Despite being outlawed in most states, hazing is still an incredibly common, dangerous, and frankly, stupid, practice. Prevalent especially on college campuses, hazing has resulted in at least one death every year since 1970. While some legal policies have outlawed this deathly practice, six states—Hawaii, Alaska, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, and South Dakota—still have yet to make hazing illegal. And of the states where hazing is illegal, many lack a consent clause. The consent clause is crucial because it recognizes hazing as a problem regardless of whether consent is given, so it takes common factors like peer pressure and power dynamics into account. Since so many states lack these consent clauses, it’s clear that the law is not doing enough to identify what truly constitutes hazing, and if the law cannot even identify hazing properly, it certainly cannot prevent it. Many educational institutions expand upon legal policy and boast a school-wide “no tolerance” policy for hazing. Vanderbilt is one of these places, but I cannot imagine there is a single Vanderbilt student planning to rush a fraternity or sorority that does not expect to get hazed. Vanderbilt claims not to tolerate hazing-related incidents, but whenever spring rush begins, I always overhear stories about Blackout Tuesday and the various verbal and physical abuses done to pledges, from name-calling to being forced to eat dog food. Though Vanderbilt has removed organizations from campus for hazing incidents, the proliferation of hazing stories during the spring indicates that the current university policies are failing to prevent hazing in the first place.
While government and university policies regarding hazing need strengthening, improving policy alone would have little tangible impact on the culture of hazing anyway. Everyone knows hazing is illegal, but nobody reports the hazing they experience or witness.
Evidently, the current culture surrounding hazing needs to change. At the moment, we are far too complacent in our treatment and discussion of hazing, and this allows for dangerous hazing activities to continue harming students year after year. A cultural shift needs to take place: our current belief that hazing is just a “part of the process” needs to transform into a belief that hazing is ultimately antithetical to the cause of any organization. Here’s why that’s true.
Any organization, but especially sororities and fraternities, are built on the principles of camaraderie; the people you pledge with are supposed to be your brothers and sisters for life. These should be the people you trust the most and are closest to. Even if this isn’t the reality, the members of your organization should at least be people you like, trust, and support, and they should support you. Can the same people who bully you, pressure you to drink, force you to run errands for them incessantly, and pit you against your peers really support you? Would you even trust them to help you? Once they are done harassing you constantly, they suddenly become your “sister” or “brother,” but—why? It might just be me, but the last person I would consider my “sister” is someone who made my life miserable for weeks on end. I would not even like that person, and why should I? Why should I trust someone who could do horrible things to me so easily, without even knowing me? Just because they’re supposed to? The hazing process does not set up recruits of the organization to have positive outlooks on the org itself or its members. It does not make people feel welcomed or supported by the organization. If people don’t recognize these qualities in the org, why should they join it? The obvious answer is that they shouldn’t, but many people still do join sororities and fraternities and go through the hazing process. Some do it either for networking and connections, because it runs in their family, or simply because they want to be a part of something bigger. Whatever the reason, no one should have to survive the hazing process just to join an organization.
Many people justify hazing by saying everyone has done it. Why do we first have to suffer to join a community and to create potentially life-lasting friendships and connections? And why do we view this as inherent? Many people will say hazing isn’t that bad—not bad enough to be deemed “abuse”—but people die. Every year. And for every person that has died, there are thousands more being hospitalized for drinking, whose mental health is suffering, and whose physical well-being is being toyed with by the same people who are supposed to support that well-being for the rest of their lives. How does this make sense?
It could be argued that the hazing process forms strong connections between pledge classes. Those who make it through the process together might be bonded, but not in a good way. They might feel close to each other, having likely confided in each other about their honest feelings about hating the hazing process and suffering together. People boast about this kind of trauma bonding, and once they join the org, they wear it like a badge of honor. But I have to say: it is not a badge of honor to almost lose everything. If you’re lucky, you’ve kept your life, but what else have you lost? You’ve definitely lost sleep and time. How’s your GPA doing? Your physical health? Your mental health? It’s not honorable to sacrifice everything just to join an organization that, so far, has not respected you or benefitted you in the slightest. If anything, it’s just stupid.
So, what have you gained? At best, you have a cohort of brothers or sisters who will support you through your college experience and hopefully the future. Maybe you also have access to a network of connections that could help propel your career. My question is: could you not have found these things anywhere else, and would you have had to suffer relentlessly to get them? My answer is yes; just the act of attending college, especially one like Vanderbilt, gives you sufficient access not only to a supportive community but to useful connections. Moreover, there are plenty of organizations that don’t require you to survive their abuse before you can join.
Another question: Now, that you’ve become a brother/sister, will you take pride in tormenting new pledges? Why do you want to hurt the people you are ultimately trying to welcome into your organization? If your answer is because they did it to you, then you are proving my point. The abuses you faced were not okay; they were isolating and painful, and in order to assuage these feelings, you feel like you must ensure that others experience the same. Only this justifies the abuses you faced, again revealing how truly awful hazing is. If you truly felt welcomed and supported by your organization, would you feel the need to take your vengeance out on new pledges? Hazing only perpetuates a cycle of violence; it does not build lasting, healthy relationships. As a collective, we have to recognize and believe this. Otherwise, nothing will change, and people will continue to suffer for no reason. I don’t say this to blame anyone who has been complacent in regards to hazing, but rather to point out that hazing doesn’t have to be a reality in college. It doesn’t have to be something everyone must go through, and it shouldn’t be.