The Myth of the "Rogue Member"

Whenever I visit a college campus, I often get the opportunity to meet in a small group setting with fraternity and sorority presidents and new member educators.  These meetings are generally my favorite part of a consulting visit, as it gives me the opportunity to have a genuine conversation with the students in the greatest position to foster change within their chapters.

I often start these meetings off by asking the students about their greatest fear when it comes to hazing. What is it about hazing that keeps them up at night? By far, the most common answer I get goes something like this:

“I’m afraid of a rogue member doing something that will get us into trouble.”

In some ways, this is a very justifiable fear. In my years as a fraternity/sorority advisor, a majority of the more egregious hazing incidents that I encountered were not those organized and sanctioned by the entire chapter, but rather those conducted by a “rogue” member or small group of members outside of the established new member education process. These regularly occur off campus, in isolated settings, and involve a single new member, or small group of new members, singled out for a special hazing session.  These rogue members often inflict tremendous damage, both to the individuals they single out and haze, and to their chapters and organizations as a whole.

But there are two major flaws in the logic behind the fear of the “rogue” member.  Here are two reasons why the “rogue member” fear is a myth:

1. We already know who our rogue members are.  In a previous blog post, I made the argument that chapters should do a better job getting rid of the sociopaths in their chapters, using Miami Dolphins offensive lineman Richie Incognito as an example.  Many have argued that Incognito was a “rogue” member of the team, and that his treatment of Jonathan Martin was an “isolated incident.” Here is the problem with that logic – anyone who looks at Richie Incognito’s past could predict with a high level of certainty that this sort of thing might happen.  He has a long record of abusive behavior. His hazing and harassment of Jonathan Martin, then, was not an isolated incident, but rather an anticipated incident.

The same is often true in hazing in fraternities and sororities. The “rogue member” who gets him or herself involved in a hazing incident almost always has a prior history of bad behavior; getting drunk and out of control at parties, getting into fights, yelling at their significant others, drug use, etc. The hazing incident in which they “cross the line” is rarely, if ever, the first sign of propensity for poor judgment.  When these “isolated incidents” occur, chapter leaders are never surprised by the identity of the rogue member(s) behind them. Just like Richie Incognito, the incidents are not isolated, they are anticipated.

2. The culture of any chapter gives rogue members permission to do what they do.  I like to think about hazing along a 1-10 continuum. Level one hazing involves the most minor things that we might consider hazing (i.e. new member dress codes, scavenger hunts), and Level ten hazing would involve the most egregious hazing (physical abuse, forced alcohol consumption, etc.).  Here is the problem with the myth of the “rogue member” – you can’t accept level seven or eight hazing as a part of your chapter’s “rite of passage” and then be surprised when one of your “rogue members” crosses the line and engages in level nine or level ten hazing that lands the chapter in hot water.  In other words, you can’t tolerate a little hazing in your organization and not expect that at some point a BIG hazing incident is going to happen.  Hazing is not just a slippery slope – it is a trajectory. It gets worse over time, as “rogue members” constantly push the line of acceptable behavior. Today’s Level 7 hazing is tomorrow’s Level 9 hazing.  So, when our “rogue member” crosses the line and engages in behavior that we deem unacceptable, we should not stand around and act like we are surprised.  The culture of the chapter gave that member permission to do what he/she did.  The problem is not isolated – it is systemic.

So what can you do about it?

First, as I have previously argued, get rid of your “rogue members.” You know who they are. Do not wait for a tragedy to occur before doing what you know needs to be done. If you don’t think your chapter has the willpower to expel a member, contact your alumni or your national organization. There is a way to get rid of them, and your alumni will be happy to help you.

Secondly, it is time to start pushing back the line of acceptable behavior in your chapter. I do not expect that a chapter can magically eliminate a hazing culture all at once, but actions must be taken to begin changing that culture immediately. Where is that line currently drawn in your chapter? What are the acceptable forms of hazing? How can you begin to push that line back?  How can you push Level eight hazing back to Level seven and then to Level six hazing?  Culture change takes time, but the time to start is now.

Stop your rogue members and begin changing your culture now, and avoid “isolated incidents” later.

