Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

Student safety, not class warfare

Few people will publicly defend hazing, but many will defend students’ rights to be friends with whom they want, when they want. Who cares if people want to hang out with other people like themselves and want to do so as soon as they arrive on campus? That’s their decision. One person’s “exclusive social pipeline” is another’s “being a part of something greater than himself.”

In contrast, activities such as forcing pledges to chug 20 ounces of tobacco dip spit and get nicotine poisoning, making them swim across icy ponds in January or hazing a pledge with Everclear until he goes to the hospital and blows a 0.4 are both dangerous for fraternities to conduct and irresponsible for the University to turn a blind eye to.

ADVERTISEMENT

There is currently very little that the University can do to prevent hazing, at least as far as disciplining offenders goes. Hazing is grounds for suspension under University rules and is illegal under New Jersey state law, but the very nature of the offense makes it practically impossible to meet the high standard of proof. Essentially, you need either a confession or pictures and video of hazing in progress, both of which are highly unlikely. I’m not suggesting that having a high standard of proof is a bad thing. But it’s important to realize that merely having strict penalties on the books doesn’t deter people from hazing, because there’s little chance the rules will actually be enforced.

The good thing about the freshman rush ban is that it will likely diminish hazing on Princeton’s campus for two reasons. First, sophomores will be much more knowledgeable about what they can expect during pledging and can make a more informed decision. Second, sophomores will have already made friends at Princeton, so they’ll be less socially dependent on their Greek organization and thus less vulnerable to hazing. Personally, I think the ban was implemented in an overly authoritarian way and goes too far (I favor the Editorial Board’s suggestion of a fall rush ban), but I can still recognize that the policy has benefits.

However, I think that the degree of hazing that exists on Princeton’s campus inevitably depends on Greek students’ attitudes toward it. Unfortunately, the current attitude among many of Princeton’s fraternity brothers is that enduring hazing as a pledge and then engaging in it as a brother is a sign of manliness, mental fortitude and dedication to the fraternity. Hazing is also seen as a trial by fire, during which the bonds of brotherhood are forged. There is a commonly held belief that pledges grow closer to one another through these shared negative experiences, and to get rid of hazing would weaken these bonds. One can agree or disagree with this position, but it is important to realize that fraternities do what they do for what they think is a good reason.

So what can we do to address hazing? The first step is to be aware that the issue even exists. And that’s an area in which we’ve made enormous progress in the year and a half since the articles came out. For all of the conflict the articles caused, they made students talk about something that deserves to be talked about and, I think, realize that the solution to the problem wasn’t very clear-cut. This controversy makes us consider where we, as moral individuals, draw the line between stopping injustice and personal freedom. Even if the freshman rush ban cuts down on hazing, will it have been worth the loss of freedom and the alienation of a big chunk of the student body? Whatever conclusion you come to, it’s important to realize that it’s a tough issue where both choices affect real people.

The second step is one that both the students and the administration must take: Make a distinction between the Greek system and hazing. The real issue here is hazing and its effects on students’ physical and emotional health, and the University’s rhetoric and the thrust of its reform efforts should reflect that. Muddying the waters with all of this talk about social exclusivity just makes the whole thing seem like social engineering.

The third and final step is one that, in the end, can only be taken by the fraternities themselves, and it’s this: Are you willing to take a leap of faith that you can have the same amount of brotherhood without hazing? Because as long as you think that they’re mutually exclusive, hazing will persist and the Greek system will be worse for it.

ADVERTISEMENT

I don’t know how all of this will turn out. I don’t think anyone does. I do, however, still believe very strongly that this whole mess can still turn out to be a great thing for both the Greek system and the University as a whole. Whether or not it actually does is up to us.

John Burford is a history major from Shreveport, La. He can be reached at jburford@princeton.edu.

Subscribe
Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »