Members of AGR planned on making new members believe they had to have sex with the animal, but weren't actually going to make them do it.
May 17, 2006 3:29 PM Subscribe
Northwestern University has suspended its girl's soccer team indefinitely, stemming from hazing photos surfacing online.
The photos seem tame when compared with some other disgusting incidents.
Does the punishment fit the crime?
more pix pls
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:45 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:45 PM on May 17, 2006
I'd like to join the team, please.
posted by soiled cowboy at 3:49 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by soiled cowboy at 3:49 PM on May 17, 2006
Hazing is part of collegiate sports teams and as your last link points out, everyone knows and is usually a willing participant in these actions each and every year. That being said, if it is against published policies at the school then posting the images on the internet may not have been the brightest idea. It's unfortunate, yes. Does it fit the "crime", well... it's up to those who publish and enforce these policies at the institution.
Still have to wonder if the reaction would have been the same if this was the men's soccer team.
bardic writes "My response then, and to stuff like this now, is that it's always sick and twisted to degrade another human being. What team captains who encourage this type of molestation think they're getting in terms of 'unity' and 'bonding' is beyond me."
While I agree with the first sentence I think the purpose of hazing is not strictly about unity and bonding (although it's a part of it). There's a stronger parallel between the army and collegiate sports teams. The idea is to humiliate the new recruits to the point where everyone starts out at bottom on a seemingly equal footing. That way, no one can cry favouritism or bullying when certain members are promoted or punished based on their performance.
posted by purephase at 3:54 PM on May 17, 2006
Still have to wonder if the reaction would have been the same if this was the men's soccer team.
bardic writes "My response then, and to stuff like this now, is that it's always sick and twisted to degrade another human being. What team captains who encourage this type of molestation think they're getting in terms of 'unity' and 'bonding' is beyond me."
While I agree with the first sentence I think the purpose of hazing is not strictly about unity and bonding (although it's a part of it). There's a stronger parallel between the army and collegiate sports teams. The idea is to humiliate the new recruits to the point where everyone starts out at bottom on a seemingly equal footing. That way, no one can cry favouritism or bullying when certain members are promoted or punished based on their performance.
posted by purephase at 3:54 PM on May 17, 2006
I thought we were supposed to have evolved from an animal stage.
posted by Cranberry at 3:54 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by Cranberry at 3:54 PM on May 17, 2006
These aren't children, these are consenting adults. Every person involved had the choice to play ball or walk away (the question of posting the photos is another story). It's up to the school to have rules about this sort of thing for teams flying their flag, but other than that, what "crime" is there? What's so "disgusting" about willing, adult participation in group activities, whatever the nature of those activities are?
posted by loquax at 3:55 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by loquax at 3:55 PM on May 17, 2006
How about degradation being the price of admittance when talent and aptitude shouldbe the criteria?
posted by Cranberry at 3:57 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by Cranberry at 3:57 PM on May 17, 2006
Exactly. Nobody got hurt, nobody got a banana shoved up their pooper. Non-issue.
posted by emelenjr at 3:59 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by emelenjr at 3:59 PM on May 17, 2006
How about degradation being the price of admittance when talent and aptitude shouldbe the criteria?
Who said it's degrading?
posted by loquax at 3:59 PM on May 17, 2006
Who said it's degrading?
posted by loquax at 3:59 PM on May 17, 2006
What team captains who encourage this type of molestation think they're getting in terms of 'unity' and 'bonding' is beyond me."
What do you mean? It's a well-established fact that forcing someone to do something they don't like for some particular cause, goal, or person causes them to be more zealous in supporting that cause/goal/person.
People do it because it does work.
posted by delmoi at 4:00 PM on May 17, 2006
What do you mean? It's a well-established fact that forcing someone to do something they don't like for some particular cause, goal, or person causes them to be more zealous in supporting that cause/goal/person.
People do it because it does work.
posted by delmoi at 4:00 PM on May 17, 2006
It's Northwestern. As an institution, NU tends to expect a higher level of behaviour from its students. Whether they get it is subjective, but NU has a reputation for cracking down on stuff like this harder than a stereotypical Moo U school. (NU tends to be pretty egalitarian about things like this, so I'd expect that they'd have the same reaction if it was the men's soccer team.) I have no actual proof of this, mind you, but I grew up in a Big 10 household, and that was always the reputation.
posted by jlkr at 4:00 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by jlkr at 4:00 PM on May 17, 2006
I thought we were supposed to have evolved from an animal stage.