Confronting Hazing Myths – “Hazing Builds Loyalty to the Organization”

It was Thomas Paine who famously coined the phrase “That which we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly.” This saying has almost become proverb in our society – in order to really appreciate something, it is thought that one must go through great hardship in obtaining it. The college degree is valued more by the one who works hard and overcomes adversity in order to obtain it as opposed to the one who breezes through with no difficulty.  The relationship most valued is that one you had to work the hardest to obtain, not the guy or gal you met right before the bar closed last night.  As a society, we place great value in working hard to achieve goals, and it is commonly assumed that we appreciate those hard-earned accomplishments more than the things which come our way with minimal effort.

This idea is a driving force behind much of the hazing that takes place in college fraternities and sororities.  Aldo Cimino (2011) identified the building of commitment and loyalty as one of the sociological factors that contribute to hazing within groups, and nowhere is this idea more evident than within fraternities and sororities. In their national study of student hazing, Allan and Madden (2008) found that “feeling a sense of accomplishment” was the second most common perceived positive outcome associated with hazing by college students.  It stands to reason that this feeling of accomplishment – the idea that you worked hard to earn your membership – would contribute to levels of organizational loyalty and commitment.

In our research on brotherhood, hazing and unethical behavior, my colleague Josh Schutts and I set out to better understand the relationship between hazing and organizational commitment.  First, we adapted the work of my friend Chad Ellsworth (2006), who studied how students define hazing. Using his research, we developed a “Hazing Tolerance Scale” that measures the level of hazing that a student would find acceptable within their organization. For a full description of the development of the Hazing Tolerance Scale, see McCreary(2012).

Next, we scoured the literature for measures of organizational commitment. As it turns out, we were able to find three different measures of organizational commitment.  Meyer and Allen (1991) developed a three component model of organizational commitment.  The first component, Affective Commitment, relates to the emotional connection to the organization (i.e. “I really love my fraternity/sorority”).  The second, Continuance Commitment, refers to the desire to remain a member of the organization (i.e. “I would never leave my organization, because there are no better options for me. The cost of leaving is greater than the cost of staying”). The final component, Normative Commitment, refers to the sense of obligation felt towards the organization (i.e. “I am committed to my fraternity/sorority because it has given so much to me”). These three constructs have been widely studied in the field of industrial/organizational psychology, but to our knowledge have never been studied within the context of fraternities and sororities.

When we analyzed the data from the study, which included nearly 700 respondents from 18 college campuses across the United States, we fully expected there to be a relationship between hazing and at least one of the three components of organizational commitment.  To our amazement, the relationships were completely flat.

Simply put, there is no relationship at all between the level or severity of hazing tolerated within a fraternity and the levels of commitment that members have to that fraternity.  This finding flies in the face of the oft-cited notion that a difficult new member program, rife with hazing, leads to members that are more loyal and more committed to the organization.  Instead, what our research finds is that those organizations that foster a sense of belonging and accountability have the most loyal and committed members. 

Those of us who work with fraternities and sororities should use this information to our advantage. We often have conversations with students about hazing in the spirit of preventing its occurrence.  As I have stated in a previous blog, I think one of the most important things we can do to prevent hazing is to directly challenge the mechanisms by which students rationalize and justify hazing. When we confront students with these brutal facts, we can create cognitive dissonance regarding the benefits of hazing and open the door for conversations about its prevention. But until we convince students that hazing does not accomplish all of the good things they like to associate with it, then we cannot have meaningful prevention conversations.  Our ability to prevent hazing is directly linked with our ability to confront the myths that lead to its continued perpetration. 

I Am a Hazer

I am a hazer.

I have something that somebody else wants, and I have the power to make them do anything in order to get it. I trick myself into thinking that what I’m doing serves some noble purpose for my chapter, but really it’s just about power and control. I lie to my parents about what really goes on in my chapter house. I degrade people. I dehumanize people. I haze because I can.  I treat people like animals and then expect them to be grateful to me at the end of it all because, really, I was just making them a better person.  I've convinced myself that the purpose of our new member program is about having a bonded and unified pledge class and not about building good members, because I have no idea what a good member is supposed to look like. I lie to my grandparents about what goes on in my chapter house. I lie to nationals about what goes on in my chapter house.  I lie to just about everyone about what goes on in my chapter house. I am a liar.

I have low self-esteem. I am always comparing myself to other people. Deep down, I know that I would be a nobody without my chapter – just another GDI looking for a place to fit in. I buy my friends. I care too much about what other people think about my chapter, which is another reason that I haze. We can’t let just anybody in. We have to weed out the losers. Losers will make us look bad. If we look bad, then I look bad. All I care about is my image. I’m narcissistic.

