Prohazing
Received 9/28/99
To Whom It May Concern,
I would like to simply ask what kind of spineless,
litigious, and overall milquetoast society are you people trying
to create? If you would allow me the time, I would like to
further express my feelings on this matter. I graduated from
what was once the finest military college in the United States,
but over the years, it seems that the "military" part
of the title no longer applies, simply because people everywhere
are jumping aboard the damning bandwagon you present.
For the record, let me state
that I am against what I consider hazing, which, on the
surface seems to be encompass several of the things you consider
"hazing." Meaningless activities are worthless to
one's training, but who makes the judgement call on what is meaningless?
A lot of times an action one may consider meaningless, I can
find some educational or practical purpose for.
Scavenger hunts were not something
neither my fraternity, nor my elite unit, practiced, but they have
definite and significant purposes, if they are used for those purposes.
For example, a properly conducted scavenger hunt, even if the hunt
is for meaningless objects, people, etc., teaches teamwork.
Please tell me what is so terrible about teamwork?
Hardships of any sort seem
to be a taboo to you people, also. Please explain to me why
a person should not be exposed to hardships as part of his or her
training, either as a pledge or a soldier. Adult life, itself,
is tough, so why not provide some practice for the real world?
I'm not sure what, if any, competitive sports you people have participated
in, but in my experiences, if you practice ten times harder than
you will have to perform in competition, your chances of succeeding
improve drastically. Would you rather America become a nation
of slothful losers, as a result of the human weaknesses of some?
You mentioned "silence
periods." I went through such a silence period for a
week, each, for both my fraternity and for my unit, as part of the
initiation rituals. The silence period gives the individual
an extended period of time to think about his or her character-building
hardships, and focus on the objective of these times. This
is the most precious time for the initiate, for s/he reflects on
his/her experiences thus far in the cycle and what s/he has learned,
and has the final opportunity to consider his/her future in this
endeavor and whether or not to continue in the present course.
Certainly there can be nothing wrong with reflection, self-study,
or good ol' fashioned deep thought.
In my experience in both receiving
and administering, calisthenics, when used properly, are a most
efficient, a most productive, and a most effective means of discipline.
Since you people are going for the "higher thought processes"
of more civilized means of operating in this world of ours, let
me throw this at you: there was once a man named Pavlov, who
was a scientist; and Mr. Pavlov discovered this thing called classical
conditioning, where it is scientifically proven that when applying
physical pain as a consequence of an undesirable action, subjects
learn certain desirable behaviors considerably faster. Oh,
I know. You probably think I'm some brainwashed meathead. Actually,
I'm a high school teacher of history/social studies, English, and
debate. If you want to argue Pavlov's methods as brainwashing,
let me just stop you there.
Public education and the mass
media are the two largest sources of brainwashing, and they are
perfectly socially acceptable. In military life, one has a
massive amount of information that he or she must master in a short
amount of time; therefore, it is most efficient to use Pavlov's
idea to get maximum results in this short span of time. It
is not cruel. It is effective. Anyone who is incapable
of bearing such treatment simply should find something else to do,
instead of driving down the standard that has been set before them.
This mentality of placing the interests and desires of the individual
over the best interests of the group is slowly pushing America into
the same social and military climate that led to the fall of the
Roman empire in the 5th century.
As far as requiring lower
classmen or pledges to address upperclassmen or brothers/sisters
by formal titles (Mr., Miss), I think you're way off base.
When the people subjected to these incidents of "hazing"
enter into the workforce, they will have to address superiors, and
sometimes even peers, according to a rank or title. Why is
it wrong to prepare people for these "hardships"?
Requiring handbooks to
be carried to collect signatures is a vital social tool in the fraternity
or sorority. It provides two purposes: 1. By requiring
them to be signed by every brother/sister, it ensures that each
pledge will be familiar with each brother/sister (because a lengthy
conversation and familiarization process usually occurs during the
actually signing), and encourages socialization. 2.
