Over the last four years, I’ve talked to thousands of
students on dozens of campuses about hazing. These conversations have informed
my perspective on hazing more than any research articles I have read (and, when
it comes to hazing, I have read them all). And all of those conversations have
led me to a singular conclusion – If we are talking about hazing with our
students, then we are usually having the wrong conversation.
Students don’t want to talk about hazing. Very often, they
are not even willing to talk about hazing. But we keep talking about it, and in
all of the wrong ways. The way that professionals on most campuses talk to
their students about hazing has been reduced to one of two strategies, neither
of which are very effective.
Strategy #1 – "Check the Box" Education – Check the box
education is where we gather all of our chapter leaders together a few times a
year and go over the campus hazing policy, which inevitably includes a lengthy list
of “Thou Shalt Nots.”
Thou shalt not strike thy pledges.
Thou shalt not make thy pledges consume intoxicants.
Thou shalt not deprive thy pledges of sleep.
You get the idea. At the end of this “education,” chapter
leaders sign a piece of paper acknowledging that they have read the list of
Thou Shalt Nots and understand that if any hazing goes on in their chapters,
their asses are on the line. University lawyers love this type of programming,
because if there is ever a lawsuit, the University can show where the “hazing
education” box was dutifully checked and can show where the chapter in question
promised not to hit their pledges but decided to do it anyways. But other than
providing some legal cover to the University, this strategy does very little to
stop hazing. Students will either do the things prohibited anyways, because we
failed to help them come up with something better (you can read more about that
here) or they’ll come up with something just as bad that you didn’t think to
put on your list and then you have to decide how you’re going to deal with
that.
Strategy #2 – "Live Your Values Education" – In this version
of hazing prevention education, we gather students together and beg them –
IMPLORE them – to live their values.
“You guys, hazing is inconsistent with who we say we are!”
“What would your founders think of the way you treat your
new members?”
“Live your values and don’t haze, you guysssss!!!! Please????”
I can just envision the “hypermasculine” new member
educators rolling their eyes and tuning out…
Stop. Just stop.
If you want to start addressing the hazing culture on your
campus, here is my suggestion. Stop it with the box-checking and the “live your
values” guilt trips. Stop talking to students about hazing altogether. It is a loaded word - it means different things to different people, and when we talk about hazing, we end up debating what "Is" hazing and what "Is Not" hazing. Instead of engaging in this circular debate of trying to define what is and is not hazing,
sit down with chapter leaders and ask them to subject all of their new member
education activities to Gentry's Two-Pronged Test:
Test #1 – “Is there a group-relevant point or purpose to this
activity?”
You have to start with the first test, and the key word here
is “noble.” Is the purpose of the activity something that we could all agree
would be a good outcome, and is the activity logically matched to producing
that outcome. The outcome needs to be specific – not some vague notion of “it
builds brotherhood.” What kind of brotherhood? How? To what end? Insist on
specific linkages between the activity and the outcome.
If the activity does not pass the first test, then you are
done. No need to go on to the second test. The activity failed. Chapters should
not be doing activities with their new members that serve no noble point or
purpose. Note: “Because we’ve always done that with our pledges” is not a good
reason and would not pass the test. Neither would “The pledges need to learn to
keep the house clean” “The pledges need to learn time management” or “The
pledges need to learn to hold their liquor.”
But, many activities will pass the first test. There will be
activities that are directly linked to some positive outcome, and once you have
made that determination, you are free to move on to the second test.
Test #2 – “Is the activity dangerous, demeaning, excessive,
or illegal?”
I think this one is pretty self-explanatory. I don’t care
how noble the outcome may be from Test #1, if it meets any of the criteria in Test
#2, it’s a no-go. No activity can put a new member in danger, we should be
above any activities that demean or degrade new members, and none of us are in
a position to allow things that are against the law.
When I bring the two-pronged test up with students, there
are a few common themes that emerge when they try to push back. They’ll often
ask about the pledges as sober drivers. I always hammer home Test #1 when they
do. What is the point? Making members safe? Help me understand, if safety is
your concern, why you don’t have a sober driver program involving all of your
members? Also, I include in the “dangerous” category not only those things that
are dangerous to a person’s physical well-being, but to their overall success
in college. So, yeah….tell me more about how your pledges are doing sober
driver programs until 4:00 in the morning and that isn’t impacting their
grades?