I was a loser in high school. I came to college where nobody knew me and somehow managed to fly under the radar during rush and pledge a decent chapter.  All of the people in my chapter are cooler than me, so I just act like them and hope that nobody notices.  When I was hazed as a pledge, I was ashamed of what I allowed others to do to me. The only reason I didn’t quit is because I wanted to show them how tough I was – that I wasn’t a loser.  Once I made it through, I knew that I couldn’t wait to dole out the hazing the next year.  Hazing pledges is probably the only thing I’m good at.  Besides, I had to go through a lot of crap in order to wear these letters – why shouldn’t these new pledges have to do the same?

I get a rush when I haze our pledges. It makes me feel powerful. It makes me feel like I matter – like I’m doing something good for my chapter. The feeling is better than any drug. I get bored in the spring semester because there aren’t any pledges around for me to yell at. I suffer from hazing withdrawal. When I graduate, I’ll come back to the house at homecoming and yell at the pledges, just for old time’s sake.  I’m unauthentic. I pretend to be something that I’m not, because that’s what I think people want me to be. I conform. I’m unethical. I’m a liar.

I am a hazer.

Hazing Prevention - Time to Move the Fulcrum Closer to the Object

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:

1. Hazing builds Brotherhood/Sisterhood (It only builds certain kinds of brotherhood, and not the best kinds)
2.  It isn’t hazing because our new members willingly participate (Talk about the power of conformity and obedience to authority)
3. Hazing teaches respect for the organization (turns out, it doesn’t)
4. Hazing builds commitment and loyalty (again, turns out it doesn’t)
5.  Hazing is a tradition in our group (Really? Since when?)

This post is not intended to be a sales pitch for my hazing program.  In fact, the opposite is true.  The point of this blog is to help you think differently about how YOU are working to prevent hazing on YOUR campus. How are you moving the fulcrum closer to the object?  I encourage you to spend some time thinking about this concept as it relates to all of the prevention work that you do. Our collective efforts in preventing hazing require that we begin addressing this issue in a smarter, more effective manner. Moving your fulcrum closer to the object is a great place to start.

Hazing and Psychopathy - The Richie Incognito Story

Psychopath (noun) – a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior, lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships, extreme egocentricity, and failure to learn from experience

I have watched with great interest as the Jonathan Martin/Richie Incognito hazing and harassment scandal has unfolded over the last several days.  Hazing in professional sports is nothing new – every year, there are numerous news reports making light of rookie hazing.  From silly haircuts to locker room pranks, hazing in the NFL is on public display.

But the Martin/Incognito story is different – the behavior being reported in Miami goes beyond rookie hazing and into the realm of workplace harassment.  One player has left the team, and the alleged perpetrator has been indefinitely suspended.

The person at the center of this story, Richie Incognito, is a character worthy of examination.  His history of abuse has been well-documented. After being suspended twice at the University of Nebraska, he was eventually dismissed from the team.  He transferred to the University of Oregon, but was booted from the team before ever playing a game.  He was eventually drafted in the third round by the St. Louis Rams.  He was let go by the Rams after head-butting two players in 2009, landed with the Buffalo Bills, was let go after three games, and landed in Miami.  He has led the league in personal fouls, penalties, and in 2009 was voted by his peers as the “Dirtiest Player in the NFL.”  Some resume’.

I’m no psychologist, but I have spent a significant amount of time in the last few years studying the psychological elements of hazing.  Most of what I read, write and talk about deals with the group dynamics of hazing – how individuals disengage from their moral selves and engage in behavior that they think benefits the group, and how group dynamics encourage this sort of behavior.  But there is no theory in social psychology to explain Richie Incognito’s behavior.  Nothing he is alleged to have done could be described as having any benefit to any individual or to the Miami Dolphins as an organization.  Taking the facts of the current case into consideration with his long history of violence, anti-social behavior and egotism, I cannot escape the thought that Richie Incognito must be a psychopath.

All of the warning signs are there. Violent behavior? Check. Huge ego? Check (check out his twitter page if you don’t believe me).  Anti-social? Check. Failure to learn from experience? Check. Lack of ability to love or establish meaningful relationships? Not a lot of friends or loved ones coming to his defense right now, are there?  You get the idea.

