Issue No. 1: Many people defend hazing practices by saying, “It is the individual’s prerogative whether or not to pledge, so any hazing that occurs during pledging is ultimately the pledge’s responsibility to endure. And if it becomes too much, then the pledge can drop out — no one is making him stay.”
This is accurate, as long as we accept certain assumptions: that the pledge is fully aware beforehand of the hazing practices of the given fraternity; that he knows about other socially viable alternatives (such as non-hazing fraternities or other campus organizations); that he has the confidence to turn away from the process; that he is not experiencing many outside pressures to join the fraternity (such as family tradition, perceived social value, friends in the fraternity or Bicker potential); and that if hazing begins, he is willing to quit, despite the months of work he has already put into pledging.
Furthermore, there is the absurd assumption that hazing is a legitimate method of “thinning the herd” in order to ensure that the pledges truly want to be members. As evidence, hazing proponents point to the cohesiveness of campus groups that haze and the dedication and loyalty that their members seem to share. Yet this causality is completely backward — the truth is that pledges do not endure hazing because they are loyal; they are loyal because they have endured hazing. The psychology: When you have worked hard to achieve something, you like the result more, especially when the rewards are fewer or less salient than you expected (see “Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance,” by Leon Festinger and James Carlsmith, in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology). You might recognize this piece of evidence from my previous column about Bicker.
This might beg the question: Who cares where the members’ loyalty comes from, as long as it results in a positive relationship?
I care, because it undermines everything fraternities represent while tarring the public’s perception of Greek life. As a member of a fraternity, I have personally experienced the hospitality, kindness and camaraderie that the brothers share. Together we have engaged in public service projects, helping others as well as each other in times of need.
To be clear, every single fraternity “represented” at Princeton is officially against hazing. In fact, a quick Google search of Sigma Alpha Epsilon will lead you to a page dedicated to the fraternity’s anti-hazing initiative, complete with a hotline to report hazing incidents. These anti-hazing rules are not just a public relations stunt by Greek organizations, at least not on the national level. The issue is that there is sometimes very little communication between certain campus fraternities and their respective national headquarters — and some individuals in some fraternities abuse the disconnect to exploit others. This brings me to my second point.
Issue No. 2: Well-meaning individuals, such as the now-famous John Burford ’12, see the answer to Princeton’s hazing dilemma in University recognition of fraternities and sororities. Though this is certainly part of the solution, it’s not the whole story.
The fact is that people haze, not institutions.
Since 1971, when Phillip Zimbardo’s “Stanford Prison Experiment” showed the true potential of human cruelty and the power of normative influence, society has been quick to explain away heinous acts of brutality — from domestic abuse to the Holocaust — to external, situational factors. “Bad people” no longer seem to exist, just bad circumstances. So it makes sense that the argument about hazing at Princeton has turned toward debate about the degree to which the University should recognize (and therefore regulate) fraternities.
First: Hazing is not unique to fraternities, and not all fraternities haze. Hazing-like activities occur in several campus organizations at all levels of University acknowledgement. Let’s not kid ourselves. I am in favor of University recognition of fraternities because that will bring them to the same place as all other campus organizations, though this is still not an ideal place to be.
Second: Are we seriously arguing about the concept of fraternities as a whole, while ignoring the fact that an actual human being did this to another? This is an issue of humanity. This should be a time for each of us to reflect on who we are and on what we are willing to do once push comes to shove. This problem is about compromised morals and mankind’s horrifying potential, not about which entire organization we can blame for the actions of a select few.
It is true that the “guards” in the prison experiment became crueler as time went on, but some became crueler than others. Some were kinder and did favors for the prisoners, though they were all in the same situation. Personality counts.
So go ahead, continue the finger-pointing and petty bickering. Just know that when you want to find the true culprit, you need look no further than a mirror. Each time we discuss hazing at Princeton, we miss the forest for the trees. The very act of promoting a single course of action as a “solution” undermines the very nature of that solution, because it oversimplifies the issue at hand.
If anything, this requires a bottom-up approach, beginning with modifying how we act and react in social situations.
Burford ended his recent guest column in the ‘Prince’ with, “The ball’s in your court, President Tilghman.”
I disagree. The ball is in ours.
David Mendelsohn is a sophomore from Rockville Centre, N.Y. He can be reached at dmendels@princeton.edu.
Read More
$56,000 in debt at graduation is not the financial aid Princeton advertises
Avi CheslerTake my story as an example — despite repeated evidence, both before and after taking out loans, that I would be unable to pay what Princeton asked of me — the University never set a cost that I could truly meet loan-free.
In the Garden State’s service and the service of humanity
Olivia Ragan, Lauren Aung, and Madison LintonIt is important to cultivate in students interest in local and state level change, because it is the most direct way to give back to the New Jersey community that sustains the University.
Why do two-thirds of your summer research wages go to Princeton, anyway?
Isaac BarsoumThe income that students earn from employment is not “miscellaneous.” So Princeton must decide: Does it want its students — all of them, not only those who can afford it — to be able to work on the important research happening at Princeton, or be forced to go home?
The income that students earn from employment is not “miscellaneous.” So Princeton must decide: Does it want its students — all of them, not only those who can afford it — to be able to work on the important research happening at Princeton, or be forced to go home?