What animals perform hazing rituals?
posted by delmoi at 4:01 PM on May 17, 2006
What animals perform hazing rituals?
posted by delmoi at 4:01 PM on May 17, 2006
Plus, some male soccer players got lap dances from girls who would possiblely have been unwilling to give them lap dances otherwise!
Who could possiblely be hurt or humiliated by being forced to give somebody a lap dance?
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:02 PM on May 17, 2006
Who could possiblely be hurt or humiliated by being forced to give somebody a lap dance?
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:02 PM on May 17, 2006
Who could possiblely be hurt or humiliated by being forced to give somebody a lap dance?
Who was forced and how?
posted by loquax at 4:02 PM on May 17, 2006
Who was forced and how?
posted by loquax at 4:02 PM on May 17, 2006
At least they don't do laps around the college bar naked like the rugby team. Oh, wait.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 4:05 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 4:05 PM on May 17, 2006
I'm disappointed nobody mentioned the goat.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:05 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:05 PM on May 17, 2006
Every person involved had the choice to play ball or walk away...
This is quite true, as Dr. Milgram discovered. Unfortunately, Milgram also discovered most people decide to keep playing ball.
posted by Mr. Six at 4:07 PM on May 17, 2006
This is quite true, as Dr. Milgram discovered. Unfortunately, Milgram also discovered most people decide to keep playing ball.
posted by Mr. Six at 4:07 PM on May 17, 2006
Milgram also discovered most people decide to keep playing ball.
Agreed, but unless a pattern of abuse, control and brainwashing is demonstrated to be overruling or corrupting the free will of the participants, they are not absolved of responsibility for their own actions, assuming any of them regret them.
posted by loquax at 4:13 PM on May 17, 2006
Agreed, but unless a pattern of abuse, control and brainwashing is demonstrated to be overruling or corrupting the free will of the participants, they are not absolved of responsibility for their own actions, assuming any of them regret them.
posted by loquax at 4:13 PM on May 17, 2006
I rowed varsity and we had an initiation night that probably, in the glare of a camera flash, would have looked as debauched as this one - if a little less sexualized, but that just seems to be the way things are going these days. But, it didn't seem like a big deal - you really knew it was all for fun - you could call uncle any time. That's all that seems to be going on in these pictures.
posted by Flashman at 4:16 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by Flashman at 4:16 PM on May 17, 2006
Agreed, but unless a pattern of abuse, control and brainwashing is demonstrated to be overruling or corrupting the free will of the participants, they are not absolved of responsibility for their own actions, assuming any of them regret them.
"Free will" is often contigent on circumstances. From Northwestern to Abu Ghraib, losing athletic scholarships, failing to fit in socially, taking orders from a superior, dishonorable discharge, getting killed or raped if you don't submit, etc. all navigate the continuum of one's willingness to participate in or receive torture. Everyone is "free", in theory.
posted by Mr. Six at 4:20 PM on May 17, 2006
"Free will" is often contigent on circumstances. From Northwestern to Abu Ghraib, losing athletic scholarships, failing to fit in socially, taking orders from a superior, dishonorable discharge, getting killed or raped if you don't submit, etc. all navigate the continuum of one's willingness to participate in or receive torture. Everyone is "free", in theory.
posted by Mr. Six at 4:20 PM on May 17, 2006
Pics like that are so much hotter because they are not staged.
posted by mischief at 4:21 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by mischief at 4:21 PM on May 17, 2006
Which is to say, loquax, that the extent and impact of those circumstances is up to you to interprete how you like. But the larger (perhaps more interesting) picture shows that it's just more of the same monkey business: setting up primate dominance within the society. Long after Northwestern slaps them on the wrists, these sociopathic alpha females will probably go on to become our next generation of investment bankers, military prison wardens, presidents and captains of industry, what have you. More things change...
posted by Mr. Six at 4:27 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by Mr. Six at 4:27 PM on May 17, 2006
Everyone is "free", in theory.