Here’s the problem with psychopaths – they are everywhere. They could be anyone.  They are hiding in plain sight. Some have suggested that “successful psychopaths” may attain prominent positions in society, and are well-represented in fields like business and politics. In fact, the odds are pretty good that you have a sociopath in your life, maybe one in your organization.  If you are in a fraternity, there is a very high chance that you have a psychopath in your chapter.

You probably know who it is after only a second of thought.  A lot of people may participate in hazing, feeling it a needed “rite of passage,” but the psychopath is the guy who actually seems to enjoy abusing the pledges. His hazing isn’t limited to fun, games and pranks – he is the guy who screams at pledges, throws things, curses, and does everything in his power to make their lives miserable.  He is the guy that can be funny at times, and people seem to tolerate him, some people may even like him and think he’s a great guy, but he doesn’t actually have close friends.  He may occasionally hook up with girls, but he has never been in an intimate and loving relationship.  You've been waiting since his freshman year for him to “grow out of it,” but he doesn’t seem to be changing his behavior. In fact, it may have become worse. Chances are, you have your very own Richie Incognito in your chapter.  It might be that you have more than one.

The Miami Dolphins are learning, in an embarrassing public spectacle, the lesson of what happens when you allow a psychopath to run amok in your organization. The extent to which team leadership knew of the specifics of Incognito’s abuse of other players remains to be seen, but they knew that he was a psychopath long before they offered him a job.  He was allowed to abuse rookies with little to no regard for any rules or consequences.  And now a player has suffered what appears to be an emotional breakdown. Some Miami Dolphin players are coming to Incognito’s defense, but their effort seems more of a shallow defense of the system rather than a heart-felt defense of the man.

What can we learn from the Dolphin's mistakes?

If you have a Richie Incognito in your chapter, I have one piece of very simple advice for you – get rid of him. By all means necessary.  If your chapter cannot muster the will to expel him, then ask your advisors or national volunteers for help. At the very least, get him placed on involuntary alumni status and get him away from your new members. If you allow a psychopath to have unfettered access to the new members of your fraternity, then you are playing with fire.  A college fraternity is one of the most dangerous environments in which a psychopath can live.  There, he runs the risk of not only hazing, but sexual violence, vandalism, and all manner of physical abuse and fighting. Keeping a Richie Incognito around in your organization is asking for trouble.

I suspect that the Richie Incognito story will be a watershed moment for the NFL. Their “head in the sand” approach to hazing has finally met its logical end. Someone has been hurt. An NFL locker room is a work place.  Jonathan Martin and Richie Incognito were/are employees of a company. Workplace harassment in the form of hazing is still workplace harassment, and it is illegal. The hypocrisy of NFL brass, including coaches and owners, is on full display in justifying rookie hazing. Miami Dolphins coach Joe Philbin publicly denied any knowledge of rookie hazing, despite the fact that hazing in the Dolphin’s locker room was on national display in last year’s season of HBO’s Hard Knocks.  How’s that for keeping your head in the sand?  Football analysts on ESPN, who have frequently made light of rookie hazing, are now indignant.  Why? Because someone was finally hurt?  We all knew this was coming. So many people – NFL officials, owners, coaches, other players, analysts - have had an opportunity to keep this from happening, and all of them have ignored the problem. Now it is a problem that can no longer be ignored. The NFL must adopt a hazing policy, and it must do so immediately.

The NFL will act, and so should you. No more Richie Incognitos. It’s time to take a stand. 

Hazing's Perfect Storm - The American College Fraternity

We are all familiar with the meteorological term known as the “perfect storm.”  It is that rarest of phenomena in which multiple weather abnormalities converge in just the right place at just the right time to create a weather event of terrific magnitude.  The term “perfect storm” has been generalized in modern culture as a catch-all phrase used to describe any situation in which circumstances align themselves to produce rare, and often dramatic, events. 

The title of this article may lead you to believe that my intention is to suggest that hazing is uniquely a problem with fraternities.  In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.  The National Study of Student Hazing demonstrated that hazing exists in a large number of organizations on the college campus.  The study showed that hazing is more prevalent in varsity athletics than it is in fraternities, and demonstrated that nearly half of all students involved in clubs and organizations in college have experienced hazing in high school.  Aldo Cimino (http://www.aldocimino.com/) has documented the evolutionary psychology of hazing, arguing that the hazing of newcomers in groups is ingrained in human behavior, and that virtually all groups engage in some form of newcomer hazing.  Hazing is certainly not a fraternity, or even a college, problem.

