How to Identify Fraternity Hazing

 

Although hazing can be prosecuted as a criminal offense in 44 states and has been officially “banned” by national fraternity organizations and college administrations, the practice still exists on campuses throughout the country.

 

Attempts to explain how hazing could continue to be practiced usually blame “tradition” or some other social institution. On this page we will argue that hazing persists simply because hazing is not recognized for what it is until it escalates from a harmless ritual to a situation that places prospective fraternity members in real danger.

 

There are numerous studies suggesting that many college students are unable to consistently identify deliberate acts of hazing. To assist college students and other groups in recognizing hazing, different organizations have proposed a series of questions to help students identify hazing activities. These questions include:

 

 

• Does an activity promote demeaning or degrading behavior by members that is directed toward prospective members?

• Do members justify their actions by appealing to “tradition” and reject prospective members who question that justification?

• Is there an obvious risk of danger in performing the required activity?

• Are prospective members required to ingest alcohol?

• Do members participate in an activity alongside prospective member?

• Are prospective members forbidden to associate with non-fraternity members or to discuss the activity with “outsiders?”

 

An answer of “yes” to any of the above listed questions means that the activity is suspicious. Obviously, the more “yes” responses to the above questions means that the activity is almost certain to be hazing.

 

Even though fraternities go to great lengths to conceal their activities, there are some physical signs that would suggest that a student is, or has been, participating in a hazing ritual:

 

 

• constant drowsiness

• irritability

• lack of participation in classroom discussions

• inability to focus attention to a task

• depression

• unexplained injuries such as bruising, burns, or cuts

 

Types of Fraternity Hazing

​

Hazing incidents can be roughly divided into general types, although there is some disagreement among those who have studied the fraternity culture regarding the number and sub-classes that should be included in such classifications.

 

 

• Power Transfer Hazing

 

Power transfer hazing is associated with “psychological” or “mental” hazing and occurs when an individual gives up some of his autonomy or self-direction to another individual or a group. As a consequence the ceding party exposes himself to a submissive role in the dynamic of the group, which leads to humiliation and degradation.

 

 

• Harassment Hazing

 

As its name implies, this type of hazing consists primarily of verbal abuse but can also include sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, and being forced to perform humiliating chores for their “superiors.”

 

 

• Violence Hazing

 

Violence hazing is the use of bodily harm or the threat of such harm to compel the prospective member to engage in behaviors that carry a risk of physical harm. Such behaviors include forced alcohol consumption, abductions, partial of full nudity while exposed to public view, and forced use of illegal drugs.

 

It should be obvious that no one aspect of fraternity hazing falls “exclusively” under one definition and that when an activity or task encompasses elements from all three types, the probability that an activity could represent hazing approaches certainty. Although the definitions and activities presented here are obviously hazing-related, we still must explain why hazing is still an aspect of fraternity life.

 

One reason that hazing has managed to persist is that prospective fraternity members have “learned,” from the entertainment industry or by word of mouth from slightly older peers, that fraternity hazing is a “rite of passage” that must be experienced in order to successfully make the life transition from high school to full participation in college life.

 

Another reason that fraternity hazing has persisted is that hazing appears to be at least tacitly approved of by college administrators. In this situation a prospective fraternity member may be told something like “Since we don’t call it hazing, and the Dean of Students always looks the other way when we hold initiations, it must be legal.” As long as college administrators continue to display such tacit approval of hazing this explanation will be used to justify hazing as an integral part of fraternity initiations.

 

No single explanation for fraternity hazing will likely be found, but this is not the real problem. Only the recognition of hazing activity, and then the refusal to participate, will bring an end to this remnant of another era.