Fine, but by that logic, none of us are responsible for our actions, and are only submitting to one of various types of authority. Which may well be true on some level, but on a spectrum of "ability to resist", these adults clearly had more control over their circumstances than subordinate soldiers, violently threatened people or cult members. Was there pressure on them to do certain things? Most certainly. Everyone deals with that kind of pressure at one point or another, in their jobs, their lives, with their friends. The fact that they did participate does not prove that they were unwilling, nor does it prove that the orchestrators had inappropriate levels of control.
posted by loquax at 4:28 PM on May 17, 2006
Fine, but by that logic, none of us are responsible for our actions, and are only submitting to one of various types of authority. Which may well be true on some level, but on a spectrum of "ability to resist", these adults clearly had more control over their circumstances than subordinate soldiers, violently threatened people or cult members. Was there pressure on them to do certain things? Most certainly. Everyone deals with that kind of pressure at one point or another, in their jobs, their lives, with their friends. The fact that they did participate does not prove that they were unwilling, nor does it prove that the orchestrators had inappropriate levels of control.
posted by loquax at 4:28 PM on May 17, 2006
nor does it prove that the orchestrators had inappropriate levels of control.
...or, needless to say, that they were sociopathic.
posted by loquax at 4:29 PM on May 17, 2006
...or, needless to say, that they were sociopathic.
posted by loquax at 4:29 PM on May 17, 2006
10 years ago, NU dealt with this stuff pretty ruthlessly; assuming enterprising NU students were stupid enough to get caught.
posted by mrmojoflying at 4:36 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by mrmojoflying at 4:36 PM on May 17, 2006
Fine, but by that logic, none of us are responsible for our actions, and are only submitting to one of various types of authority.
My old genetics professor once suggested that there is no free will, since the parameters of our brain chemistry are defined entirely by the "authority" of our evolutionary heritage. I humbly suggest that genetic heritage burdens every chimp reading this thread, as well as the Northwestern girl's soccer team, with a near-preternatural ability to submit to self-proclaimed authority. Free will seems a matter of circumstance and a definition of convenience.
posted by Mr. Six at 4:39 PM on May 17, 2006
My old genetics professor once suggested that there is no free will, since the parameters of our brain chemistry are defined entirely by the "authority" of our evolutionary heritage. I humbly suggest that genetic heritage burdens every chimp reading this thread, as well as the Northwestern girl's soccer team, with a near-preternatural ability to submit to self-proclaimed authority. Free will seems a matter of circumstance and a definition of convenience.
posted by Mr. Six at 4:39 PM on May 17, 2006
People do it because it does work.
Yep, I think delmoi is correct on that. Apparently when you do something you wouldn't ordinarily do (for example, stand naked in a garden for a few minutes for everybody to see) AND you are doing that because you so much want something else (for instance avoiding NOT being taken into a club) at the end of that experience you rationalize yourself into believing the Club was worth it, the friendship of the people in the club "is what you really want" and you now also feel you are part of something, which is also almost universally good.
Why ? Because otherwise you should think you are spinless coward that just dropped his pants to please a crowd of similar put-down assholes ; we love ourselves so we choose to believe it was "for the club" , therefore the club must be "worthy". UH, talk about bullshit.
How about degradation being the price of admittance when talent and aptitude shouldbe the criteria?
Who said it's degrading?
Usually some of the "initiation rituals" , at least the few ones I have seen, consist into having the new person do something that is probably somehow embarassing ; to some people some behavior is infinitely embarassing, yet sometime the desire to conform and belong overrun the embarassment. SOme other people get SO involved in having the person do the ritual they cross the line and enter bullying, menace consequences,terrorize a person turning the initiation in a event that can shock some people. That's the wrong part with initiation administered by people that don't know what they are doing and why.
Cranberry: talent and aptitude are valued and indeed if one person chooses NOT to subject himself to the prank (which isn't necessairily degrading) he already showed determination. The problem isn't the initiation in itself, a problem may be found if there is NO other way , but accepting to be humiliated to express your skills and talent.
Take the woman who cries for his "baby boy" being teabagadded and almost raped with a banana. Laughable by some standard, but the guy probably didn't like that at all and that's what wrong, that he was _forced_ into something he didn't want to do. What the guy should understand is that the teabagging and banana stuff aren't something he should spend the rest of his life feeling "a victim" of, that would do him no good. Getting over it, putting it in proportion could help him AND his mother.
posted by elpapacito at 4:45 PM on May 17, 2006
Yep, I think delmoi is correct on that. Apparently when you do something you wouldn't ordinarily do (for example, stand naked in a garden for a few minutes for everybody to see) AND you are doing that because you so much want something else (for instance avoiding NOT being taken into a club) at the end of that experience you rationalize yourself into believing the Club was worth it, the friendship of the people in the club "is what you really want" and you now also feel you are part of something, which is also almost universally good.
Why ? Because otherwise you should think you are spinless coward that just dropped his pants to please a crowd of similar put-down assholes ; we love ourselves so we choose to believe it was "for the club" , therefore the club must be "worthy". UH, talk about bullshit.
How about degradation being the price of admittance when talent and aptitude shouldbe the criteria?
Who said it's degrading?
Usually some of the "initiation rituals" , at least the few ones I have seen, consist into having the new person do something that is probably somehow embarassing ; to some people some behavior is infinitely embarassing, yet sometime the desire to conform and belong overrun the embarassment. SOme other people get SO involved in having the person do the ritual they cross the line and enter bullying, menace consequences,terrorize a person turning the initiation in a event that can shock some people. That's the wrong part with initiation administered by people that don't know what they are doing and why.
Cranberry: talent and aptitude are valued and indeed if one person chooses NOT to subject himself to the prank (which isn't necessairily degrading) he already showed determination. The problem isn't the initiation in itself, a problem may be found if there is NO other way , but accepting to be humiliated to express your skills and talent.
Take the woman who cries for his "baby boy" being teabagadded and almost raped with a banana. Laughable by some standard, but the guy probably didn't like that at all and that's what wrong, that he was _forced_ into something he didn't want to do. What the guy should understand is that the teabagging and banana stuff aren't something he should spend the rest of his life feeling "a victim" of, that would do him no good. Getting over it, putting it in proportion could help him AND his mother.
posted by elpapacito at 4:45 PM on May 17, 2006
As for the school, let's be clear that no school gives a crap what students do until the school is placed in a liability position. Because this is an official NU team, NU could be sued. Otherwise, they couldn't care less if women (or men) ran all over campus in their underwear for whatever reason.
Mr. Six, I agree with you (and your genetics professor) to a certain extent, but the practicalities of society dictate that individuals must be accountable for themselves, unless proof of direct influence, manipulation or coercion (let alone threats of violence). Unless evidence comes out indicating that these women were being *unduly* influenced, normal and reasonable levels of "deference to authority" can't be used to either condemn the ones in charge, don't you agree?
posted by loquax at 4:47 PM on May 17, 2006
Mr. Six, I agree with you (and your genetics professor) to a certain extent, but the practicalities of society dictate that individuals must be accountable for themselves, unless proof of direct influence, manipulation or coercion (let alone threats of violence). Unless evidence comes out indicating that these women were being *unduly* influenced, normal and reasonable levels of "deference to authority" can't be used to either condemn the ones in charge, don't you agree?
posted by loquax at 4:47 PM on May 17, 2006
They were written on with a marker pen.
The pictures suggest more, perhaps not, but the statement above would suggest Chinese water torture could be described as simply water droplets falling on one's forehead. Since we can't live in other's people's minds we can't really know the full degree of psychological anguish these types of behaviors cause, as innocuous as they might seem when put into words.
posted by Mr. Six at 4:48 PM on May 17, 2006
The pictures suggest more, perhaps not, but the statement above would suggest Chinese water torture could be described as simply water droplets falling on one's forehead. Since we can't live in other's people's minds we can't really know the full degree of psychological anguish these types of behaviors cause, as innocuous as they might seem when put into words.
posted by Mr. Six at 4:48 PM on May 17, 2006
This is quite true, as Dr. Milgram discovered. Unfortunately, Milgram also discovered most people decide to keep playing ball.
Well, there is a diffrence between being forced to do something and being manipulated into do something, don't you think?
posted by delmoi at 4:52 PM on May 17, 2006
Well, there is a diffrence between being forced to do something and being manipulated into do something, don't you think?
posted by delmoi at 4:52 PM on May 17, 2006
Mr. Six writes "Since we can't live in other's people's minds we can't really know the full degree of psychological anguish these types of behaviors cause, as innocuous as they might seem when put into words."
True. Projection?
posted by krinklyfig at 4:53 PM on May 17, 2006
True. Projection?
posted by krinklyfig at 4:53 PM on May 17, 2006
Unless evidence comes out indicating that these women were being *unduly* influenced, normal and reasonable levels of "deference to authority" can't be used to either condemn the ones in charge, don't you agree?