The NSSH findings, while exonerating fraternities from the title of “most likely to haze,” belie an inescapable truth – the most egregious cases of hazing, particularly those resulting in serious injury or death, belong almost exclusively to fraternities.  The obvious exception to this rule is the 2011 death of Florida A&M drum major Robert Champion, who died after being beaten in a hazing ritual known as “Crossing Bus C.”  In scanning the list of hazing deaths in the United States (http://www.hanknuwer.com/hazingdeaths.html), one must go back another ten years to find the next non-Greek casualty on the list – the 2001 death of University of Minnesota-Duluth rugby player Ken Christiansen.  During the ten years between Christiansen and Champion, there were 31 fraternity-related hazing deaths in America.  Sororities are certainly not exempt from scrutiny, as there were three hazing deaths in sororities during that same time period, but that number pales in comparison to fraternities.  The American college fraternity stands head and shoulders above any other organization on or off the college campus when it comes to hazing resulting in death.  No other group even comes close.

When confronted with these brutal facts, one must conclude that the American college fraternity brings together a perfect storm for hazing.  The rare combination of environmental factors present in the college fraternity converge to make it an environment that produces hazing of a terrific magnitude.  But what are those variables?  What about the college fraternity creates an environment so conducive to dangerous, deadly hazing?  Examining these questions and truly understanding the unique factors that contribute to the fraternity hazing culture is the first step in moving towards an effective fraternity hazing prevention strategy.  It is critically essential to understand what makes fraternity hazing so unique in order to properly address it.  This article offers an examination of two factors, unique to the fraternity culture, that contribute to hazing’s perfect storm.

The Interplay of Social Status and Conformity

Studies of bullying among adolescents (Bandura et al., 1999) and among prisoners (South & Wood, 2006) have found that bullying behaviors have a strong correlation with an individual’s desire for social status.  Another study of adolescent bullying found that conformity motives were the highest predictor of bullying among adolescent males (Kuntsche, Knibbe, Engels & Gmel, 2007).  In examining these studies together, it would seem logical that both conformity (the need to fit in) and social status (the need to obtain a place of status in the social hierarchy of a given environment) are both contributing factors in fraternity hazing.  Emerging research suggests that this is very much the case.

Research by McCreary and Schutts (2013) measured fraternal conformity, social status, and hazing tolerance and found strong, significant correlations among all three variables.  A diagram of these relationships would look like the following:

Any fraternity/sorority professional can readily recount a wide variety of anecdotes describing the ways that fraternity members jockey for social status (both individually and as groups), as well as the ways in which fraternity members conform to the “frat” stereotype (changing the way they dress, the music they listen to, the places they go, etc.). Research would suggest that the need to be accepted, taken in combination with the strong desire for social status, provide an environment in which hazing thrives.  Hazing is often carried out in a way that promotes conformity and solidarity among new members.  It is also done to achieve social status on campus (i.e. the prestige associated with a “hard pledge program”).  Cimino (2011) would argue that the social status of many groups on their campus would be an “automatic group benefit,” and that hazing in those groups is designed to prevent new members from exploiting those benefits.  It is likely that these two factors are stronger among college fraternity members than among any other group, although further research is needed to be certain.  The confluence of social status and conformity, unique to the college fraternity, is a significant risk factor in the perpetration of deadly hazing.  The desire to achieve social status is so strong that new members are willing to do almost anything to belong - a situation ripe for disaster, and one unique to college fraternities.

The Problem of Absolute Power

I regularly talk to groups about hazing and hazing prevention.  In the last year, I have taken to asking a question every time I speak.  The question is this:

“Can you name another social institution, besides the college fraternity, in which 19, 20 and 21 year-old young men have absolute power and authority over the lives of 17 and 18 year-old young men?”

I have asked this question dozens of times to hundreds of people.  I have yet to receive an answer.

With a sports team, you have a coach who ultimately makes the major decisions affecting the team.  With an ROTC unit, you have a chain of command.  With a marching band, there is a crew of adult band directors.  At the end of the day, with every other type of college group associated with hazing, you have responsible adults who are a key component of the power structure and decision-making within the group.  The same cannot be said for the college fraternity.  While there is a national structure and chapter advisors, these entities play no formal role in the day-to-day decision-making of the chapter.  Most importantly, they have no voice in two important decisions – who gets a bid, and who gets initiated.  Chapter members alone decide who gets a bid, they carry out the new member program, and they alone decide the fate of new members, often in anonymous and antiquated voting procedures. 

