Hazing

When one hears the word “hazing,� the typically first impression is that of a fraternity member with a paddle in one hand, beer in another and a young “pledge� bent over being struck by the wooden paddle. This is defiantly a case of classic hazing, however many other forms have been created and made public in the recent past. Other fields such as military, sorority, high school and athletic teams have begun to come under the same scrutiny fraternities have been for years.
For someone who has never been “hazed� the issue can be quite complicated and some ignorant conclusions may be made. Hazing has different, but yet very similar definitions from various institutions. The first thing I noticed here was that fraternities were the only institution that the American College Dictionary directly addresses. Obviously the FIPG listed above goes into more detail regarding fraternity actions and focus on those activities
Hazing is defined by the FIPG (Fraternity Insurance Purchasing Group) 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 fo

Of my own personal views it is difficult to give a definite yes or no in support of hazing. Being the president of a fraternity my insights are from an experienced based point of view. I do see the points and fallacies in both arguments. From a utilitarian point of view, the actual act of hazing is legitimate due to the majority of a chapter receiving the “pleasers” of hazing the pledges. However, the military is basically an anti –utilitarian process by one person such as a drill instructor inflicting displeasure to the majority of people. One fallacy from the anti-hazing viewpoint is that assumptions may be being made without the proper experience to back them up. Another is that hazing has been training our soldiers. 85% of the presidents of the United States have been Greek, with most of them being in a time when hazing was legal. With those facts it is difficult to object to hazing. When someone says “I am pro-hazing” it has a negative context that they approve of the ancient methods and brandings, murders and binge drinking. A similar effect when someone says they are pro-choice it has the effect they are not religious and approve of murder. The bottom line for me is that hazing in its older forms is defiantly outdated and NOT necessary in today’s society and is indeed unethical. However, I am fully in support of activities that teach teamwork, a true sense of brotherhood and education about the chapter or institution they are about to join and prepares them for the real world experience after college.

“Don’t you think that in some organizations, like the military, where you're

“If you have to ask if it's hazing, it is. If in doubt, call your advisor/coach/national office. If you won't pick up the phone, you have your answer. Don't B.S. yourself. If you haze, you have low self-esteem. Possible physical injury - many people have physical weaknesses of which sometimes even they are unaware. If injury occurs, current officers, the university, and the organization can be sued and held liable.”

Let us begin the counterpoint argument with several opinions of military hazing:

One may argue that the main reason National Headquarters of Greek Organizations banned hazing is due to the legislation passed in various states and a liability arises when a local chapter participates is risky initiation behaviors. The counterpoint to the argument is the times are changing and if the principles and values published, adopted and believed by the fraternity are indeed true, then hazing is an unnecessary part of the Greek experience. One aspect I immediately see between the arguments of pro and anti-hazing are that the proponents of hazing, which are addressed later, are those that have “been through” the experience of the acts defined and subjectively interpreted as hazing. The main problem I personally have with those who speak out against hazing may not have had any real life experience being “hazed.” Are these activist trying to prevent someone else the same harmful experience they went through or are they “shooting from the hip” and simply basing their opinions and assumptions about hazing on the many media stereotypes such as the famed Animal House and horror story headlines on the extreme levels? The above “myths vs. facts” upon first glance is a cut and dry stance with all the issues clearly defined. After I took a second glance the facts were underlined with various opinions from the authors and presented in the context to his desires. Obviously the anti-hazing sentiment most valid and strong point for hazing being immoral or unethical is that hazing is illegal and that some cases people have been killed. This is certainly a strong element that is very hard to argue against. Yet, arguments for hazing run as strong and deep as those who oppose it. ARGUMENTS FOR HAZING