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. If the captain of the female soccer team tells you to give a lap dance to members of the men's soccer team, you're certainly deferring to authority, even if you might not have been physically coerced at the time. Perhaps one of the girls might think it is degrading to be told to rub her chest in a stranger's face, doing so anyway because of social repercussions that would follow for disobeying. Terms like "unduly", "normal" and "reasonable" can be tricky, in that case.
posted by Mr. Six at 4:55 PM on May 17, 2006
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. If the captain of the female soccer team tells you to give a lap dance to members of the men's soccer team, you're certainly deferring to authority, even if you might not have been physically coerced at the time. Perhaps one of the girls might think it is degrading to be told to rub her chest in a stranger's face, doing so anyway because of social repercussions that would follow for disobeying. Terms like "unduly", "normal" and "reasonable" can be tricky, in that case.
posted by Mr. Six at 4:55 PM on May 17, 2006
Well, there is a diffrence between being forced to do something and being manipulated into do something, don't you think?
In the first example, dominant behavior results from perceived physical weakness: "I'll hit him if he doesn't do what I want, because I know he's too weak to fight back." In the second case, dominance establishes from perceived psychological weakness: "I'll talk him into doing what I want, because I know he's easily manipulated." Either case might be described as an act of violence or perhaps coercion, differing only in the method of its delivery.
posted by Mr. Six at 5:07 PM on May 17, 2006
In the first example, dominant behavior results from perceived physical weakness: "I'll hit him if he doesn't do what I want, because I know he's too weak to fight back." In the second case, dominance establishes from perceived psychological weakness: "I'll talk him into doing what I want, because I know he's easily manipulated." Either case might be described as an act of violence or perhaps coercion, differing only in the method of its delivery.
posted by Mr. Six at 5:07 PM on May 17, 2006
I genuinely don't know if I've missed something in those photos (ignoring the leading commentary). Yeah, it's clearly some kind of organised initiation thing, but I see nothing there that looks like it could come anywhere near being classified as abuse - even in the broadest sense.
I despise everything I've seen and heard about American college hazing rituals, and bollocks to the idea that they "build character", or any other such crap - but I swear to god those photos aren't even stuff you'd be scared to turn into a Flickr set of your weekend.
They're not just 'a bit ambiguous', thay're deeply, profoundly lame. And I've been to MeFi meetups...
posted by flashboy at 5:26 PM on May 17, 2006
I despise everything I've seen and heard about American college hazing rituals, and bollocks to the idea that they "build character", or any other such crap - but I swear to god those photos aren't even stuff you'd be scared to turn into a Flickr set of your weekend.
They're not just 'a bit ambiguous', thay're deeply, profoundly lame. And I've been to MeFi meetups...
posted by flashboy at 5:26 PM on May 17, 2006
This is a bit loftier than the discussion on Fark about it the past few days, granted. Less Milgram, more "Would you hit it?"
Mariotti has an interesting take on it:
"It shouldn't surprise anyone that such an episode would happen at NU. This is where point-shaving scandals went down in the '90s in the football and basketball programs. This is where Gary Barnett made his creepy name for himself. This is where a football player, Rashidi Wheeler, collapsed on a practice field and was allowed to die because proper emergency mechanisms weren't in place to rush him to a nearby hospital."
posted by First Post at 6:01 PM on May 17, 2006
Mariotti has an interesting take on it:
"It shouldn't surprise anyone that such an episode would happen at NU. This is where point-shaving scandals went down in the '90s in the football and basketball programs. This is where Gary Barnett made his creepy name for himself. This is where a football player, Rashidi Wheeler, collapsed on a practice field and was allowed to die because proper emergency mechanisms weren't in place to rush him to a nearby hospital."
posted by First Post at 6:01 PM on May 17, 2006
Meh. I gotta call bullshit on a few things that have been said.
Did they have a choice to join the team? Sure, but if they're scholarship athletes, they definitely didn't have a practical choice in whether or not to participate. These girls probably chose schools based on who gave them the best financial package along with the best soccer team, and once there, frankly, no, they had no choice--they could have steered clear, and while the coach would never give them the boot, they'd be pariahs. I've seen it happen. Even the best player would soon be wondering how come no one passes her the ball, helps her out on D, backs her up on a hard play, etc.
delmoi writes: People do it because it does work.
Hmm, Northwestern has never won an NCAA championship in women's soccer, nor played in a title match. So, you're wrong. Yankees? Steelers? Pretty sure this shit doesn't go down with professional championship teams either. Strippers and drugs? Probably, but not ritualized abuse. (This team was 9-9-1 last season, so if the hazing happened then I guess they need to try harder, according to your logic.)
