Fulcrum (n) - The
point or support on which a lever pivots.
One of the basic laws of engineering is that in a lever
mechanism (as depicted above), the closer the fulcrum is placed to the object
to be moved, the less force is required to move it. The graphic depiction above demonstrates this
idea very simply – the man should be able to move the stone with minimal effort
given the fulcrum’s proximity to the object being moved. But if that fulcrum were moved away from the
stone, the force required to move the object would increase accordingly. It’s a pretty basic principle.
My friend Aaron Boe likes to talk about this concept as it
relates to sexual assault prevention. If
you don’t know Aaron or haven’t seen his work, you need to. There is no one
better at talking to college men about sexual assault. He uses the analogy of the fulcrum to help
prioritize prevention efforts. In a time
of limited resources, how can you move your prevention efforts (the fulcrum) as
close as possible to the behaviors you want to prevent (the object)? In the example of sexual assault, Aaron
eloquently argues that the most effective prevention efforts should be designed
to help college men understand the harm that can be caused by non-stranger
sexual assault, and to confront the rationalizations and mechanisms by which a
guy might justify taking advantage of an intoxicated female. These two things will do more to prevent
sexual assault than anything else.
Unfortunately, we spend a lot of our time and energy on prevention efforts
with the fulcrum far removed from the object (i.e. sexism in the media or
hyper-masculinity). These things are important to address, but the effort
required to change those things in a way that would significantly alter our
ability to prevent sexual assault requires tremendous effort and
resources. If you don’t have tremendous
effort or resources, then you need to move the fulcrum (your prevention
efforts) closer to the object (the thing you want to change).
I have thought a lot about this notion as it relates to
hazing prevention. We spend a tremendous amount of time, energy and money in
our efforts to prevent hazing. But how far have we moved the stone? A look at
the headlines and the statistics would lead one to believe that the stone hasn’t
budged.
Where are we spending our time, effort and energy as it
relates to hazing prevention? Speakers
who talk about hazing being inconsistent with our values? Bystander training?
Consultants who talk about authenticity and vulnerability? Stickers and buttons
during National Hazing Prevention Week?
All of these are great, well-intentioned prevention efforts, but how
closely are they positioned to the actual prevention of hazing? That is, in the moment when hazing is about
to take place, how likely is it that those efforts are going to have any impact
on whether or not a student decides to haze or decides to allow him or herself
to be hazed? It is a rhetorical question, and I encourage you to answer it for
yourself.
So where should we place our fulcrum in relation to the
objective of moving the boulder known as hazing? I have two thoughts:
The most important thing we can do to prevent hazing is to
decrease the level of hazing that new members of organizations are willing to
tolerate in order to belong. Fraternities, in particular, are incredibly
sensitive to this notion of hazing tolerance. They know and understand exactly
where the line is with regards to what their new members will tolerate before
leaving the organization. They will frequently walk right up to that line, but
rarely cross it. Crossing the line means losing future members of the
organization. The line is different for
every chapter, and it is based on a variety of factors (social status, focus on
the solidarity aspects of brotherhood, etc.). The extent to which we can move
that line of acceptable behavior will go a long way in our efforts of
preventing dangerous hazing. In a
previous blog post, I’ve argued for a membership model that curbs the absolute
power of fraternity members over their pledges.
I think that is the single most important thing we can do to address
hazing.
Secondly, our educational programming needs to directly
attack the mechanisms by which students justify and defend hazing
behavior. The only way to get hazers to
think differently about hazing is to directly confront the logic that they use
in perpetuating the practice. My research with Josh Schutts has shown
incredibly strong relationships between moral disengagement and hazing. The
mechanisms of moral disengagement (i.e. advantageous comparison, diffusion of
responsibility, attribution of blame, and dehumanization) are directly
responsible for the fact that fraternity members can engage in incredibly
dangerous and violent behavior in the name of fraternity, but outside of that
context are good, decent people. We have
to directly attack and confront the logic that allows hazing to persist. The
program that I present on campuses, “The Five Great Hazing Myths,” is designed
to do just that. But you don’t have to bring me in as a speaker to confront
hazing logic. Here are the five myths
that I confront in my program:
- Hazing builds Brotherhood/Sisterhood (It only builds certain kinds of brotherhood, and not the best kinds)
- It isn’t hazing because our new members willingly participate (Talk about the power of conformity and obedience to authority)
- Hazing teaches respect for the organization (turns out, it doesn’t)
- Hazing builds commitment and loyalty (again, turns out it doesn’t)
- Hazing is a tradition in our group (Really? Since when?)
