Correction appended
Given the state of the hazing conversation on our campus, it is easy to forget that hazing is neither exclusively a Dartmouth problem nor limited to Greek or alcohol-related episodes. This past winter break, I had the opportunity to speak with a friend of mine who had just completed his first semester at the Citadel, a state military college in South Carolina. After talking with him about his experiences, I realized that hazing is pervasive, settling like a thick fog around America and its most respected institutions.
It is troubling enough to think that many of our country's future elite bankers, businessmen, doctors and lawyers have engaged in hazing or been hazed. Dartmouth is a prime location to reflect on those anxieties. After the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity hazing scandal last year, I remember walking around campus as a nervous freshman, wondering if the upperclassmen I passed had been a part of something like that. It did not necessarily make me think less of them personally, but it forced me to consider the type of values our collegiate institutions are imparting to future leaders. When I learned that this tradition of degradation and humiliation extends to our military leaders, I fully understood the significance of hazing and its repercussions.
Freshman at the Citadel, called "knobs" in reference to their mandatory short haircuts, are routinely hazed by upperclassmen virtually every day and I am not talking about dyeing their hair pink. My friend experiences name-calling and is sworn at on a daily basis, so much so that he considers it "a typical thing." Though he did not consider this "hazing," Dartmouth certainly does. Anything further than verbal abuse, especially when a student is injured, can result in disciplinary action or suspension from the College.
The Citadel purports to uphold three core values: honor, duty and respect. However, being singled out and treated more harshly just because one is a freshman does not do much to advance that principle. Historically, the Citadel allows upperclassmen limited authority over freshmen in order to teach leadership. However, when this "leadership" results in the verbal harassment of their inferiors, what exactly is being taught? That they can get away with it and that "respect" does not extend to those below you? The Citadel, though it has taken a strict stance against hazing in recent years, still does not do much to curb acts of verbal abuse.
My friend commented on the acts of verbal harassment and hazing, saying, "It teaches you [how to deal with a tough situation], that's for sure... but I don't think that should come from dealing with people who are supposed to be leading you. When you go through it, it kind of brainwashes you a little bit you feel proud of it, but you that know you probably shouldn't."
The notion that respect does not apply to those below your rank is especially disturbing, considering the high incidence of sexual assault and harassment in the military. The frequency of sexual assaults on American women in the military is almost double the rate for civilian women, with one in three women having been sexually assaulted. That rate means that a woman in the military is almost 180 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than to have died in Iraq or Afghanistan, according to calculations by The Huffington Post. I cannot help but wonder if this horrifying trend is connected to the verbal harassment that is permitted in the colleges where these leaders were educated. The Citadel, for instance, is the same institution that, in 1997, shortly after being required to admit women, had a female cadet quit following persistent harassment and an attempt to set her on fire.
I am not saying that the military or military colleges should encourage sexual assault and harassment, but both institutions will have step up their efforts to combat hazing, just as Dartmouth should. Boiled down, hazing subverts the notion of mutual respect. If one does not respect fellow cadets, fellow members of a Greek organization or fellow students, this precludes respect for fellow soldiers, fellow employees and fellow human beings.