The absolute power that fraternity members have over their pledges, and the antiquated membership models that support these practices, is the number one risk factor associated with fraternity hazing.  It is the reason that there were 31 fraternity-related hazing deaths between the last two non-fraternity hazing deaths. Much like the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment, fraternity actives have absolute power over the lives of their new members. As the old adage goes, "power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely." If you buy that argument, then you have to buy the suggestion that the most important thing we can do to prevent hazing is to infuse responsible adults into positions of power within fraternal organizations. But how can we do that?  

Here’s an idea:

The best way to prevent dangerous hazing is to lower the level of hazing that new members would tolerate.  If you think of hazing along a continuum, with lower levels (i.e. errand running) and high levels (i.e. physical abuse) of hazing, then we can think about prevention as moving the line of acceptable behavior within an organization from higher levels to lower levels.  By curbing the absolute power that actives have over pledges, we may be able to do just that.

Imagine – a fraternity new member process where, at the end of that process, new members go before a chapter “Board of Directors” consisting evenly of undergraduate and alumni members.  The BOD questions the new member to ensure that he has learned all of the information needed to become initiated.  Any chapter member who feels this new member should not be initiated has an opportunity to address the BOD regarding his reasoning.  The BOD takes all of this information in, and determines whether or not the new member should be initiated.  How might such a system prevent hazing?  If a fraternity new member knows that, at the end of his new member period, the guy who is hazing him does not have the authority to anonymously remove him from the chapter, might he be willing to tolerate less from that member?  If a new member knew that responsible adults would be part of the decision regarding his initiation, might he be less willing to subject himself to degrading and dangerous activities?  I argue that he would. Such a model would not end hazing in a chapter, but I think it has the potential to drastically lower the level of severity of hazing within a chapter.

Some will be critical of this idea, asserting that the NPHC has already attempted to involve responsible adults in the pledging process, without success.  I would argue that the critical mistake made by the NPHC was in attempting to circumvent the undergraduate chapters altogether.  Instead of partnering, these groups have replaced undergraduate decision-making with alumni-decision making.  In the meantime, chapters have continued their pledging/hazing activities underground.  Accountability can only come through alumni working in conjunction with undergraduate members – a model that has not, to my knowledge, been fully implemented.

Conclusion

This post is not meant to beat up on fraternities. I am a proud fraternity member, and believe strongly in the power of the college fraternity to be a force for good.  But I can no longer look at the brutal facts of fraternity hazing and continue to insist that hazing is a student problem that can be fixed by better educating fraternity members about hazing.  We have to start by acknowledging that hazing is worse in fraternities than in any other organization.  Then, we must ask ourselves “Why?”  I have engaged in that thought experiment, and this blog represents my first attempt at answering that question. The unique combination of conformity, social status and absolute power are a recipe for disaster, and that confluence of factors is unique to the college fraternity. Once we acknowledge this and begin actively addressing it, we may begin to see progress in our fight to prevent hazing. 

Sorority Recruitment and Discrimination at Alabama

Part of me wishes I had spoken out sooner.  Lord knows I had the opportunity.  But please do not confuse my silence with acquiescence. Whatever you do, don't call me a bystander. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

I have watched with more than just a passing interest at the events unfolding at the University of Alabama in the days since the Crimson White published its story on the latest round of racial discrimination in Panhellenic Sorority Recruitment. To the casual observer, this story was nothing new under the sun. African American women have been trying, unsuccessfully, to join Panhellenic sororities for years. The result was always the same - systematic discrimination. Many brave young women tried to break through that barrier, but all met the same fate.  Almost every year, the Crimson White (the campus newspaper) would devote some ink to the story.  It would be all the buzz on campus for a few days, as students and faculty would wrestle with the nature of the problem.  But then the Crimson Tide football team would take the field for the first time and stories from sorority recruitment would fade into the background.

But the story this year was different.

Not everyone has picked up on the difference in this year's story.  It was subtle. In a world where we like to receive our news in 140 characters or less, details often get lost in the headlines.  But those who read beyond the headlines and who understand the issues on that campus noticed the difference in this year's story - for the first time, the undergraduate sorority members were calling out their alumnae members.  By name.

