ACUHO-I News Blog

It’s been a scholarly topic since 400 BC, with commentary from Martin Luther, Mark Twain, and Vince Lombardi. No, not the nature of good v/s evil or the appropriate use of seersucker. It’s hazing.

A report published in March 2008 by the National Center for Hazing Research and Prevention concluded that 55 percent of students involved in clubs, teams, and organizations experience hazing, many of them (47 percent) experience hazing before coming to college, 9 out of 10 are unable to identify activities as hazing that clearly are, 95 percent of all hazing experiences go unreported, and generally students perceive positive rather than negative outcomes associated with hazing.

These stats certainly imply student affairs professionals have their work cut-out for them in eradicating hazing.  Given the odds above, there is a good chance that many of your residents are on the receiving or giving end of hazing activities and some may even be related to your hall councils, internal honorary organizations, or even taking place as part of your training programs (behind closed doors gone-bad anyone?).

September 22-26, 2008 is National Hazing Prevention Week and a perfect opportunity to bring these harmful issues to light.  Be sure to review the recommendations from the research report on effective elements of a hazing prevention and education strategy and take a moment to reach out to other campus departments to start or be included in a comprehensive dialogue.

For a glimpse into the minds of the pro-hazer, check out the “fan” submissions to stophazing.org for insight that makes you uncomfortable.

Full disclosure: the author of this post has consulted on high-risk college drinking for the parent company of www.hazingprevention.org before it became an independent non-profit.  He has also ignorantly participated in and been a victim of hazing as an undergraduate.

We can’t stop talking about the Amethyst Initiative that is. Y’know, the petition signed by…let’s check the ticker here…129 chancellors and presidents at universities and colleges throughout the US advocating a “dispassionate debate” on the drinking age. The debate would be about, specifically, raising the drinking age, preferably to 45.

Just kidding!

Anyway, the Chronicle of Higher Education has helpfully gathered two professionals, on opposing sides of the debate, to offer their views.

William G. Durden, President of Dickinson College is on the pro side. He points out that the Amethyst Initiative is not necessarily arguing the drinking age be moved to 18; rather: “It does state the 128 signatories’ belief that it is time for our nation to engage in a serious debate about alternative approaches to underage and binge drinking and to examine whether current public policies are in line with current realities.” He argues that the current law and abstinence rhetoric are obviously not working, and in fact drive students to more secretive and dangerous behaviors. Often, he says, college students’ dangerous drinking activities are unrelated to driving, but endanger their lives in other ways. He points to other countries’ lower drinking ages, which are reinforced, he says, by extensive alcohol education and severe penalties for dangerous and destructive behaviors, such as drunken driving.

William DeJong, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at Boston University’s School of Public Health, points to studies showing a reduction in alcohol-related deaths and no greater alcohol use on campus than there was 21 years ago, when the drinking age was upped. He replies to Durden’s point about foreign countries’ alcohol laws with the example of New Zealand: In 1999, that country lowered the drinking age from 20 to 18. “The result,” DeJong says, ”was a dramatic upswing in traffic crashes and injuries among 15- to 19-year-olds.” He advocates a variety of prevention and education measures, from “specific guidance on how to keep their blood-alcohol concentration in a safer range” for students who do drink, to the usual restrictions of alcohol-laden advertising and purchasing opportunities.

What do you think of their arguments? My initial thought is that it’s a pity we couldn’t read a dialogue between these two, each responding to and countering the other’s viewpoints, and possibly finding middle ground.

Early this week, we heard a lot in the news about college presidents who had signed a petition advocating re-thinking the drinking age: specifically, considering the costs and benefits of lowering it to 18 again. Some signers argue that raising the drinking age to 21 has caused more problems than it solved, by encouraging an underground drinking culture, the use of fake IDs and “preloading,” i.e.: drinking heavily in seclusion before a night out on the town.

The New York Times writes today that two presidents, Kendall Blanchard of Georgia Southwestern State University in Americus, GA and Robert M. Franklin of Morehouse College in Atlanta, recinded their signatures. Blanchard told the NYT he felt critics misunderstood the petition’s intended purpose, to start a dialogue, and instead thought it is “some kind of effort on our part to turn our schools into party schools.”

Yup, because college and university presidents love for their institutions to be known as “Ibiza, But With Football”.

However, 15 more presidents have signed on, resulting in 123 signatories, some from household names such as Dartmouth, Duke, Tufts and Ohio State. Of course, the petition has its detractors, namely the Governors’ Highway Safety Administration and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

What do you think about the proposed “dispassionate public debate”?