I’ve been the student who refused to participate in hazing, which in my case was school-wide and dorm-wide. Two of us, out of about 30 freshmen in the dorm, wouldn’t go along. We were constantly told that participation was voluntary, but when we said no, we were subjected to a lot of disappointment, judgment, etc. It really made me angry that this kind of setup could be understood as “voluntary.” Of course you can say no. I did it. But students shouldn’t be put in the position of having to make that choice.
I never had a moment’s doubt about whether I was doing the right thing, but it sucked. Just a horrible experience. Both of us transferred.
So is the solution that if one or two people don’t find something fun, or feel it is not voluntary even when everyone else says it is, then no one gets to do it? I don’t like the word “hazing,” because it doesn’t really mean anything without being defined.
If it involves you or your kid touching me or my kids junk, stealing, or underage drinking, YES WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM. THAT IS NEVER OK.
Just wanted to be crystal clear on that
Edit: was thinking about this overnight, and I’m thinking the fish thing would also have the effect of keeping out observant persons of any faith that forbade uncooked fish or required vegetarianism. Yeah, I know, that’s probably not what started the tradition, but that is a side effect.
If there’s going to be tacitly accepted peer pressure for immoral or illegal acts, the prospect deserves to know up front.
In that case, what’s the plan when someone alleges they’ve been coerced into something immoral/illegal?
If the athletic dept takes it seriously and investigates in good faith, that’s splendid.
OTOH, if they don’t and the administration doesn’t either, then yeah, we have a problem. The whole attitude of “it’s tradition, the DA didn’t prosecute, and although the parents of the other students corroborated the story, we’re still not going to do anything” pushes a whole lot of buttons at once.
I feel alittle bit like this is similar to the thinking of “I don’t want me kid getting hurt on the elementary playground so I am going to demand the school remove everything that I deem dangerous”… so at what point does your desire get to impact 20 other people’s desires? In this case the court gets to decide, but frankly the coach and school decided it when the original suspensions occured, the lawsuit feels more like an adult “revenge of the nerds” move to me but whatever carry on your crusade to remove all the playground equipment
Same rules as the workplace, because the athlete is really working for his/her scholarship.
A little surprised that you’d equate playground equipment to (from post 2)
blindfolding, false imprisonment, forced to drink liquids (beers, liquor, milk and prune juice, verbal abuse), forced sexual contact, and a several other intimidation tactics including the threat of forced sodomy.
It’s a big world, I guess, but I doubt we’ll find a middle ground on this.
As I said many posts ago sometimes people just don’t fit in and that I do not condone stealing from retail if in fact that was one of the requests from the upperclassmen. The lawsuit, now does feel revengeful but as I also said I hope he is happier at his new uni.
This is a boy that is obviously bright, athletic, very good looking, has self-respect and given he was truthful with his coach despite being threatened also has integrity. I would say he “fits in” just fine. Based on his picture alone I think my 18 year old D and her friends would agree with me. I bet he is very happy at Northwestern.
I’ve never worked at a place where we could just throw someone away if they didn’t fit in, and I’ve worked with a lot of socially awkward people. As long as they can do the work, you work with them. Being socially exclusive is an ugly luxury.
If the kid was recruited to swim at that level and could swim at that level, was he really more disposable than some childish rituals dating back fewer than 80 years?
The athletic department did investigate, and refer it to the DA, so this is not a matter of the incident being ignored at all.
The plaintiff wasn’t “thrown” away, he chose to transfer, just like Hanna.
The only way I can come to a judgement on the incident is to look at the facts as we know them from the lens of a “reasonable adult.” And yes, the plaintiff was an adult. Don’t give me the, “he was only a teenager” routine, so adult rules don’t apply, because then you’ve got to give all the other swimmers a pass for their behavior too.
Was it reasonable for him to think he had to drink alcohol to stay on the team? No.
Was it reasonable for him to think he had to steal to stay on the team? No.
…to allow others to touch his genitals? No.
…to chew a goldfish? No.
Was it reasonable for him to think his teammates intended to do him harm? No.
The only allegation that bothered me, as I said from the beginning, was the false imprisonment. But I would need to know more information to decide whether that was a problem or not. I would need to know whether he asked to be released, or was threatened with non-release if he didn’t do something first. But the DA didn’t prosecute it, and there presumably were others present who could be subpoenaed to testify under oath about whether he was not free to leave, so I must assume that there wasn’t much there.
"So is the solution that if one or two people don’t find something fun, or feel it is not voluntary even when everyone else says it is, then no one gets to do it? "
If the something is bullying, yeah, I think the college would be a lot better off without it, though I didn’t see anything at my school that was illegal. It certainly should not be an officially sanctioned college activity for sophomores to search the rooms of freshmen, put them on trial using the evidence they discover, find them guilty of various crimes, and order them to perform embarrassing, disruptive punishments. (Propositioning a professor in class; passing an “appetizer tray” of crackers with shaving cream on top; singing a sexual song in the dining hall when they are clearly shy and uncomfortable about it; etc.) You know, hazing.
I’m a tough broad. I was back then, too. I was angry, not hurt or intimidated, when I was publicly shamed for not participating in this “voluntary” activity. Most 18-year-old girls are not that tough. At a college with an honor code, like this one, that ought to be an honor violation. I didn’t see what was honorable (or feminist, or intellectual, or inclusive, or any of the college’s other professed values) in any of that stuff.
I think the idea of those types of activities is to force people out of their comfort zones, and really, all in good fun. Being forced out of one’s comfort zone is usually considered a positive thing, so long as it is not illegal or dangerous.
The point is not whether he is good looking or “a nice boy” the point is he did not fit with that group and it was his decision to be the person who confirmed to an authority and he was old enough or should have known that even with the couple leaders of the activities suspended it would not work out in the long haul with the team regardless of reporting an honor code violation. It never does in these kinds of situations. He made his choices and that is his decision and moving on is a choice I could support if I were his parent and something I probably would have encouraged. As a parent I cannot understand what there is to gain from pursuing a lawsuit other than more baggage to be remembered by but it is his life and his story to be told going forward. As a parent I would also be concerned that he can’t let it go if he is the initiator of the lawsuit.
I agree with theory posted earlier that the suit probably wasn’t his idea but was more of a “Your kid messes with mine, I’ll mess with yours” suit.
I also read in one article that the suit was being done in part to discourage future acts of hazing. Make people think twice about the consequences before doing it.
" sometimes people just don’t fit in"
I don’t think this kid was some sort of outlier at all. I find it just as likely, that at least some of the 5 were the outliers that the coach wanted to get rid of. If nothing else, clearly, some swimmers had issues with rules on that team, since there have been 15 suspensions over 2 years. (I posted that article upthread). I think that is a lot, given the number of swimmers. Possibly the coach, who was fairly new, was trying to bring back some dignity and honor to the program. And this kid responding honestly about the welcome week details was just what was needed to get the housecleaning done.
Agreed it was his decision to stand up to tell the truth. However, I would imagine he probably had the reasonable expectation that his discussions with the coach and/or dean would be kept in confidence, or at least not tied back directly to him and only him. Where that breakdown happened, and how it happened is not clear to me.
Yes. My take was that the other swimmers knew it was him that turned them in, and that is why he was ostracized. I didn’t see where it said he was just responding to the coach’s inquiry so as not to violate the honor code. Based on his lawsuit, he obviously had some very serious issues with the welcoming week events, to the point that I would be surprised if he had intended to keep quiet about it unless the coach asked, and once asked felt forced to tell about it. I know the articles say the coaches were tipped off by an outside source, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a source that was related to the plaintiff.