By having the handbook on their person at all times, pledges have
more opportunities presented to read the material contained in them.
Don't you think it is important to read, and especially know the
history, standards, rules, and character of the organization one
pledges his or her life to?
One must learn that there
are rites of passage in life, and consequences for one's actions.
I believe that these are the focal points of depriving pledges and
initiates of certain privileges. In life, not everyone has
the same privileges. Some privileges must be earned through
experience and time. These are simple facts of life.
Questioning under pressure
is one of the most essential tools for learning. I can still
remember bits of information I had to recite at random almost ten
years ago. Life, and especially in the military, is full of
occasions that require a person to think fast and produce results
at random, without pondering for days. If a person can answer
questions under heavy pressure, then s/he is prepared to move on
to the next step and perform more advanced tasks under pressure,
which makes for a better person and a better leader.
I am most concerned with the
whole pretense of your definitions of "hazing."
It seems incredibly self-righteous and elitist to assume that a
person is being hazed even if s/he doesn't realize it. I knew
well that what was being done to me would probably upset people
like the ACLU and the politically correct shocktroops, but the "hazing" I
experienced made me a better person. It made me more conscious
of myself and others, as well as the world around me, and how I
affect it, and how it affects me. I became more responsible.
My health improved, as well as my consciousness of my health.
My self-esteem and self-confidence skyrocketed. I became more
morally conscious, and overall, I simply became a better person.
Let me put it to you this way: if the rest of the world experienced
what I went through, random acts of violence and disrespect would
disappear almost at once. I noticed the same changes in others
who made the same rites of passage. My point is that I had
every opportunity to stop the daily pain and hardship, but I realized
what I would become if I didn't: nothing. I'm not saying I'd
be worthless. I'm saying that I simply would go on being the
same person, never experiencing the wonderful benefits of hard-core
discipline. Why do you feel it is necessary to dictate to
a person whether or not he is being "hazed"? Why
do feel it is your place or anyone's place to do so? You obviously
do not believe in freedom of choice for the individual. I
doubt you will believe this, but there are people who actually want
to live this arduous lifestyle, because they have the foresight
to acknowledge the benefits thereof.
Finally, you again wax elitist
in assuming that the people administering these actions do so with
reckless abandonment, and for no other reason but for personal enjoyment.
This may be so for some groups, but for anyone who is a professional
at administering constructive "hazing," these factors
are never present. Neither organization, of which I was a
part, ever engaged in an activity that was thought to be a potential
danger to the initiates' physical or mental health, even though
the activities we pursued cover most of your definitions of "hazing."
In all my years, not one person was injured, physically or mentally,
and with the exception of a very minute few, most went on to become
more than standard model citizens.
I could go on forever, because
I am very concerned for current social changes in our society.
If America is destined to follow after the same fate as the great
Roman empire, then so be it; but I refuse to allow our society
to be dictated to by people who are incapable of acknowledging
a greater significance than the mere individual. The facts
of life are simple: there are billions of people in the world
today, and each is an individual, which I concede, is special;
but the moment we beguile ourselves into believing that one individual
personal preference, or the base desires of one particular group
within society as a whole must dictate the direction in which
our society must go, then we might as well unleash every nuclear
weapon in our arsenal, and encourage every other capable nation
to unleash theirs, in an effort to hasten what would then be the
inevitable. Humans are simply not designed to live in a
society of "too many chiefs, and not enough Indians."
There must be order. There must be structure. There
must be discipline. Paperworking people to death only kills
trees, which should be a much larger concern than the mere whimpering
of a few people who may have gotten themselves into a situation
they can't handle, or perhaps have the ability, but lack of motivation
to use it effectively to a positive end. What you loosely
define as "hazing" is not evil, nor is it morally wrong.
It is something that should be administered well, and administered
often.
Thank You Sincerely,
(name removed)
|
