STUDIES

According to the study of Arneil G. Gabriel (2016) Hazing is a serious social problem.
It wasted
not only the lives of future and promising leaders of society but also their aspirations for their
families. The death of Leonardo Lenny Villa in 1991 created a strong public demand to put an
end to Hazing. The demand exerted by public and private educational institutions created a
stream of political pressure to the 13th Congress of the Philippines to put an end to the
senseless killing by making it a priority legislative agenda. The Congress through, Senator Joey
Lina eventually enacted Republic Act 8049 also known as the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995. After 21
years of implementation, the law is now ripe for evaluation.
https://www.scirp.org/html/72150_72150.htm
According to the study of Kellie D Alexander (2018) hazing gains media coverage when tragedy
occurs or incidences of hazing activities are leaked to social media, this topic at universities
receives little to moderate sociological attention. Many consider hazing a widespread problem
given that some research estimates that as many as 55 percent of college or high school
students have been involved in these activities. Notably, however, additional evidence indicates
that students often resist understanding hazing activities as such. Clearly, these kinds of
attitudes are important to consider when developing anti-hazing programming or campaigns,
especially as colleges and universities in the United States have witnessed a steady rise in
hazing-related deaths and injuries, which have produced complex legal issues and questions.
This study uses data obtained through semi-structured qualitative interviews of college students
to understand how members of sororities, fraternities, and sports club teams define and
understand hazing. These conceptualizations are compared to their university’s official policy
around hazing, and the differences and similarities between the two are discussed. This
research illuminates three primary themes in how students define hazing, as well as a
disjuncture between how students define hazing and how they perceive their own experiences
of hazing. Policy implications and broader recommendations around hazing prevention will be
considered.
https://www.proquest.com/openview/30a210960ad3c4f9be3c8cb8c7542d19/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750
Hazing means to cause any action or situation which recklessly or intentionally endangers the
mental or physical health or safety of another person or persons or causes another person or
persons to destroy or remove public or private property for the purpose of initiation or
admission into or affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership in, any
organization the members of which are primarily students or alumni of an institution of higher
education. The term includes, but is not limited to, acts of a physical nature, such as whipping,
beating, branding, required consumption of any food, liquor, drug, or other substance, or any
other forced physical activity which could reasonably be deemed to adversely affect the physical
health and safety of the person or persons so treated, and includes any activity which would
subject the person or persons so treated to extreme mental stress, such as sleep deprivation,
forced exclusion from social contact, required conduct which could result in extreme
embarrassment, or any other required activity which could reasonably be deemed to adversely
affect the mental health or dignity of the person or persons so treated, or any willful destruction
or removal of public or private property: Provided, That the implied or expressed consent or
willingness of a person or persons to hazing may not be a defense under this section. (West
Virginia Anti-hazing Law, 2019, para. 1)
https://www.proquest.com/openview/88347133024dd3efbfcd26be15d79953/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
According to the study of PAUL ANDREW HERMANSDORFER (2020) despite persistent and
documented issues regarding hazing, scholarly attention remains limited. A review of the
literature revealed the majority of studies focused on student perceptions and behavior. Faculty
and staff, specifically student club and organization advisors, should be involved with the
prevention of hazing, too, but first there must be an understanding of the perceptions and
issues that challenge them. The purpose of this descriptive, cross-sectional, nonexperimental
study was to examine student organization advisors’ awareness and perceptions of West
Virginia Anti-hazing Law, awareness of hazing on their campuses, and responses if hazing were
to occur. The study was administered to student organization advisors from 18 four year
colleges and universities in West Virginia. Selected participants included faculty, staff, and
volunteers officially registered with the college or university in the role of a club or organization
advisor. The sample size was 233 for a response rate of 32.8%. Data indicated the majority of
student organization advisors were aware of West Virginia Anti-hazing Law. Although some
student organization advisors believed the law was ineffective in the prevention of hazing, there
was evidence suggesting the contrary. Advisors who were not at all aware of West Virginia Anti-
hazing Law were more likely to disagree that prohibited behaviors are hazing. Data further
demonstrated a need to address misperceptions; reduce disagreements as to what constitutes
hazing; and provide targeted efforts for faculty, staff, and volunteers specifically, including
student club and organization advisors.
The task to define hazing is complicated (Crow & McGlone, 2018; Hollmann, 2002). There are
several definitions found in the literature, which make it difficult to directly compare overall