I played club sports in college, and there was some crazy stuff, but it was mostly built around getting as many people consensually laid as possible at the after-party. That's hardly a model for how any team should conduct themselves, but c'mon--this is stupid behavior and the coach should be fired for either a) knowing about this crap and doing nothing or b) not knowing about this crap. If I was an alum, I'd be pissed.
posted by bardic at 6:03 PM on May 17, 2006
Did they have a choice to join the team? Sure, but if they're scholarship athletes, they definitely didn't have a practical choice in whether or not to participate. These girls probably chose schools based on who gave them the best financial package along with the best soccer team, and once there, frankly, no, they had no choice--they could have steered clear, and while the coach would never give them the boot, they'd be pariahs. I've seen it happen. Even the best player would soon be wondering how come no one passes her the ball, helps her out on D, backs her up on a hard play, etc.
delmoi writes: People do it because it does work.
Hmm, Northwestern has never won an NCAA championship in women's soccer, nor played in a title match. So, you're wrong. Yankees? Steelers? Pretty sure this shit doesn't go down with professional championship teams either. Strippers and drugs? Probably, but not ritualized abuse. (This team was 9-9-1 last season, so if the hazing happened then I guess they need to try harder, according to your logic.)
I played club sports in college, and there was some crazy stuff, but it was mostly built around getting as many people consensually laid as possible at the after-party. That's hardly a model for how any team should conduct themselves, but c'mon--this is stupid behavior and the coach should be fired for either a) knowing about this crap and doing nothing or b) not knowing about this crap. If I was an alum, I'd be pissed.
posted by bardic at 6:03 PM on May 17, 2006
And I've been to MeFi meetups...
...but have you been properly hazed at one yet? We bring cameras to meetups for a reason, you know.
posted by DaShiv at 6:06 PM on May 17, 2006
...but have you been properly hazed at one yet? We bring cameras to meetups for a reason, you know.
posted by DaShiv at 6:06 PM on May 17, 2006
Obligatory Duke Lacrosse scandal link.
Actually, it's not obligatory--very different circumstances, but I'm sure some major media outlet will be giving us the "Oh noes college athletes want to sex your children up!" soon.
posted by bardic at 6:11 PM on May 17, 2006
Actually, it's not obligatory--very different circumstances, but I'm sure some major media outlet will be giving us the "Oh noes college athletes want to sex your children up!" soon.
posted by bardic at 6:11 PM on May 17, 2006
they could have steered clear, and while the coach would never give them the boot, they'd be pariahs. I've seen it happen. Even the best player would soon be wondering how come no one passes her the ball, helps her out on D, backs her up on a hard play, etc.
Then they should grow a backbone.
(Assuming, of course, that they felt that this initiation was degrading, which is not for me a given. If they didn't feel it was degrading, then no harm done.)
Everyone is "free", in theory.
posted by Mr. Six at 6:20 PM CST on May 17
I am not a number! I am a free man!
posted by gd779 at 6:17 PM on May 17, 2006
Then they should grow a backbone.
(Assuming, of course, that they felt that this initiation was degrading, which is not for me a given. If they didn't feel it was degrading, then no harm done.)
Everyone is "free", in theory.
posted by Mr. Six at 6:20 PM CST on May 17
I am not a number! I am a free man!
posted by gd779 at 6:17 PM on May 17, 2006
flashboy, I agree -- this doesn't appear to come close to the worst of what college hazing has to offer, looks pretty tame in fact. Did any of these women die during the lap dances?
(And yes, I understand that not being the worst hazing ever doesn't make it OK, but c'mon. This is hazing with a skit competition.)
posted by aaronetc at 6:17 PM on May 17, 2006
(And yes, I understand that not being the worst hazing ever doesn't make it OK, but c'mon. This is hazing with a skit competition.)
posted by aaronetc at 6:17 PM on May 17, 2006
Sod not being the worst of what hazing has to offer, this doesn't seem anywhere near the worst that being stupidly drunk with your friends has to offer. Seriously - what the hell is it that I'm missing here?
posted by flashboy at 6:33 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by flashboy at 6:33 PM on May 17, 2006
Seriously - what the hell is it that I'm missing here?
A brain ?
posted by elpapacito at 6:41 PM on May 17, 2006
A brain ?
posted by elpapacito at 6:41 PM on May 17, 2006
Over the past decade there have been a significant number of alcohol-related deaths due to hazing on college campuses. I imagine most of those incidents wind up in court with the student's family suing the university - because they sanction the student group that did the hazing.
While this seems to be an overreaction on the part of Northwestern's administration, for legal reasons it makes sense. If they ever wind up in court, they need to show that they basically had a zero-tolerance policy on stuff like this.
