Five Fundamental Truths About Hazing

As Spring turns to Summer, many of my friends who work on college campuses enter this time of year with a sense of relief, coupled with a looming sense of dread. I know during my time at Alabama, Fall was the semester I dreaded the most, because that was the time I had to worry the most about hazing. The summer represented a time in which I had an opportunity to plan my approach, hoping I could do something to make a difference in the hazing culture on campus, always counting down the days until Summer was over and the craziness of Fall began.

Since that time, I’ve devoted a majority of my attention to thinking about, studying, and writing about hazing. I’ve read everything there is to read on the topic. I’ve published three journal articles on the topic. I’ve presented at national conferences. I’ve been on the Today Show. And I’ve talked to hundreds of students about hazing. This research has led me to the understanding of five fundamental truths about hazing - five ways of understanding hazing that are at the core of my approach in talking with students about this important topic. I want to share those fundamental truths with you.

Truth #1 - Sometimes hazing has altruistic motivations. Not all hazing is evil. Not all students who haze are evil. When we talk about hazing with students, it is important to acknowledge this fundamental truth in order to avoid putting them on the defensive. Sometimes (not always), students haze because they THINK they are doing something positive for their organizations and/or their new members. Students hold a number of misguided beliefs about hazing – that hazing builds pledge class solidarity, that it builds brotherhood, that hazed new members will be more loyal and committed to one another and to their organizations, or that hazing teaches/reinforces important lessons about the organization. This truth must be acknowledged because, in order to effectively address hazing, we have to redirect those altruistic motivations towards activities that are not hazing, teaching students how to achieve those noble objectives in ways that are not dangerous or abusive.

Truth #2 - Sometimes hazing has no altruistic motivation. Some hazing is evil – a cycle of abuse with no point or purpose. Some students believe that new members must “earn” the right to be in the organization by subjecting themselves to abuse. This hazing, motivated by social dominance, perpetuates a dangerous cycle. If I had to earn my letters by subjecting myself to abuse, I now have the unquestionable right to subject future generations of members to the same (or worse) abuse. There is not altruistic motivation for this hazing. It has no noble goal or purpose – it is abuse for its own sake. Chapters with this type of hazing culture cannot be changed or rehabilitated. Unlike other hazing, this social dominance hazing cannot be redirected into positive activities. Once a culture of social dominance manifests in an organization, the death of that group is inevitable.

Truth #3 - Understanding and recognizing the difference between these two hazing motivations is critical. In all of our work related to hazing - be it prevention, investigation, or adjudication – recognizing and understanding the differences between social dominance hazing and other, more altruistic forms of hazing is critical. Even more critical is helping students understand and recognize the differences. By distinguishing social dominance from other forms of hazing, we can accomplish two things: help students understand the cycle of violence inherent in social dominance hazing, and help them develop better ways to accomplish the altruistic objectives of other forms of hazing (i.e. how to build meaningful brotherhood or instill emotional commitment WITHOUT hazing).

Truth # 4 - Guilt, shame and fear are not effective means of achieving long-term behavior change. The research on this is actually pretty clear. Take, for example, the crashed car from a DUI related fatal accident that police officers will bring to high school parking lots and leave for a few days in order to scare high school kids away from drinking and driving. This type of intervention has only a short-term impact – the initial shock and fear wears off in a short time and we go on about our lives. The same is true for many other types of educational interventions, and hazing is no different. So, why do scare tactics and the induction of shame and guilt have such a limited shelf-life in terms of prevention? The answer lies in our incredible ability to minimize the potential consequences of our behaviors. When confronted with disastrous statistics or a story of tragedy, our minds almost automatically minimize the likelihood that our own behaviors will result in such tragedy. “Yeah, we haze a little in our chapter, but we would never kill anyone.” This cognitive mechanism is the same one that allows the smoker to continue smoking despite all of the well-publicized health risks. “It won’t happen here” or “It won’t happen to me” is a powerful psychological phenomenon that allows students to continue perpetuating dangerous rites of passage in their chapters, and using extreme examples of hazing only increases the likelihood that students will flip on the minimization “switch.” Hazing cannot be successfully eradicated by scaring students or throwing statistics or scary anecdotes at them. In order to successfully address hazing, we have to change the way students think about hazing, and provide them with a framework by which they can achieve some of the altruistic goals of hazing in ways that are not dangerous or abusive.

Truth #5 – Students haze because they don’t know what else to do to make the new member process meaningful. Many 18 year-old male college freshmen are seeking a meaningful rite of passage. They want their manhood tested. They want a new member process that is difficult and provides them with a sense of accomplishment. The easiest way for chapters to provide that meaningful experience is to engage in hazing. Let’s be honest – some students haze because it is easy. Because they are lazy. You don’t need a Ph.D. in organizational psychology to line new members up against a wall and yell at them. Hazing new members is the single easiest way to make the new member process “meaningful.” While hazing may represent the EASIEST way to create a meaningful new member experience, it is not the BEST way to produce long term commitment and brotherhood.

These five fundamental truths are at the heart of my approach to hazing education. When I speak to students about hazing, I do so with a specific goal in mind – to help them understand that there are better ways to create a meaningful rite of passage, to build bonds of brotherhood that emphasize belonging over solidarity, and to build powerful emotional bonds within their chapters. I don’t try to scare students into stopping hazing – I try to help them understand that there are better ways to accomplish what it is they think they are accomplishing through hazing.

It has become really popular in the fraternity/sorority industry to say “prevention is more than just having a speaker.” And that statement is 100 percent true. Prevention IS more than just a speaker. But if someone can connect with students in a meaningful way provide them with new cognitive frames about a topic, then a speaker CAN change the way students think about something. That is my approach to hazing education. My goal is to change the way students think about hazing, and to provide them with meaningful alternatives to hazing.

To find out more about the research-based education around hazing that we are developing at Dyad Strategies, feel free to check out our website.

Have a great summer!

Gentry

Gentry McCreary, Ph.D.
CEO and Managing Partner
Dyad Strategies LLC