“‘Hazing’ means committing an act against a student, or coercing a student into committing an act, that creates a substantial risk of harm to a person in order for the student to be initiated into or affiliated with a student organization” 

               –MN Law 127.465

Organizations across the world practice some form of hazing. It is a harmful act committed against new members by old members to see if the new members “have what it takes” to be a part of the group

The theory is that this sort of initiation rite will form closer bonds, create solidarity or weed out people who “aren’t fit” to be part of the group. Advocates say that by forcing someone to color-sort sprinkles from 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., or by standing on a washing machine naked while everyone circles any “imperfections” that jiggle, they will be loyal members (I have yet to actually argue the topic of hazing with anyone, because for some reason nobody wants to say they’re “pro-hazing”).

I heard a definition of hazing this summer that I think is particularly good: “Hazing is making new members do something that all members don’t have to do.” Funnily enough, returning members almost always prefer not to be hazed. Despite all the talk of solidarity, hazing is something that only a few members will go through at a time. What solidarity is there in one half of the group beating another?

I’m not really sure why one would allow oneself to be hazed. There is, for me, a question of respect involved. And I don’t mean respect from others, but respect for yourself. There are simply things I won’t do to join your camaraderie, not because I’m not dedicated enough or don’t value your organization, but because you clearly don’t value me enough.

Maybe that’s just my super-inflated ego talking again, but I will categorically say that I have not and will never allow myself to be hazed. I believe I’m too good to join any group that would haze me.

Is the assumption behind hazing that people can’t be trusted to give 100 percent to the team, so they must be tested before they’re allowed to play the game? Talk about the social equivalent of being guilty until proven innocent. I’m pretty sure the fourth amendment covers this sort of thing.

Anti-hazing legislation exists in 44 of our 50 states, most added within the last decade. With the advent of the Internet, hazing has become public knowledge because, frankly, it’s hard to keep a lid on it all. In response, states began to pass definitions of what hazing was.

The funny thing is, they are rarely used—very few people have been found guilty of “hazing.” This isn’t because the law made hazing disappear, as if the government created a patronus in the shape of a codified law. In many cases, where the government could easily charge someone with hazing, the District Attorney instead chooses to file charges that will carry a harsher punishment, such as assault and battery, sexual assault, murder…It depends on the case, but in almost every instance of hazing, there is a distinct law that already exists to punish hazing. Because that is what hazing is: criminal.

My last point is that this article truly is meant for everyone. Hazing is not a problem for just a few groups. Hazing is a social problem. While it continues to happen, we are all worse for it. So I leave you with one anti-hazing number I know of: 1-888-NOT-HAZE.