I'm not the only one exhausted by the constant bickering between College administrators and students on the issues of drinking, sexual assault and hazing. Our campus dialogue, however, will never be constructive if our collective definition and understanding of the most important issues we face is fundamentally flawed. In her most recent column, Katie Wheeler's misinterpretation of hazing presents a distorted image of Dartmouth to our newest peers and inhibits efforts to solve the persistent issues in our college ("Touch the Fire... If You Want To," Sep. 18).
Homecoming is a distinctive tradition that clearly falls outside of the strictest definition of hazing. By mid-October, freshmen will have spent a whirlwind of a month acquainting themselves with our campus and have a better sense of Dartmouth perhaps they might even catch a glimmer of how they might fit in. They unite as a class for the first time since Convocation, but this time their blood is pumping with adrenaline. Wheeler is mistaken, however, in citing this tradition as an experience that could fall under the College's definition of hazing. Despite all the hype and anticipation, the bonfire is a low-pressure environment in which a freshman is surrounded by her class, her peers and her community. I don't deny that freshmen may feel pressure to do more than they are willing or capable, but the risks posed to those who choose not to touch the fire are next to nothing. In this space, freshmen can't be singled out or embarrassed, and the heckling upperclassmen are muted by their anonymity in the crowd. Freshmen are no more and no less part of Dartmouth before or after the bonfire, regardless of how many laps they run.
We often forget that hazing is not the harmful activity itself but the conditions under which it is performed. The fundamental characteristic of hazing is an action that is or perceived to be "a condition of continued membership." The risk of disobedience is paired not just with a fear of losing membership but more so a fear of losing a sense of belonging or acceptance within an organization. Thanks to the Andrew Lohse debacle, our campus perception of hazing is often limited to only the most crude and vile acts. But even dressing up in flair can be harmful under the psychological pressures of a hazing environment. To dismiss pain caused by supposedly harmless hazing as "weak" or "no fun" dismisses a student's individuality and worth in our community.
Moreover, resisting hazing becomes more difficult in a closed, smaller and secretive space that lacks the transparency of the center of the Green. To be singled out as not dedicated to an organization is perceived as the path to social ostracism or rejection. Harm is in the eye of the victim, not in the eye of the inflictor or the bystander. It is our responsibility as upperclassmen and organization members to respect an individual's right to self-determine whether or not they feel harmed or disparaged by hazing. And it is our duty to change how we welcome new members into our organizations and communities.
Wheeler's column is emblematic of a prevalent campus dialogue that idolizes rituals and traditions as the path to becoming "initiated as true Dartmouth students." I'm not the first to say that there is no such thing as a true Dartmouth student, or no formula to "win Dartmouth." We have created an environment that emphasizes the continued need to be accepted because we must prove to ourselves and others over and over again that we belong in this highly organized social and academic culture. We often become consumed by this environment without regard for our own happiness and well-being.
There is a big difference between a rite of passage like the bonfire and a rite of entry and acceptance into an organization. Hazing sends the message that belonging to an organization is based on the things you do instead of who you are. '16s will run around the bonfire because they are proud of being freshmen, not because they want to become freshmen. For this reason, the notion that the bonfire is a positive form of hazing is ludicrous. There is simply no such thing as positive hazing.
College policies must focus first and foremost on student health by providing support systems for students affected by alcohol abuse, sexual abuse or any other health issue regardless of whether hazing was involved. There is no administratively enforceable point at which hazing arbitrarily crosses the line, as Wheeler might hope. Only students themselves can change the culture of organizational acceptance and entry that fosters a positive sense of belonging.
