Reaction to hazing investigations of groups

After reading Duke’s definition of hazing in a recent Chronicle article (“More than 10 groups investigated for hazing” on Feb. 22), I have another organization to add to the list of offenders. I can’t believe I didn’t see it before, but I hear that’s common—you get so wrapped up in being a member of the group that you’re blind to how unacceptable what you’re being asked to do really is. In my case, that group is Duke University itself.

If you thought that hazing was the exclusive domain of sadistic fraternity leadership, think again. Level I violations include such reprehensible activities as “road trips, periods of silence and standing for a length of time.” When I drive six hours to get to Duke, have to stay silent in class for over an hour, or even freshman year when I had to stand in that huge line at the Marketplace just to get the food Duke made me buy, I felt hazed. I checked with my mom, and she agreed, so you know it’s hazing. And that’s not even counting the times Duke has hazed me on a Level II basis (“sleep deprivation or interruption of consecutive sleep hours”—finals week anybody?). At least Duke hasn’t branded me—yet.

Yes, I engage in all of these behaviors willingly. But that’s no excuse, as has been made abundantly clear; a few pledge brothers taking a car ride to Falls Lake is hazing whether they want to go or not.

So what are we going to do about this pervasive culture of hazing maintained by our administration? Given that individual leaders are accountable for their group’s hazing, and given the severity and overwhelming number of hazing incidents (over 1,400 students per class), precedent demands that the administrators responsible be brought to justice. I’ll leave it to Larry Moneta to decide exactly what punishment to give himself.

Sam Weil, Trinity ’13