EXAMINING HAZING IN NPC SORORITIES
USING GILLIGAN’S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

Shannon Corr

Hazing is a practice that has been present in a large part of my life (although I did not recognize it as hazing at the time.) My father was in the military for over 20 years, I am a member of a women’s fraternity, I have worked as an advisor to fraternities on college campuses, and I have worked at a high school based on athletics. As I look back on my life I can see hazing all around me. Luckily, I was only hazed in the “fun” ways and was not harmed. I don’t think that I truly began to understand the true scope of the word “hazing” until I had contact with it as president of my sorority and as a professional. Now that I have a better understanding, I am still trying to learn how best to deal with the issue as a professional.

Unfortunately, hazing is a cultural phenomenon that occurs more frequently than we want to admit. Traditionally, hazing has been viewed as a characteristic of fraternity and sorority life. As people have become more aware of what behaviors constitute hazing, we are recognizing those high-risk behaviors among society as a whole. People have long been aware of hazing within the military, but we are now identifying hazing activities in high schools, professional organizations, athletic teams, etc. (Hoover & Pollard, 2000; Allan, 2002; Nuwer, 1999, p. 32). In this article I intend to look specifically at hazing among members of the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) sororities through the lens of Carol Gilligan’s Theory of Moral Development.

There are several barriers that currently prevent us from stopping hazing completely. One of the largest impediments in dealing with hazing is the lack of a concise and consistent definition of the word “hazing.” Most social fraternities, men’s and women’s, universities, and states each have their own definition of hazing. Generally, hazing is defined as an activity that endangers a person’s mental and/or physical health. However, for example, the state of Maryland’s definition of hazing only mentions physical harm, not mental (www.stophazing.org/laws/md_law.htm). Hazing as defined by the NPC, the umbrella organization that governs the 26 national, historically white, women’s fraternities in the United States, defines hazing as:

“… any action or situation with or without consent which recklessly, intentionally or unintentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student, or creates risk of injury, or causes discomfort, embarrassment, harassment or ridicule or which willfully destroys or removes public or private property for the purpose of initiation or admission into or affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership in a chapter or colony of an NPC member fraternity” (1999, p. 61).

Another barrier to the outright cessation of hazing is the interpretation of what activities are included in the above NPC definition. The NPC states:

“ Such activities and situations include, but are not limited to, creation of excessive fatigue; physical and psychological shocks; wearing, publicly, apparel which is conspicuous and not normally in good taste; engaging in public stunts and jokes; participating in treasure or scavenger hunts; morally degrading or humiliating games and activities; late night sessions which interfere with scholastic activities or normal sleep patters; and any other activities which are not consistent with fraternal law, ritual, or the regulations and policies of the member fraternity or the educational institution” (p. 61).

Providing lists such as the one above can be dangerous. The list can easily be interpreted, as a finite list of the unallowable and those activities not on the list are therefore permissible (Roach, 2001).

As student affairs professionals we need to be able to recognize hazing among our student organizations and educate the members of those organizations on why they should not allow or participate in hazing activities. A third barrier to dealing with hazing within women’s organizations, is the type of hazing that women generally use. Research has shown that men are more likely to use physical acts to haze whereas women tend use more psychological or emotional tactics (Allan; Nuwer, p. 158). It is very difficult to recognize hazing when there are few physical indicators to observe. When dealing with women’s organizations, such as sororities, we can use Gilligan’s Theory of Moral Development in Women to examine their member’s behaviors. The tendency of women to use mental hazing tactics bears out Gilligan’s studies on the justice voice vs. the caring voice (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 189). Gilligan’s work demonstrated that men have a tendency to be more separate from their thoughts/actions and deal more with tangible actions (justice voice.) Women on the other hand are closely tied to and effected by emotions and less tangible ideas (caring voice.) Gilligan’s theory can be used to demonstrate both why women allow themselves to be hazed as well as why women continue to haze others. Gilligan’s theory consists of three levels of moral development, with developmental transitions between the different levels (Evans et al, p. 190).

The process of dealing with moral issues is seen as a matter of survival and motivated by self-interest at this level (Evans et al, p. 191). Young women come to school and for many it is their first time away from the life structure that their parent’s created for them. These women are seeking acceptance and a way to survive in their new environment and may feel isolated or alone. Joining a sorority is often one way these women look for the support they need. When they join a sorority that hazes, the need to survive within the sorority (and within the college environment) and keep that valuable support that they perceive the sorority will provide is so great, they are willing to overlook being hazed. Conversely, women already within the sorority at this stage of moral development may be willing to haze because they feel the need to ensure the survival of the sorority. Unfortunately, hazing becomes a tradition and a vicious cycle. People who have been hazed relate their being hazed to the continued success or strong bonds of loyalty that result within the sorority and feel that they should instill that loyalty in their potential members.