hazing behavior (Alvarez, 2015; Bauer et al. 2015; Chamberlin, 2014). According to Merriam-
Webster, hazing is defined as “the action of hazing; especially: an initiation process involving
harassment” and “the practice of playing unpleasant tricks on someone or forcing someone to
do unpleasant things (“Hazing,” n.d.). The Report and Educate about Campus Hazing (REACH)
Act introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 16, 2017, proposed a national
definition of hazing (Rushton, 2017). The REACH Act recommended to amend the Higher
Education Act of 1965 by adding:
Every year students are physically, mentally, and/or emotionally injured due to hazing. Some
injuries are so significant they result in student deaths, yet “hazing is an issue that has been
largely overlooked and under studied” (Allan & Madden, 2008, p. 5). Hazing is institutionalized
by organizations, clubs, and groups, as well as within campus policy. Student hazing
experiences are different for the individual(s) involved, and institutional experiences vary as
institutions have their own hazing definitions and policies. Through document analysis, we
examined and critically analyzed the ambiguous anti-hazing policy at the state and federal
levels.
https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1147&context=oracle
According to the study of Gabrielle Bamberski (2021) Higher education has a strong influence
over young adults in their personal, behavioral, and professional development. Colleges and
universities “shap[e] the mental models of many of society’s professionals and leaders and [are]
a critical leverage point in creating a sustainable society.” Students’ experiences of their
campus’s climate influences their development both professionally and personally. Accordingly,
“[s]students who perceive their campus as welcoming are more likely to demonstrate positive
learning outcomes.” However, hazing works against the development of a welcoming college
climate and “is at odds with educational goals.” While definitions of hazing vary from state to
state, it is generally “defined as any activity expected of someone joining or participating in a
group (such as a student club or team) that humiliates, degrades, abuses or endangers
regardless of a person’s willingness to participate.” Hazing affects not only the group or
organization participating in hazing activities, but it also affects the greater college community.
https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1194&context=shlj
The task to define hazing is complicated (Crow & McGlone, 2018; Hollmann, 2002).
There are several definitions found in the literature, which make it difficult to directly compare
overall hazing behavior (Alvarez, 2015; Bauer et al. 2015; Chamberlin, 2014). According to
Merriam-Webster, hazing is defined as “the action of hazing; especially: an initiation process
involving harassment” and “the practice of playing unpleasant tricks on someone or forcing
someone to do unpleasant things (“Hazing,” n.d.). The Report and Educate about Campus
Hazing (REACH) Act introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 16, 2017,
proposed a national definition of hazing (Rushton, 2017). The REACH Act recommended to
amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 by adding: The term “hazing” means any intentional,
knowing, or reckless act committed by a student, or a former student, of an institution of higher
education, whether individually or 14 in concert with other persons, against another student,
that--- (I) was committed in connection with an initiation into, an affiliation with, or the
maintenance of membership in, any organization that is affiliated with such institution of higher
education; and (II) contributes to a substantial risk of physical injury, mental harm, or
degradation or causes physical injury, mental harm or personal degradation (U.S. Congress,
2017, pp. 2-3).
The first known deaths that occurred as a result of class hazing, initiation, and pledgingrelated
accidents in the United States took place at Franklin Seminary in Kentucky in 1838 and Amherst
College in 1847 (Nuwer, 2014). Harmful pranks and dangerous initiation practices spread to
other universities and colleges, including Cornell University, the University of Michigan, Franklin
and Marshall, Indiana University, and the University of Texas. Throughout the remainder of the
20th century, hazing activities continued to flourish (Lipkins, 2006, p. 4). In 1894, New York
became the first state to criminalize hazing (Alvarez, 2015). As late as 1960, first-year students
at Georgetown University were required to wear beanies and conspicuous apparel normally not
in good taste
Mental hazing is often overlooked or goes undetected, but it can be as serious and dangerous
as physical hazing. Mental hazing can be more difficult to report because not only are there no
physical marks, but also expressing mental or emotional distress can be very difficult. Types of
mental hazing may include verbal abuse, being blindfolded, being restrained, and being locked
in confined spaces (Salinas & Boettcher, 2018).
Biemiller (2018) highlighted several recent hazing-related deaths. Timothy Piazza1 and Andrew
Coffey2 hoped to be engineers. Maxwell Gruver3 was an aspiring sportswriter. Matthew Ellis4
was a business administration major. Each of these young men’s lives was cut short because of
hazing activity in 2017. In each case the men were pledging fraternities on campus. In each
case alcohol was involved. In each case the fraternity chapters were closed or suspended.
All states need to develop and propose policies and laws against hazing (Hosansky, 2013).
College and university administrators need to be aware of the danger, seriousness, and