I think the fact that there was underage drinking involved plays a major role as well. If it had just been the hazing (and no alcohol), I'm don't think the punishment would be this bad.
posted by ghostmanonsecond at 6:49 PM on May 17, 2006
While this seems to be an overreaction on the part of Northwestern's administration, for legal reasons it makes sense. If they ever wind up in court, they need to show that they basically had a zero-tolerance policy on stuff like this.
I think the fact that there was underage drinking involved plays a major role as well. If it had just been the hazing (and no alcohol), I'm don't think the punishment would be this bad.
posted by ghostmanonsecond at 6:49 PM on May 17, 2006
bardic writes "These girls probably chose schools based on who gave them the best financial package along with the best soccer team, and once there, frankly, no, they had no choice"
Yeah, but they chose the schools based on their own criteria (be it monetary, location to home etc.). Where's the coercion? It would be very surprising if the women involved did not have some idea about what was in store for them. I mean, it's not like these activities are hardly exclusive to NU. If you're into career sports then hazing (and it's ilk) will come up eventually.
It's a stupid practise, and as far as I'm concerned flinging shit at one another is a activity higher-up on the evolutionary scale than this overly dramatic ritualistic abuse. But if those involved consent to the practise, who cares?
posted by purephase at 6:54 PM on May 17, 2006
Yeah, but they chose the schools based on their own criteria (be it monetary, location to home etc.). Where's the coercion? It would be very surprising if the women involved did not have some idea about what was in store for them. I mean, it's not like these activities are hardly exclusive to NU. If you're into career sports then hazing (and it's ilk) will come up eventually.
It's a stupid practise, and as far as I'm concerned flinging shit at one another is a activity higher-up on the evolutionary scale than this overly dramatic ritualistic abuse. But if those involved consent to the practise, who cares?
posted by purephase at 6:54 PM on May 17, 2006
Rather than debate "degrees" of hazing, it is well known that schools have cracked down on hazing in toto in recent years. Good. This is one case where I'm all for a hard and fast rule. You think this stuff is harmless and next thing you know somebody winds up dead or maimed and we all act surprised. Good judgement seems to often fly out the window with some college kids.
Northwestern had its rules, and the soccer team didn't follow them. The school had every right to penalize them. Hopefully, any men's team caught engaging in hazing will be penalized in the same fashion.
And while we're on the subject, we just had this story in the news today. Lovely.
posted by bim at 7:00 PM on May 17, 2006
Northwestern had its rules, and the soccer team didn't follow them. The school had every right to penalize them. Hopefully, any men's team caught engaging in hazing will be penalized in the same fashion.
And while we're on the subject, we just had this story in the news today. Lovely.
posted by bim at 7:00 PM on May 17, 2006
The president, deans, and alums of Northwestern, for starters.
posted by bardic at 7:02 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by bardic at 7:02 PM on May 17, 2006
bardic writes "The president, deans, and alums of Northwestern, for starters."
Yeah, I meant to re-emphasize that point (I made it earlier in my first comment). The punishment befits the "crime" since it broke published rules at NU. I was addressing the coercion aspect in my last comment and popular belief outside NU for hazing rituals in general.
posted by purephase at 7:35 PM on May 17, 2006
Yeah, I meant to re-emphasize that point (I made it earlier in my first comment). The punishment befits the "crime" since it broke published rules at NU. I was addressing the coercion aspect in my last comment and popular belief outside NU for hazing rituals in general.
posted by purephase at 7:35 PM on May 17, 2006
god... i had shit like this done to me and i wasn't even ON a sports team in college. its just stupid kids' pranks to get drunk, draw on each other, pants your friend, etc. and take pictures. hell, i remember those times fondly. it wasn't like the swim team in high school where we were thrown into the snow in nothing but our speedos... and even then, we coulda gotten away if we wanted to...i did.
don't get me wrong, i'm against degrading my fellow man and not showing respect, but this is retarded. these girls were having fun, and no one got hurt or put in a hospital or scarred emotionally for life. if anything they came away with an insane story to tell their grandkids someday.
posted by Doorstop at 8:05 PM on May 17, 2006
don't get me wrong, i'm against degrading my fellow man and not showing respect, but this is retarded. these girls were having fun, and no one got hurt or put in a hospital or scarred emotionally for life. if anything they came away with an insane story to tell their grandkids someday.
posted by Doorstop at 8:05 PM on May 17, 2006
What's wrong with people trying to be nice to each other rather than being dicks? I would think that if you were trying to get loyalty from your team members you would want them to feel that you are on their side, that you're all on the same team, so to speak. By degrading and humiliating them, I don't see how that does anything except create hostility.
