Elizabeth J. Allan, Ph.D. | October 2014

Not all assault is hazing, but make no mistake, assault is one of the many weapons used in the hazing arsenal as clearly illustrated in the recent Sayreville case. In the days following news coverage of the Sayreville High School football team, many struggled to make sense of the reports. Why were “good kids” involved in something like this? How could these reported behaviors occur under the noses of the coaches? Why wasn’t it reported sooner? And some wondered, why was this incident hazing? Beginning with this last question, this is the first in a series of blog posts in response to each of these important questions.

If online comments are a barometer of public perceptions about hazing, it seems recent headlines have sparked outrage among many sectors of the American public.  According to reports, in this most recent sordid case, senior members of the high school football team targeted freshman teammates and perpetrated multiple sexual assaults in the school locker room.  

Unfortunately, in the wake of headline news, public response can also illuminate some disturbing misconceptions about hazing.  Most persistent among these is the myth that hazing consists largely of harmless jokes or pranks. While well-intended, an editorial in the Midland Daily News in Midland, MI and the Journal News of the Lower Hudson Valley (and quoted by the BBC) decry the use of hazing as a label for the reported Sayreville events saying, “incidents like this go way beyond a good natured prank” and 

“What happened in Sayreville was not hazing, according to Gary Phillips of the Journal News. What happened had nothing to do with initiation or building camaraderie.  By calling sexual abuse hazing, society grants those perpetrators a free pass and downplays the brutality of their actions,” he writes. “What is actually a very serious crime is passed off as a ‘rite of passage’ ritual that went too far.”

As these comments illustrate, some people still misconstrue hazing as a benign aspect of group membership characterized by good-natured pranks and fun.  

These common misperceptions underscore the need for a shared understanding of the actual definition of hazing which is generally accepted as: 

Any activity expected of someone seeking or maintaining membership in a group, organization, and/or team that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers them, regardless of a person’s willingness to participate. 

Though widespread and harmful misconceptions about hazing have diminished in recent years, the reality is that whether intended or not, hazing is by definition a form of abuse—one that is prohibited by law in 44 states.  Sexual harassment, sexual assault, battery, isolation, and many other untoward behaviors serve as mechanisms of hazing when used to humiliate, degrade, or intimidate as part of a “tradition,” “initiation,” or supposed “bonding” experience for group membership.  

The designation of the Sayreville case as an incident of hazing is precisely accurate because what distinguishes hazing from other forms of abuse is a set of power dynamics for group membership.  In this case, new freshman and sophomore members of an athletic team felt pressured to go along with hazing behaviors perpetrated by upperclass team members as a means to be accepted within the team.  It is thus vital to understand hazing in terms of the power dynamics and not simply the resulting behavior. 

In the early days of sexual assault prevention, educators worked to help the public understand that rape is not about sex. Distinguishing consensual sex from rape was summed up simply as, “rape is an act of power and control where sex is used as the weapon.” Similarly, it is important to understand that hazing is an abuse of power where any number of behaviors, including sexual harassment or assault, are used as a weapon.  

The abhorrent details of the reported Sayreville case make the moral judgment calls less difficult; most agree, that the sexual assault perpetration was completely unacceptable. But in many cases, the abuse of power in hazing may not be so clear-cut.  Even when established group members expect new inductees to participate in activities that are seemingly benign (compared to forms of sexual assault), it is the unequal power dynamics and coercive pressure among those involved–not the expected behavior–that defines this as a form of hazing.  In other words, by definition, hazing behaviors fall on a continuum of abuse where power, control, and coercion to engage in a specific activity are key dynamics.

It is a disservice to the young men and women (along with their families and friends) who have faced the challenges of hazing to minimize it, rationalize it, or dismiss it as simply harmless pranks or as harm that is somehow excusable. Assault is assault, sexual harassment is sexual harassment, battery is battery. But when these behaviors occur in the context of hazing—with the attendant pressure to conform in order to be accepted–it is far more difficult for victims to confront their peers and intervene in ways that put their group membership at risk.  

Understanding hazing thus requires comprehension of power dynamics and the nuances of different forms of power (e.g., power inherent in one’s formal role in an organization, physical power, economic power).  For while individuals are ultimately responsible for their behavior, some veteran group members may not be fully aware of positional power relative to newcomers in the group, and vice versa.  Educating our students and the general public about positional power dynamics is thus a critical part of working towards preventing hazing—especially in our educational institutions.  

For those of us working to educate others and to prevent hazing in our schools, promoting a clear understanding about hazing and about power dynamics involved in a group context is a vital first step. Toward that end, let’s be clear: Hazing is not harmless fun and that’s why 44 states have prohibited it by law. 

If we want all students to thrive in safe, supportive, and respectful environments, then hazing has no place in our schools and communities. It is everyone’s responsibility to take action to end hazing – you can take action by speaking up when you hear someone minimize hazing; you can talk about hazing with your school leaders and work with them to ensure that coaches, teachers, students, and parents truly understand it; and you can work with community groups, churches, and youth recreation programs to do the same.