Another one that comes up is the pledge “signature books” that so many chapters love to use. Is
there a point? Ostensibly it is to help the pledges get to know the older
brothers. Is it dangerous? Not in and of itself, but it can be used as a
platform for those older brothers to require the pledge to do something that
would violate Test #2 in order to get the signature. If you want the pledges to
get to know the older brothers, I can easily help you come up with about a
dozen different activities that will do a better job of accomplishing the
objective without opening up the potential for “rogue members” to violate Test
#2.
Notably absent from my tests are “Is the activity required
of all members?” A lot of people use this test. I don’t. I don’t think that
test is legitimate, because the new member education process is just that –
about new members. Once you go through it as a new member, you don’t do it
every year. New members can and should be asked to do things that older members
are not expected to do, but only if those activities pass the two-pronged test.
The beauty of the two-pronged test is that it allows you to avoid having to categorize things as "hazing" or "not hazing." If a new member activity doesn't pass the test, it may or not be hazing, but it isn't a good activity because it doesn't pass the test. We don't have to categorize it or debate it endlessly. It didn't pass the test. Period.
The beauty of the two-pronged test is that it allows you to avoid having to categorize things as "hazing" or "not hazing." If a new member activity doesn't pass the test, it may or not be hazing, but it isn't a good activity because it doesn't pass the test. We don't have to categorize it or debate it endlessly. It didn't pass the test. Period.
My favorite example of the problem with traditional
prevention education strategies is that we inevitably put things on the “list
of thou shalt nots” that, if done correctly, would pass the two-pronged test. A
perfect example is scavenger hunts. In the Fall of 1997, as a new member of
Alpha Gamma Rho at the University of Tennessee, my fellow new members and I did
a scavenger hunt. It was probably my favorite thing that we did in our entire
new member program. Our new member educator obviously put a lot of time and
energy into putting it together. It was designed to help us learn about
important landmarks and the history of the University. We were divided into teams
of 3-4, and were given clues about important or historic locations on campus. When
we figured out a clue and went there, a brother was waiting there to tell us
all about the building or statue, its history, its importance, and to give us
our clue to the next landmark. I still remember things I learned from that
scavenger hunt. And today, it would pass both of my tests. Was there a noble
purpose? Yup – learning the history and important landmarks of the school made
me even more excited and proud to be a student there. Was it dangerous or
degrading? Not at all. We weren’t drinking, we weren’t encouraged to break the
law, and we didn’t get yelled at if we didn’t solve all of the clues. It was a
great new member activity – we learned a lot and had a great time in the
process.
But some well-intentioned fraternity/sorority advisor on
some campus today would get asked about doing a similar activity by a well-intentioned new member educator and would tell that student they couldn’t do it because at some point in the past one of their predecessors had placed “scavenger hunts” on the list of “thou shalt nots.” It is easy to just say
“No” to all scavenger hunts – but it is also lazy. And it isn’t developmental
or educational. If we were less concerned about enforcing policies and
more concerned with helping our students think critically and develop, we’d
probably be more willing to use something thoughtful like this two-pronged test
instead of just reading our students a list of things they aren’t allowed to
do. Intentionality is more than just a buzzword! It takes time and effort
to be intentional and to actually help students think and learn. Being the
captain of the “No Police” is not what any of us were hired by our campuses to
do, but for whatever reason, about half of the questions I see posted on the
NASPA Knowledge Community page have something to do with asinine policies. WE
NEED TO BE DOING MORE THAN ENFORCING POLICIES, PEOPLE!!!
Should you still have a hazing policy that lists some
specific activities? Yes, and you should make sure your students read it.
Should you still be talking to students about how their behavior reflects on
who they say they are, and encouraging them to be more consistent with their
stated values? Of course. But our hazing education and prevention work
needs to become more advanced if we are going to A) get students to listen to
us and; B) actually do something to prevent hazing. In the New Year, let’s all commit
to being more intentional and, as a result, more impactful in our work to
prevent hazing.
