An Analysis of Hazing through the Lens of Student Development Theory

Jennifer Tumlin

The Many Definitions of Hazing

There are many working definitions for hazing; the differences stem from the various organizations objectives and missions. Hazing is typically divided into two types: physical and mental. The most comprehensive definition available lists hazing as an action designed “to intimidate by physical punishment; to harass by exacting unnecessary, disagreeable, or difficult work; to harass or try to embarrass or disconnect by banter, ridicule, or criticism; to subject to treatment intended to put in ridiculous or disconcerting positions; to separate from a group.” (Nuwer, 2000, front cover)

Hazing includes, but is not limited to physical brutality including whipping, beating and branding; physical activity that subjects a participant to unreasonable harm such as sleep deprivation, calisthenics and exposure to weather; forced consumption of alcohol, drugs or tobacco products; any activity that requires the violation of a state or federal law, or a school policy regulation. (Nuwer, 2000)

Which Groups Haze?

The most common misconception is that only Greek organizations, such as fraternities and sororities, haze their new members as a rite of acceptance. This is not so. Athletic teams, clubs, gangs and the military have also been accused of hazing in recent years. This is not because hazing is new to these groups. Hazing has existed in various forms since the time of Plato. It is only now that widespread educational efforts have brought attention to its prevalence. During the 1980s and 1990s hazing became recognizable in high school populations. Acts of initiation which were originally designed to create group unity have evolved into harmful, sometimes fatal rituals that are required for admission to the organization. One scholar goes so far to hypothesize that hazing is “born in secondary schools” created by today’s youth looking for rituals in short supply. (Nuwer, 2000, p.20)

Why Does Hazing Occur?

Although many hazers insist they continue the practice to develop group unity and instill respect for the organization in its new members, research shows that hazing continues merely as a cycle of abuse. Senior group members perpetuate the cycle of hazing as a way to exact revenge for the abuse they suffered as new members. (Nuwer, 1999) Hazing newcomers can also be seen as a way to recover one’s own lost dignity, “otherwise (it) would require members to admit that the hazing they endured was pointless and wrong.” (Nuwer, 2000, p.26) Not so surprising, many victims of hazing report symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder during and after the time of the abusive behaviors they endure. (Nuwer, 2000)

Women and Hazing

Hazing is not limited to one sex. Women’s sports teams, after-school organizations, sororities and gangs also have initiation rituals that are classified as hazing. The use of alcohol in these practices is just as prevalent as in men’s organizations. To date, the only difference in women’s hazing practices is the lower number of reported physical abuse. Mental anguish is judged to occur at the same rate as in male groups. (Nuwer, 1999)

Education as a Tool for Ending Hazing

Our responsibility as a Student Affairs Professional lies in supporting and advocating for our students. We cannot begin to address the problem of hazing without first educating ourselves, our students and the campus community as to the dangers of the practice of hazing. Programming must be implemented and made available to all university sponsored organizations which are at risk for hazing behaviors. Foremost among these groups are athletic teams, fraternities, sororities, and ROTC military classes. Any complaints or rumors of suspect behavior must be investigated thoroughly by the appropriate office, (either the Greek Council, Judicial Affairs, Public Safety or the Office of the Dean of Students). Counseling Center and Residence Hall staff must be taught to identify symptoms that indicate stressful or traumatic reactions. The campus community should be made aware of high intensity periods such as Hell Week or Pledge Days so that out of the ordinary behaviors are not written off as having little meaning. Students need to feel respected and validated so they become comfortable reporting harmful behavior to an agent of the university.

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg proposed his theory of moral development after studying the reasoning abilities of adolescent males in 1958. Since that time he and several colleagues have researched and revised his initial findings to more accurately reflect the current social environment. His theory consists of six stages divided into three levels: Pre-Conventional, Conventional, and Post-Conventional.

At the Pre-Conventional level, students focus on following the rules to first avoid being punished, (stage one, heteronomous morality), secondly to satisfy their own interests, (stage two, individualistic, instrumental morality). What is right is defined by what is fair. What is fair is colored by their own perception of their needs.

Students at the Conventional level believe that what is right is achieved by meeting societal expectations and being a good person, (stage three, interpersonally normative morality). Upholding the laws of society is the fulfillment of one’s obligation to it, (stage four, social system morality).

Attainment of the Post-Conventional level requires a student to move past viewing laws as right and believing in one’s own obligation to fulfilling a social contract, (stage five, human rights and social welfare morality). When giving full consideration to each member’s perspective of a moral situation, decisions are based on an ethic of responsibility to society, (stage six, morality of universalizable, reversible, and prescriptive general ethical principles). (Evans, et al, 1998)

College students often begin school with a morality at level one or level two. When new students pledge themselves to a student group that practices hazing, it is easy to understand how their own sense of morality can make allowances for the treatment they receive. By granting admission to a new student who is looking to fulfill his or her own needs, possibly for the first time, and asking for respect in return, the established group slowly begins to exert a power over the new member that, although questionable, seems worthy of satisfying the new student’s need to belong. If a student grows during the journey through college, and becomes an established group member, even a leader, the evolution of his or her development is a continuation of the practices of hazing that led him or her to the position he or she currently holds. This can only be viewed as an accomplishment and so the cycle of hazing continues in an effort to afford new group members the opportunity to one day reach a similar position. By doing so, this leader is upholding the laws of the society he or she has come to live by and encourages others to follow in this path he or she has found. Based on this theory of moral development, hazing is not a danger to the group, but a growth experience. It is only after reaching the Post-Conventional level, where human rights and social welfare are the overriding concerns, that hazing comes to be equated with abuse and therefore an act that is morally wrong. Research shows that those who are hazed go on to haze others (Nuwer, 1999); from this, it can be concluded that few college students attain moral development at the Post-Conventional level. The question remains does the act of hazing prevent higher moral development, or is a higher level of development attained after exposure to such abusive acts? If the latter is indeed the case, it may explain why anti-hazing activists are predominately survivors of acts of hazing abuse or family members of a student who was hazed. (Tumlin from Nuwer, 1999) This discussion is meant merely to explore a possible explanation for the prevalence of hazing within the framework of Student Development Theory. Further research is warranted to show what role, if any, hazing has in the path of moral development.

The Origin of Hazing

In the sixth century BC, Emperor Justinian of Byzantine outlawed the hazing of first year law students. There is no mention of hazing in written records again until the Middle Ages. Scholars propose that the practice was successfully eradicated until university members found old documents of codified Roman Law detailing Justinian’s decree. It was then that students of the Middle Ages document hazing practices of first year students. From then until the present there has been a continuing issue with hazing. (Nuwer, 1999)

Resources

ESPN, 2001, Sports hazing incidents, Retrieved from www.espn.com, December 3, 2001

Evans, N. et al, 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, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press

Nuwer, H., 2000, High school hazing: when rites become wrongs, New York: Franklin Watts