Mental/Emotional Effects
it is important to understand that if there is a lack of motivation to change the fundamental way society views hazing, then it will remain an issue. In particular, people will continue to suffer mentality, emotionally, and sometimes physically as a result of hazing practices. As I mentioned in previous work, PTSD can develop as a result of traumatic hazing events. Furthermore, “being hazed has been linked to negative physical and psychological outcomes including death, blunt trauma, acute alcohol intoxication, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.”[1] With a lack of effort to change the mentality regarding initiation practices, the negative consequence of PTSD is still present. This is not to say that by eliminating the negative associations with hazing will lead to every college student having a college experience free from traumatic events. Everyone will experience college in a different way, but by lowering the negative consequences brought about by humiliation hazing, students will be more likely to have a positive experience with certain extracurricular activities.
Out-group Fear
Another fear to consider, if solutions for hazing are rejected, is that it will continue to promote the in-group is good, out-group is bad, mentality that has shaped societal expectations. In other words, hazing will continue to promote a sense of gatekeeping which can be defined as, “efforts and ability to control access to valued social positions – is central to processes of social reproduction.”[2] Therefore, by creating an image that organizations are restricting based on social positions, it creates an element of longing to be accepted by the desired in-group. Thus, people go to extreme lengths in order to achieve acceptance and avoid being associated with an out group. Furthermore, with the continuation of out-group mentalities, there is a presence of stereotypes that continues to develop. As I have referenced in other works, “Stereotypes do not take special effort to acquire. Quite the opposite – they are acquired effortlessly and take special effort to discount.”[3] Therefore, because there is a preference to be associated with in-groups, this mentality must be changed in order to work towards forming new perceptions about the concept of hazing, and other in-group behaviors.
Colleges Confront Loss of Funding
Additionally, many colleges hesitate to abolish programs due to negative consequences with hazing because it will take away from the value of their institution. For instance, reporter John Hechinger explains that, “Greek organizations own $3 billion in real estate on 800 U.S. campuses,” while their leaders “raise more than $20 million a year.”’[4] Therefore, colleges have a difficult time bringing negative light to these organizations for fear that their input of money to the University will decline. For example, when James F. Jones, former Trinity College president, was at Hartford college in Connecticut, he implemented strict guidelines on alcohol and pushed for co-educational pledge classes. The response alumni had to this initiative was to begin withhold donations and threaten a lawsuit after Jones banned pledging. Therefore, Jones decided to avert the situation and step down from his leadership position.[5] The situation Jones encountered is the perfect example as to why it is incredibly difficult to combat issues like hazing and the promotion in-group behavior. If there was more support behind the idea of changing the mentality in which society functions to recognize that hazing tactics that promote in-group behavior can be immoral, then Jones might have found more success with his initiative. The challenge that continues to present itself is in the ability to convince the greater majority of the public that this mentality causes harm and must be changed in order to uphold a just society.
[1] Hamilton, R. (2011). Clearing the haze: Examining the role of social cognitive theory in the prediction of hazing perpetration in athletics (Order No. NR89139). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1173727555). Retrieved from http://newman.richmond.edu:2048/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1173727555?accountid=14731
[2] Stuber, Jenny M., Joshua Klugman, and Caitlin Daniel. “Gender, Social Class, and Exclusion: Collegiate Peer Cultures and Social Reproduction.” Sociological Perspectives 54, no. 3 (2011): 431-51. doi:10.1525/sop.2011.54.3.431.
[3] Banaji, M. R., and Anthony G. Greenwald. Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. New York: Bantam Books, 2016.
[4] Strauss, Valerie. “Perspective | Are Colleges Really Doing Enough to Stop Fraternity Hazing Deaths?” The Washington Post. November 16, 2017. Accessed April 23, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/11/16/are-colleges-really-doing-enough-to-stop-fraternity-hazing-deaths/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.157a733edcb1.
[5] Strauss, Valerie. “Perspective | Are Colleges Really Doing Enough to Stop Fraternity Hazing Deaths?” The Washington Post. November 16, 2017.