prevalence of hazing on campus and in organizations. Furthermore, administrators need to be
aware of the many different aspects of hazing and how they relate to legal issues, student
development, and student awareness. Hazing is a crime that has serious dangers and
consequences. It is important to be knowledgeable and active members in the community of
the institutional policies related to hazing.
Similar to Arizona anti-hazing law, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Texas,
and Vermont have state laws that hold the educational institution responsible for adapting,
posting, and enforcing a hazing prevention policy printed in the institutions’ student codes of
conduct. These codes set forth the specific authority and responsibilities of the institution in
maintaining discipline, establishing guidelines that facilitate a civil campus community, and
outlining the educational process for determining students’ responsibilities for alleged violations
of institutions’ regulation (Student Disciplinary Regulations, 2012).
Hazing includes, but is not limited to, “acts of a physical nature, such as whipping, beating,
branding, required consumption of any food, liquor, drug or other substance, or any other
required physical activity” (West Virginia Anti-hazing Law, 2019, para. 2). Mental stress includes
“sleep deprivation, forced exclusion from social contact, required conduct which could result in
extreme embarrassment, or any other required activity which could reasonably be deemed to
adversely affect the mental health or dignity of the person” (West Virginia Anti-hazing Law,
2019, para. 2). The law further states “the implied or expressed consent or willingness of a
person or persons to hazing shall not be a defense under this section” (West Virginia Anti-
hazing Law, 2019, para. 2).
file:///C:/Users/Admin%201/Downloads/out.pdf
According to findings from the National Study of Student Hazing, 25% of coaches and
organization advisors were believed to be aware of their group’s hazing behaviors (Allan &
Madden, 2008). Sixty percent of marching band members believed their teachers were aware of
3 hazing incidents (Silveira & Hudson, 2015). Lipkins (2006) discovered 75% of people believe
coaches and authority figures are aware of hazing occurring within their communities. Holman
and Johnson (2013) revealed a widespread perception that adult leaders were aware of hazing
behaviors yet turned a blind eye. Ellsworth (2006) asserted one reason it may be difficult for
higher education administrators to take action against hazing is because there is a lack of
understanding about how to identify and prevent such incidents. When campus faculty,
administrators, staff, and affiliates are aware of, witness, or participate in hazing, it creates
liability, risk, and calamity for campuses (Somers, 2007). Most policy, education, and prevention
efforts are aimed at students; however, studies that expand beyond the student population are
limited (Marchell & Bureau, 2007). The current study, as recommended by Allan and Madden
(2008), examined hazing perceptions of faculty, administrators, and staff, specifically those
responsible for advising recognized student organizations.
file:///C:/Users/Admin%201/Downloads/out.pdf
This study was conducted in order to determine the extent of the Anti-Hazing Law in the
Philippines. Descriptive method was used in this study in which qualitative research was
adopted. The researcher was subjected to do a discourse analysis involving hazing related
incidents, the effects of the Anti-Hazing to such incidents and the number of convictions where
necessary data, reports and statistical records were examined and all issues and other
important matters were extracted and analyzed. Based on the mentioned variables, the
researcher will be using the purposive sampling and total enumeration wherein the selection of
the population of the study will be based on the own judgment of the researcher. Thus, the
researcher selected the different hazing related incidents based on online sources, news portals
and statistical data. Based on the findings of the study from the gathered data, in terms of the
extent of hazing related incidents, the researcher finds that hazing related incidents are widely
extensive in the country since these incidents happen anywhere in the country as evidenced by
the reported hazing incidents which were conducted in different parts of the country. In terms
of the effects of RA 8049 in reducing hazing related incidents, based on the results of the study
it shows that more of the hazing related cases were dismissed and despite of the existence of
the present Anti-Hazing Law, hazing related incidents are more prevalent and initiation rites
inflicting physical violence and other forms of abuse are still widely practiced by different
fraternities. Despite the provisions of the law, these fraternities still practice their traditional
way of recruiting and conducting an initiation rite. Moreover, the period of the study was
conducted from year 2010-2016, but there was not any reported conviction regarding these
hazing related incidents. Hence, the researcher provided some alternative suggestions in order
to effectively and efficiently implement the Anti-Hazing Law.
https://repository.cpu.edu.ph/handle/20.500.12852/734
The majority of fraternities have strict policies against hazing. Those who are caught doing it
should be brought up on criminal and civil charges, and the offenders removed permanently
(Barr, 2013).
file:///C:/Users/Admin%201/Downloads/11awareness%20(3).pdf

STUDIES

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

STUDIES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

According to the study of Arneil G. Gabriel (2016) Hazing is a serious social problem.

You might also like