Walking through the hallways of fraternity sections
during Rush, it is nearly impossible for a freshman not to be offered an alcoholic drink.
The month of Rush marks the beginning of second semester at Duke University, and it is the opportunity for all of the
fraternities and sororities to “show off” their brotherhood or sisterhood and persuade the rushee into joining. In the case of many fraternities, this coercion involves alcohol. A sociologist could probably conclude that, in the case of males, fraternity popularity increases with
the blood alcohol content of the rushing freshmen. Following the month of Rush,
bids are handed out to selective people asking them to Pledge their fraternity. During
this period, freshmen are basically required to lease their freedom to their fraternity or sorority. Both Rushing and Pledging involve excessive alcohol consumption, but it all just seems to be fun and games. However, when the rushee/pledge cannot hold his/her own cup yet is forced to “chug”
one more by a brother/sister, is it still all fun and games?
This intense drinking behavior is defined as
an act of hazing in Duke University’s Hazing Policy (http://www.duke.edu/web/IFC/hazing.html). Cheryl E. Drout and Christie L. Corsoro (2003) studied attitudes towards hazing by both Greek and
non-Greek students and present their results in an article entitled, “Attitudes Toward Fraternity Hazing Among Fraternity
Members, Sorority Members, and Non-Greek Students.” Their results indicated
that most students do not realize what hazing is and when it is occurring even though it is usually commonplace throughout
the rushing and pledging process.
Drout and Corsoro described two incidents to
231 Greek and non-Greek students and asked these students to answer questions regarding both incidents. One incident illustrated hazing for a pledge overdosing on alcohol at a fraternity party, while the other
incident illustrated a voluntary overdose by a pledge. The questions asked pertained
to the level of responsibility of the involved parties. The students ranked the
responsibility of the fraternity/sorority president, the fraternity/sorority brothers/sisters, or the voluntary commitment
of the pledge for each incident.
The Greeks questioned felt the pledge’s
commitment played a more important role in the involuntary overdose of alcohol than in the voluntary overdose. Would the pledge’s obligation to an organization yield different results? Not in this case, both commitment to membership and obligation to an organization obtained similar results. These results confirm a hazing attitude by Greek members. Both commitment and obligation to the fraternity were greater factors in the involuntary overdose (the
pledge was force fed alcohol) than in the voluntary overdose (the pledge willingly drank alcohol). The pledge was unwillingly compelled to overdose on alcohol to prove his commitment to the house. However, in fraternities, as opposed to sororities, there was no distinction as to
who was to blame for this “hazing.” The sorority women tested were
able to place the responsibility to either the fraternity president or brother in the incident, while the fraternity males
tested blamed the house in general. These results indicate that Greeks felt the
pledge was more responsible for his or her own overdose and did not blame the actual hazing instigators (the fraternity members).
Drout and Corsoro were not expecting Greeks not
being able to pinpoint the responsibility of the hazing incident. Therefore,
they determined that although sororities and independents were able to recognize the fraternity’s responsibility for
the incident, “Fraternity members may have felt more compelled to defend the hazing policies” (Drout and Corsoro,
541). In other words, the commands to take shots or chug beers at local fraternity
sections may not be regarded as hazing in the eyes of the fraternity, yet in reality is a hazing policy due to the coercion
of the rushee/pledge. Sorority members, on the other hand, were able to recognize
these undertakings as an act that brings the blame to the sorority, as opposed to fraternities who believed the responsibility
is passed to the rushee/pledge.
As much as fraternities deny that pouring one
more shot of vodka for a rushee/pledge well beyond his/her tolerance as an act of hazing, the fraternity is wrong according
to Duke University’s hazing policy. It might prove in the eyes of the fraternity
that you are worthy of the frat when you have another drink with a brother, but is the brother offering you the drink for
your own pleasure, or for the pleasure of watching you display the typical acts of drunken debauchery? According to Drout and Corsoro’s study, fraternities do not consider involuntary alcohol consumption
as an act of hazing. As a result, it may be more probable for Greeks to initiate
hazing or be the victim of an act due to their ignorance regarding hazing. It
has long been obvious that hazing usually results in negative outcomes, but the real danger lies in its frequency of occurrence
due to simple unawareness. So as your ignorant self is required to chug the next
beer during rush or pledging with the fraternity brothers chanting in the background, does the responsibility lie right beside
you when you collapse on the floor?
Works Cited:
Drout, Cheryl E. and Christie L. Corsoro. 2003. “Attitudes Toward Fraternity
Hazing Among Fraternity Members, Sorority Members, and Non-Greek Students.” Social Behavior and Personality 31: 535-544.
Interfraternity Council. 2004.
Duke University. 22 Feb. 2004
<http://www.duke.edu/web/IFC/generalinfo.html>.