Tweet
Take note of the third paragraph where she states there was no culture of hazing. Unbelievable. It's as if nothing happened and they are simply trying to sweep it all under the rug. One Crimson indeed.
Non-rhetorical question. What is hazing or a "culture of hazing"? I know there are definitions and they generally relate to the obvious examples, like the old Supreme Court statement on pornography - you know it when you see it. Typically, in a fraternity/sorority context its condition of membership. But there are lesser situations where there is an activity that some members may find fun and others are uncomfortable and it's not a prerequisite to being on the team. Is that hazing? That could literally be any activity depending on the viewpoint of the participant as we see from the controversy in the NHL around pre-game jerseys. One person perceives their action as a positive while another sees it as an uncomfortable situation.
Most "hazing" is peer conducted - other players force players to do stuff. At parties or other locations when coaches are not around. Is that the fault of the coach? Is the definition subjective? Is it only hazing if the uncomfortable person is forced to do the activity and would it only be hazing if the uncomfortable person voices their discomfort? Is it incumbent on the person to voice their displeasure or opt out? Otherwise, how would others know that the person was not comfortable? Are others supposed to be mind readers? What if the person goes along - perhaps because of feeling peer pressure but did not object even though they really did not want to do it? How does a coach, assuming the coach learns of the activity, determine that something is hazing if some want to do the activity? Does the objection of 1 person make the whole activity hazing? These are difficult questions.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I spoke directly with two recent grads and they had opposition positions. One said it was fun traditions. The other said it was very uncomfortable and hazing. That seems to me what this report found.
This is certainly separate from any direct actions that Stone may have done. That is a separate story. However, I think the hazing issue is more nuanced and not as black and white as some on this thread do but there is certainly a need for Harvard to make some changes and have further transparency.
Non-rhetorical question. What is hazing or a "culture of hazing"? I know there are definitions and they generally relate to the obvious examples, like the old Supreme Court statement on pornography - you know it when you see it. Typically, in a fraternity/sorority context its condition of membership. But there are lesser situations where there is an activity that some members may find fun and others are uncomfortable and it's not a prerequisite to being on the team. Is that hazing? That could literally be any activity depending on the viewpoint of the participant as we see from the controversy in the NHL around pre-game jerseys. One person perceives their action as a positive while another sees it as an uncomfortable situation.
Most "hazing" is peer conducted - other players force players to do stuff. At parties or other locations when coaches are not around. Is that the fault of the coach? Is the definition subjective? Is it only hazing if the uncomfortable person is forced to do the activity and would it only be hazing if the uncomfortable person voices their discomfort? Is it incumbent on the person to voice their displeasure or opt out? Otherwise, how would others know that the person was not comfortable? Are others supposed to be mind readers? What if the person goes along - perhaps because of feeling peer pressure but did not object even though they really did not want to do it? How does a coach, assuming the coach learns of the activity, determine that something is hazing if some want to do the activity? Does the objection of 1 person make the whole activity hazing? These are difficult questions.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I spoke directly with two recent grads and they had opposition positions. One said it was fun traditions. The other said it was very uncomfortable and hazing. That seems to me what this report found.
This is certainly separate from any direct actions that Stone may have done. That is a separate story. However, I think the hazing issue is more nuanced and not as black and white as some on this thread do but there is certainly a need for Harvard to make some changes and have further transparency.
Comment