During this transition from Level I to Level II the focus is taken off of individual needs and related more closely to the individual’s needs within established relationships (Evans et al, p. 192). A woman experiencing this transition may still allow herself to be hazed. She might see hazing as part of her bond with the other sorority members. She may feel a sense of responsibility to share the same experiences as other members. Again sorority members experiencing this transitional stage may continue to haze. If the women do not understand the repercussions of hazing and the negative effects that it can have, these women will still view hazing as the right thing to do to ensure the success of their organization. It is in this transition that many women begin to see a dichotomy between what should be done and what will be done (Evans et al, p. 192). It is here that some members of a sorority that hazes will at least begin to question their hazing practices. This can only happen though if women are educated on what constitutes hazing and are open enough to accept that there are negative effects that hazing activities can have on a woman’s life, including imperceptible aspects such as mental health. If these women do not have an open mind and see the cons of hazing then they will simply continue to haze and see nothing wrong with the practice.

In Level II gaining social acceptance is equivalent to survival (Evans et al, p. 192). There is a greater need to please the group rather than oneself. Here, even if a woman sees hazing as wrong, she may still be willing to both be hazed or to haze others in order to maintain her social acceptability. Of the women who began to question hazing in their transition from Level I, some will choose not to participate in hazing practices. They will probably still not stop hazing though. They will simply turn a blind eye to hazing for the sake of peace. These women will keep their difference of opinion to themselves in order to maintain the status quo. Every sorority was formed on the basis of a set of shared values of their founding members. The women who denounce hazing will be more likely to have a bond or a sense of responsibility to uphold those founding values on a personal level.

The second transition in Gilligan’s Theory of Moral Development is marked by a period of doubt (Evans et al, p. 192). The individual continues to question what is right and wrong, but begins to see that her concept of right does have value and she will look for a way to find a balance with her values and that of the sorority. Students that have reached this second transition in their moral development will begin make positive changes in regards to hazing practices. Survival becomes a need to balance social acceptance and personal morality (Evans et al, p. 193). Women who are experiencing the second transition will be the most likely to see the possible consequences of hazing and begin to take responsibility for those consequences. Again, though, in order to reach this level on the path of moral development the sorority members need to be open to discussion and prepared to recognize that even events they consider fun can be, by others, considered hazing.

The highest level in Gilligan’s Theory of Moral Development is a level in which the reigning voice is that of the care voice. The goal becomes to avoid hurt (Evans et al, p. 193). The women that have reached a high level of moral development have accepted that there are dangers associated with all kinds of hazing, both physical and mental. They should be able to see the potential for hurt. These women will become important catalysts for change within their organizations. It is unlikely that women at this level will allow themselves to be hazed, will haze, or will allow others to haze.

Because hazing among sorority women is often difficult to pinpoint since there are few physical signs, the role of the student affairs professional can be hard to establish in regards to hazing. The most important thing we can do as professionals is to educate the women on university policies, local laws regarding hazing and be consistent. Since the definitions differ from organization to organization it is important for us to understand the laws and be able to impart that knowledge to others. It should be our goal to have open discussions with women about hazing. Learn what they believe is hazing and help them to understand the full scope of hazing.

All of the NPC groups were founded on values that stressed service, honor, and excellence (Chi Omega, 2000, p. VI-4). It is important for us as professionals to understand the basic principals that these organizations are based on. This knowledge can be an important tool in preventing hazing. Hazing by definition does not live up to the ideals of any of the NPC organizations. Not every member of a sorority will be at the same level of moral development, but we should help teach them to move to the next level and to use the women already at higher levels of development to help educate their peers. Unfortunately the reality is that we should be educating students about hazing long before they reach college.

Overall, progress has been made in making people more aware of how widespread hazing is in reality. People are now willing to accept that hazing is not just a problem within fraternities and sororities. Also because there is more awareness about hazing, organizations are learning to ask if their behaviors are appropriate before they act. Universities and organizations are taking a tough stance on groups that haze members and on faculty members that turn a blind eye to the practice (Nuwer, p. 211). Another positive result of the growing diversity in the United States and the awareness about hazing is there is now more of a choice of organizations to belong to. If a group continues to haze their members will look elsewhere for support (Reisberg, 2000).

Bibliography

Allan, E. J. (2002). Hazing and the making of men. Retrieved November 20, 2002 from www.stophazing.org/makingof men.htm

Chi Omega. (2000). Chi Omega Fraternity membership manual. Memphis: Chi Omega

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student Development in College: theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 186-202.

Hoover, N. C. & Pollard, N. J. (2000, August). Initiation Rites in American High Schools. [Electronic version] Alfred, NY: Alfred University

National Panhellenic Conference. (1999). Manual of Information. 13th Ed. Indianapolis: National Panhellenic Conference. p. 61.

Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, Sororities, Hazing, and Binge Drinking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press

Reisberg, L. (2000). Fraternities in Decline [Electronic version.] Chronicle of Higher Education Volume 46 Issue 18. p. A59

Roach, E. J. (2001). Hazing: A breakdown of Justice. Retrieved November 26, 2002 from www.stophazing.org/devtheory3.htm.