I had known for a few months about one of the young African American women participating in recruitment this year.  I knew she had impeccable credentials: 4.3 GPA, 28 ACT score, involved in high school, beautiful, grand-daughter of a member of the UA Board of Trustees, etc.  I knew that several undergraduate members of various sororities knew her and had her on the top of their list - an "RTP" as we called them at Alabama (Rush to Pledge).  Perhaps she would be the one to break through.

It was not to be.

The story that the Crimson White reported this year was not just a story of discrimination. It was a story of subversion. A story of threats and fear-mongering. A story of the abuse of power. This year, at least three of the chapters were ready to take the plunge.  But the alumnae advisors were having none of it.  In at least one chapter, the alumnae threatened the chapter with promises of withdrawn financial support.  In at least two others, the alumnae advisors overrode the chapter's voting process and removed the African American women from the pool, completely circumventing the recruitment process and subverting the will of the chapter.  And in the Crimson White article, the undergraduates told their stories of what had happened.  This represents, to my knowledge, the first time that undergraduate members have publicly called out their alumnae members on this issue.

Now, fast forward one week.  After a week of humiliating headlines, the University President called a private meeting with sorority advisors. The decision was made to increase campus total to 5 more than the largest chapter on campus, allowing any chapter to add additional new members through the continuous open bidding (COB) process. I have been told by those present at the meeting that the President did not beat around the bush regarding the reason for increasing total - the sororities should take the opportunity to do the right thing and pledge the women they want to pledge.

Some have called this action a band-aid - a temporary fix aimed only at stopping the negative publicity. To some extent, this may be true, but those who make that argument demonstrate very little understanding of the underlying fear that is at the heart of this issue.  If a sorority uses this opportunity to pledge an African American member, then everything will change forever.

At the heart of this issue is fear: fear of being the first, fear of how other Greek organizations on campus will respond, fear of the alumnae, fear of being different, fear of the unknown. The fear extends from the undergraduate chapters to the alumnae to the national organizations.  There is also fear within the University administration. The University has been afraid of taking a stand on this issue for years - afraid of offending alumni donors who might withdraw their support of the University, afraid of letting their Director of Greek Affairs get too involved in the issue. Fear is a very powerful motivator. As it turns out, the only thing more powerful than fear is public humiliation.

It looks like at least one sorority will extend a bid to at least one African American woman this week.  They will do so proudly, but with trepidation - with fear of the unknown. But here is the important part - when they take this historic step forward, the sky will not fall. The world will keep turning. Their alumnae will still support them. The fraternities on campus will still swap with them.  Other than having one dark face among hundreds of white ones in chapter photos, nothing will change. And everyone else will notice this.  The alumnae members who still think it is 1975 will see that times have changed. Recalcitrant undergraduates, those who wanted to do the right thing but were afraid of how others on campus would respond, will see that the group with a black member did not become a social pariah.  The fear will dissipate.  The issue of skin color will become a non-issue.  I will not go so far as to say that the floodgates will open, but I do think that the issue of race in sorority recruitment will become a thing of the past. Simply, chapters who want to pledge a woman of color will be able to do so with no fear.  And that will be a huge step forward for the University of Alabama.

When this happens, I will not give any credit to the University of Alabama administration or to the national organization who happens to be the first to do it.  The University has dodged responsibility on this issue for years.  The national organizations have been made aware of problematic advisors on numerous occasions and have done nothing about it. The credit will go solely to the young women who have had the courage to speak out, to challenge the status quo, and to go public with their stories - women like Anna Foley, Hallie Paul, Alex Clark, Melanie Gotz, Kirkland Back, Yardena Wolf, and so many others. It is not easy to challenge the status quo, especially on a campus like the University of Alabama with a "machine" that has maintained its power on campus through coercion, violence and intimidation.  These women deserve all of the credit for making this change possible.  Their story is a story of courage.

I could tell a lot of stories in this post - stories that would embarrass the University and several of the national organizations on campus.  But what's the point?  I have no desire to embarrass anyone.  I want to see this issue become a thing of the past.  I want to see the fear and discrimination end.  I want to see the students at the University of Alabama, the great majority of whom have been unfairly characterized as racist, take ownership of their chapters and do the right thing.  As long as that happens, and I have every reason to believe that it will, then my stories would serve no purpose other than to ruin professional relationships and create even more humiliation.  I have no desire to see either of those things happen.  I love the University of Alabama.  It is an amazing place.  I am a proud former employee and a proud alumnus.  I want to see my Alma Mater do the right thing, and I have never been more hopeful that it will.