Level II).  Once a potential member reaches the threshold of membership they would go to great lengths to remain with the group.  These young women may personally be able to see that hazing is wrong, but since the majority of the members sees the activities as acceptable than they are not able to stand up and put a stop to the inappropriate activities.   

Ideally, as a student progresses through each stage they would find themselves at what Kohlberg describes as the post-conventional level.  In this level “the individual separates himself or herself from the expectations of others and bases decisions on self chosen principles” (Evans, 1998, p. 174).  Through the “lens” of Gillgan’s theory we would love to see students reach level 3, described by Gilligan as the Morality of Nonviolence Level.  In this stage one “Recognizes power to choose from competing choices” (Evans, p. 193).  As student affairs professionals, Greek advisors, coaches, headquarters representatives, we are in dire search of these students who have developed to this stage of moral development. If hazing can successfully and totally be removed from Greek organizations and college athletics, we need to seek out these students and use them as a means to tackle hazing from the inside out.   

How do we then attempt to put theory to practice and take an aggressive move towards eliminating hazing?  Our first step would be to “expose students to a higher stage of thinking” (Evans, 1998, p. 178).  This can be achieved by openly discussing the role hazing plays in student development.  As student affairs professionals, we cannot brush hazing under the carpet.  We need to seek out students at higher levels of moral development to help us.  Unfortunately, some colleges and universities fail to address these issues.  Often, a university does not know what is going on to begin with because “the university maintains a hands-off relationship with the Greek groups or the incident occurred off campus”(Nuwer, 1999, p. 22). We can assume that off-campus is where most athletic hazing occurs.  Kohlberg also suggests that cognitive conflict or disequilibrium helps to “move” students to the next level of moral development.  “This conflict occurs when individuals face situations that arouse internal contradictions in their moral reasoning” (Evans, 1998, p. 178).  Consider a student who finds no moral problem with inflicting hazing upon a pledge until his real younger brother pledges the chapter and he is protective of his own blood brother as others in the chapter begin to haze him.  What was acceptable with someone he was not supposed to look out after is now unacceptable since he is expected to care for a sibling.  According to fraternity values, we would expect members would want to care for their future brothers.      

            If we want to rid our high schools and university campuses of hazing we need to admit the problem exists and get every stakeholder involved in the solution process.  These stakeholders need to be students, faculty, deans, presidents, athletic directors, coaches, captains, parents, AFA, NIC, NPC, community members, campus and off campus police.  Hazing may be the “sleeping giant” on our campuses that we need to eliminate before it “wakes” up.  Hopefully by using student development theories we can approach our mission with research and data that supports how students think and what they think so we are able to develop proactive and preventative programs that rid hazing in all shapes and forms.  Hopefully, one day, individuals willing to take a stand against hazing and eliminate it will dominate our campuses.        

Bibliography

Boucher, Jacinda L. (2001).  Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. Orono, ME.   

Evans, J.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research and practice.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nuwer, H. (1999).  Wrongs of passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing and binge drinking.  Indiana University Press.

Supreme Executive Committee of the Kappa Sigma Fraternity (2001).  Policy on Hazing.  Charlottesville, VA.