<p>Just the other day I picked up some litter when I was walking through the student rental area of my neighborhood. It was the shopping list of some one who was also picking up a few things for friends.</p>
<pre><code>6 cases Natty (cheap light beer)
1 case Budweiser (obviously for a classier pal)
1 case something else
maybe one more Natty
2 Hardies (Hard Lemonade?)
1 Early Times whiskey (my parents drank this in the 60s, must have been cheap)
1 Captain fifth (rum)
1 Vlad (vodka?)
</code></pre>
<p>I don’t think this is always true. There was no mention of the suicide I linked to in either the school paper or the local rag when it occurred in February. Only in the last week has it gained attention on Facebook. Today both local news sources ran stories.</p>
<p>Yeah, I don’t think it has anything to do with it either.</p>
<p>I know MIT is not like at other schools, but at MIT the frats were sold to the freshman as something they needed to better themselves so that they would be more attractive to med school and/or business jobs. In other words, they would say something like, “We know you’re all smart and have more than enough intelligence to succeed at these jobs, but these future employers/admission boards want to see something on your resume’ that shows you have social skills.” For this reason, I think the college itself is as guilty as the students that are doing the hazing.</p>
<p>Is MIT or the frats are saying? It is true that by joining Greek life one could learn many social skills - like when to say no when had too much to drink, so they wouldn´t get completely trashed at their first business cocktail party.</p>
<p>I spent a goodly amount of time at a frat at MIT in the mid 70s. I never saw or heard of any hazing at that house, although there was at least one incident involving another house during that period. (And, of course, the legend of how the bridge came to be marked with “smoots.”)</p>
<p>I think that the major reason that a lot of freshmen looked into pledging at that time was that the university did not provide housing for all freshmen.</p>
<p>It’s both. I think the MIT administration promotes the frats to avoid having to build dorms.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The presence and degree of hazing varies a lot at MIT. It was pretty big news when I was there because someone actually died, and that is one reason why it evokes a strong response in me when I hear of these things occurring.</p>
<p>My personal experience with it was that they just waste a lot of your time making you do stupid stuff, sending you to different states with no notice, that sort of thing. It seems minor, but it goes on for 4-6 months and is tough when you have an MIT workload. I also know that the brothers thought they were going easy on us because they said when they were freshmen, they were getting beat up and forced to engage in drinking rituals. </p>
<p>I know last year a frat was reported for hazing, and it looks like MIT bascially swept it under the rug. </p>
<p>Frankly, I blame the university more than the students for supporting this system. The students come in and they are handed a flag to wave while they are there, and they do it. Then the university administrations come in and say, Casablanca-style, “I am shocked, shocked to find drinking and hazing going on in these fraternities!”</p>
<p>First of all, let’s make sure we are talking about the same things. Some might want to address the issues of underage drinking and other related activities that students like to engage in. Such behavior will indeed be hard to curb … if even needed. On the other hand, there is the criminal behavior related to hazing and other savage acts that are routinely perpeprated by organizations on or just outside the campus. </p>
<p>The second acts are the ones that could and SHOULD be pursued with relentless drive. Activities that result in the death of a student should result in permanent ban of the groups that are so determined to see the practices maintained. The penalties should be simple. First death = permanent for that chapter. Second death on campus = elimination all similar groups on that campus. All universities should work together to make the same penalties on a national basis. </p>
<p>Simply stated an organization such as SAE should have been barred to recruit students a LONG time ago. </p>
<p>As far as forcing the behavior off campus, that is a canard. Make the participation in anything related to a banned organization subject to immediate expulsion for the students caught participating on or off campus. No discussions. No negotiations. No second chance. Caught? You can look for another school and explain to your parents why you just threw away money! </p>
<p>How hard is that? Why should those animals be given a second, third, fourth chance? There are no benefits that outweigh the misbehavior. And, why is so hard to abandon the practices of hazing and physical abuses? They continue only because the penalties are conveniently extremely small. The ones that refuse to recognize that the practices HAVE to end should be hit hard and without tolerance. With big lawsuits and immediate removal of students.</p>
<p>Getting rid of every one of those bad-behaving groups IS the solution, and a price well worth paying.</p>
<p>There are those who believe that hazing is valuable. They think that people should have to prove themselves by doing difficult – maybe even risky – things to obtain something of value (membership in an organization). Those who went through hazing themselves to qualify for membership may be among its strongest supporters.</p>
<p>I’m not saying this is appropriate, just that some people think this way. How can this kind of thinking be changed?</p>
