Hazing

Leanne Burnham

On a warm April evening in 1995, 19-year-old Gabe Higgins, a chemical engineering student at the University of Texas at Austin, attended the initiation “picnic” for the Texas Cowboys, a “spirit group” made up mostly of fraternity members. I imagine that Gabe was excited as he prepared for the evening, hoping that when it was over, he would be one of the newest members of this prestigious group. Part of Gabe’s initiation that night included drinking games, demeaning exercises, and eventually, a 1:30 a.m. swim in the Colorado River. Gabe never returned from that swim. He was found the next afternoon, still fully clothed, wearing his boots and biting his bottom lip…drowned, with a blood alcohol level of 0.21, more than twice the legal limit in Texas. (Rosser, 1997).

The Fraternity Insurance Purchasing Group (FIPG) defines hazing as:
"Any action taken or situation created, intentionally, whether on or off fraternity premises, to produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule. Such activities may include but are not limited to the following: use of alcohol; paddling in any form; creation of excessive fatigue; physical and psychological shocks; quests, treasure hunts, scavenger hunts, road trips or any other such activities carried on outside or inside of the confines of the chapter house; wearing of public apparel which is conspicuous and not normally in good taste; engaging in public stunts and buffoonery; morally degrading or humiliating games and activities; and any other activities which are not consistent with fraternal law, ritual or policy or the regulations and policies of the educational institution. (www.stophazing.org/definition.html)

Between 1978 and 1997, 70 college students died in hazing related incidents (Gose, 1997). In my opinion, this is far too many young men and women for society to lose in such a needless manner. Some may think that hazing is only an issue for college Greek systems, but this is far from the truth. According to a stophazing.org, hazing is common in several organizations in addition to college fraternities and sororities; including the military, athletic teams, marching bands, religious cults and even high schools (www.stophazing.org/mythsandfacts.html). Alfred University conducted a study in 1999 of numerous institutions in the National Collegiate Athletic Association regarding hazing among athletic teams. Of the 2,000 athletes who responded to the survey, 79 percent “said they had either hazed another athlete or been hazed themselves during their college careers” and more than 60 percent reported they had participated in “questionable” activities, “such as being forced to wear objectionable clothing or to drink something disgusting” (Suggs, 1999, p. A83). This landmark study was the result of the 1998 hospitalization for alcohol poisoning of five freshman football players, who had been forced to drink large quantities of alcohol and water at an off-campus party (Suggs, 1999).

Ernest Pascarella and Patrick Terenzini (1991) discuss the significance of “socializing agents” in the development of ego and identity among college students. They define these agents as the people with whom students come into contact, in and outside of the classroom and they stress the point that these people, as well as the students’ levels of involvement within his/her institutions has the most powerful effect on the students’ self-concepts (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). Chickering and Reisser (1993) expand on this notion, finding that the “influence of friends is amplified and enriched by the values, standards, and interests of the groups to which they belong.” When exploring the issue of hazing on the nation’s college campuses, it is helpful to look through the lens of identity development theory, in order to shed light on this tough subject.

College administrators across the country would find it very difficult to deny that the young men and women who step foot on our campuses as first year students, are very vulnerable individuals. As the applicant pool for our universities and colleges becomes more exceptional and entrance requirements soar, more and more of these 18 and 19 year-olds are “top-notch” students suddenly finding themselves once again at the bottom of the social ladder. Not only do they want to prove that they can compete academically with their classmates, they also want to be accepted in the campus’ social system. The relationships that these students develop with close friends, and their participation in the subcultures of the college campus are most often the “primary forces influencing [their] development” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993).

As educators and adults, we may wonder why students allow themselves to be subjected to the demeaning and often dangerous behavior that is typical of hazing. We ask ourselves why these men and women do not say “no” or why they don’t stand up for themselves and their rights. Once again, I think that the answer lies in theory. It appears that hazing occurs most often with first-year students, the “pledges” in fraternities and sororities and the “rookies” on athletic teams. Chickering and Reisser (1993) state that organizations such as Greek houses and even residence halls have the most impact on students, especially when those organizations become the “subculture or reference group” and that the “values and behavioral norms of an adopted group become the background for the individual’s personal actions and attitudes” (p. 393). Members of fraternities, sororities, athletic teams and military organizations often claim that hazing creates a stronger sense of unity (among the team, pledge class, platoon, etc.), mental toughness, discipline, respect, and even pride for the organization (www.stophazing.org/prohazing). When these are the thoughts, opinions, and the values of a group that a student is trying to become a part of, that student, according to Chickering and Reisser (1993) is going to adopt the same values, and is going to accept the possible abuse as a rite of passage. These students may not recognize the behaviors as hazing, because “when students themselves form the community, shared standards and rules for conduct are not as likely to be seen as arbitrary or coercive. It is ironic that the group may demand more obedience than parents would, or more conformity than administrators would. It may even reinforce self-defeating behavior, but since we tend to defend what we identify with, those subcultural tyrannies may not be questioned” (Chickering and Reisser, 1993). Even if a student does recognize hazing behaviors, he/she may not report them because his/her desire to be a part of the group wins out over the mental and/or physical discomfort of the action.

Recognizing hazing incidents and understanding the theory that explains how incidents continue is only the beginning. As college administrators, we are responsible for using this knowledge to make a difference and to create positive change in the social environment of our institutions. We are educators, and we must begin to teach our students from the moment that they arrive on campus. Orientation is our first opportunity to address hazing issues, by incorporating developmental theory and reinforcing positive identity development. Asking leaders of campus organizations to participate in these orientation sessions will benefit the first-year students as well as those upperclassmen who serve as facilitators.

Chickering and Reisser (1993) tell us that identity development is cultivated when our students feel that they are part of a community, such as a Greek house, residence hall or athletic team. It is our job as student affairs professionals to make sure that these communities have a positive presence on our campuses by continuing to educate the them on the dangers of hazing and the alternative activities that can foster unity and leadership among their members. Studies conducted by Chickering and Reisser (1993) have also found that “students who live together learn together” and conducting educational programs in individual Greek houses or residence halls may have more of an impact than general assemblies. In addition to programming, administrators should consider involving student staff and campus leaders in conducting disciplinary hearings and establishing sanctions. Despite the expertise of administrators, the involvement peer input is an essential component to an effective campus community.

In 1997 the mother of Gabe Higgins, Ruth Harten, finally settled the lawsuit stemming from her son’s death; 18 members of the now disbanded Texas Cowboys as well as the landowner who sponsored the picnic agreed to pay $1,090,000.00 to the family. Criminal charges were not filed against the students, however the Dean of Students office at the University of Texas conducted an investigation of the incident in 1996 and determined that Gabe Higgins was hazed at the initiation picnic on that fateful night. (http://www.rice.edu/projects/thresher/issues/84/970314/News/Story15.html).

Hazing is not just a Greek thing; it is an issue that faces every college campus in the nation. College administrators, especially student affairs professionals, need to get out there in the campus community and educate the students about hazing. I challenge all of you reading to go to your residence halls, your athletic teams, your student clubs, your fraternities and sororities and to start talking about hazing, because many of our students do not understand the facts. Answer their questions, discuss their concerns, and help to prevent more senseless injuries and deaths; they may not thank you for it now, but someday they will.