<p>Another point:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This could be implemented for Greek houses, but what about when the organization is a regular campus extracurricular organization? Do you ban the tennis team or the marching band because one year’s members engaged in dangerous hazing? That deprives future students of the opportunity to participate in a standard college activity.</p>
<p>^I see your logic on your second point. However, if they can ban the powerhouse SMU football team for paying their players, you should be able to ban a standard activity for a hazing death.</p>
<p>I am all for banning a specific group if they have a death occur based on any type of illegal activity. But ban similar groups for a “second death”? Really? To me that is like saying, 25 to Life for the first man that murders someone, and 25 to life for everyone else when a second murder takes place. It sounds so…communist.</p>
<p>“They think that people should have to prove themselves by doing difficult – maybe even risky – things to obtain something of value (membership in an organization).”</p>
<p>Oldfort…same with my D’s sorority. As a matter fact they are super aware of it and if anything at all could be seen as hazing, it will be called out immediately.</p>
<p>“Do you ban the tennis team or the marching band because one year’s members engaged in dangerous hazing?”</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>“That deprives future students of the opportunity to participate in a standard college activity.”</p>
<p>Too bad. If the tennis team is more important to them than their education, they can transfer. I say this as someone whose profound attachment to my singing group rivals my fanatical loyalty to my university. We never killed anybody with a Veritone tradition, and if we did, we deserved to cease to exist.</p>
<p>I believe if a group is found guilty of hazing they should be punished for 4 years. Only then does the culture of that particular group have the ability to change and start a new.</p>
<p>I do not doubt that there are people who believe hazing is valuable. They are, however, dead wrong. Since the organizations themselves seem to want to rely on the opinion and guidance of such individuals, the solution remains the same for the … other side. It boils down to “since you are showing no willingness to change your wrong ways, we will help you by banning your organization from campus.”</p>
<p>Again, it is the right for some to believe hazing has a place on a college campus, and the right AND obligation for school officials to ensure that such people cannot impose their views on others and endanger ANYONE that is part of the same school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The reality is that a single death is already too high a price to pay. However, since many seem opposed to a solution that does not contain plenty of warnings, it seems that a death on a campus should send the appropriate warnings to ALL other groups. Is a second death on the same campus really that high a standard to impose for an universal ban on similar student organizations? We are not talking about a wild party or two, or about a violation of noise levels. We are talking about the death of student that results from hazing or violence.</p>
<p>Is it really so hard for Greek organizations (and others) to understand that the practice of hazing should be abolished in every aspect? It is really so hard to expect them to … stop causing the death of students through utter carelessness and stupidity.</p>
<p>I agree that an overzealous definition of hazing to include silly and only mildly embarrassing things like wearing a tie, is not helping the situation one bit. And if by an “entitlement” mentality you include a sense that they can ignore stupid adult rules, then I agree with that theory too. Kids think adults are being PC and overly protective when they make anti-hazing rules, because they’ve grown up with a total lunacy of rule-making on the part of schools and government. My own kids saw ridiculous decisons being made again and again to supposedly guard children from harm. They weren’t fooled–they know the real motive is generally the bottom line and avoiding lawsuits. And despite being very well-behaved and law-abiding, I think they’d give themselves permission to break quite a few overreaching rules they view as absurd. (Like the one made by our school district that basketball can no longer be played with actual basketballs on the playground, or that chapstick is not allowed to prevent kids from spreading germs by sharing, or that they can’t take an aspirin for a headache without going to the nurse’s office.)</p>
<p>So you tell kids in their generation that hazing is forbidden. They say to themselves, that what they’re doing is actually more of an initiation, not hazing, and it’s not going to hurt anyone. Parents and school officials hate it when you have too much fun. But, being adolescents, they fail to anticipate that things always get carried away. Someone gets hurt. Of course, there are times when people know exactly the harm they’re doing, but sometimes I think it’s just things getting carried away. </p>
<p>Maybe if we stopped forbidding every freaking thing, kids would take the few rules that we do make seriously.</p>
<p>Good in theory GFG, except young adults were dying in hazing incidents long before the overbearing chapstick police ever got going. If you didn’t read the list linked further up the thread, I recommend it.<br>
I grew up in the day when you could still play crack the whip and soak-em on the playground - a fist fight would maybe get you a quick visit from the playground teacher after recess and a whole soccer team could fit in the back of a station wagon crunched up and half laying on top of one another. You could ride down the freeway, as a kid, in the bed of a pickup sitting against the back of the cab. All that freedom to take risks and be stupid didn’t seem to keep kids from dying in hazing incidents or reduce their number.</p>