There's no fun involved - it's humiliation.
posted by MythMaker at 8:19 PM on May 17, 2006
There's no fun involved - it's humiliation.
posted by MythMaker at 8:19 PM on May 17, 2006
Did any of these women die during the lap dances?
You don't have to die to be harmed by a coerced sexual act. It's degrading and disrespectful of your personal sexual agency.
I'm glad they got busted.
Degradation should not be the price of admission to a sports team.
posted by beth at 8:33 PM on May 17, 2006
You don't have to die to be harmed by a coerced sexual act. It's degrading and disrespectful of your personal sexual agency.
I'm glad they got busted.
Degradation should not be the price of admission to a sports team.
posted by beth at 8:33 PM on May 17, 2006
University Diaries has been having a field-day lately with the recent Jocks R Evil college athletics scandals ...
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:54 PM on May 17, 2006
posted by Sonny Jim at 8:54 PM on May 17, 2006
ALL RIGHT!!!
um...I mean...uh...degrading, and um...such *cough*
/I have a dick. Sometimes it gets to the keyboard first.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:13 PM on May 17, 2006
um...I mean...uh...degrading, and um...such *cough*
/I have a dick. Sometimes it gets to the keyboard first.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:13 PM on May 17, 2006
Wait, is the real motivator here for people who support this because they were hazed, because it's "just college" or because it's girl on girl, because I'm pretty sure that if this went down at your office Christmas party (or an unofficial gathering) there'd be suspensions and firings too. Sexual harassment law would agree. The girls are no more or less coerced to join the team than you are coerced to go to your job.
Well, there is a difference between being forced to do something and being manipulated into do something, don't you think?
This baffles me. I think there must be some core value behind this statement that I'm just not getting, because when we're talking about "force" and "manipulation" I only think in matters of degree. Someone can put a gun to your head and "force" you to rape an innocent person, but you still have the choice do nothing and take the bullet. Would the person who chose to rape the innocent be more, less or equally moral to the person who took the bullet?
If they're equally moral, then that, to me, sounds like moral relativism. But, if the person who sacrificed themselves is more moral, then that means the person who raped has some level of mitigated fault. The only alternative is to argue that the coerced rapist is as equally at fault as someone who rapes at the drop of a hat, which is also a pretty hard sell.
We are all, always captains of our own soul. There is no such thing as "forced," but there are shades of fault.
This situation is low-stakes, but we can never know what goes on in another person's head. Do they have an anxiety disorder? PTSD? Depression? Bipolar? Or, on the other side, is there sociopath nearby just waiting for an excuse? That's why moral, empathetic people don't manipulate others into unnecessary, uncomfortable decisions, no matter how harmless the hijinks.
I'm not particularly convinced that hazing "works" to create group cohesion, but, then again, I'd be hard pressed to join, let alone bond, with such a group so maybe it works for joiners. However, you're still limiting your pool of potential talent by excluding non-joiners, which will hurt your performance in all but the most team-oriented activities.
posted by Skwirl at 9:17 PM on May 17, 2006
Well, there is a difference between being forced to do something and being manipulated into do something, don't you think?
This baffles me. I think there must be some core value behind this statement that I'm just not getting, because when we're talking about "force" and "manipulation" I only think in matters of degree. Someone can put a gun to your head and "force" you to rape an innocent person, but you still have the choice do nothing and take the bullet. Would the person who chose to rape the innocent be more, less or equally moral to the person who took the bullet?
If they're equally moral, then that, to me, sounds like moral relativism. But, if the person who sacrificed themselves is more moral, then that means the person who raped has some level of mitigated fault. The only alternative is to argue that the coerced rapist is as equally at fault as someone who rapes at the drop of a hat, which is also a pretty hard sell.
We are all, always captains of our own soul. There is no such thing as "forced," but there are shades of fault.
This situation is low-stakes, but we can never know what goes on in another person's head. Do they have an anxiety disorder? PTSD? Depression? Bipolar? Or, on the other side, is there sociopath nearby just waiting for an excuse? That's why moral, empathetic people don't manipulate others into unnecessary, uncomfortable decisions, no matter how harmless the hijinks.
I'm not particularly convinced that hazing "works" to create group cohesion, but, then again, I'd be hard pressed to join, let alone bond, with such a group so maybe it works for joiners. However, you're still limiting your pool of potential talent by excluding non-joiners, which will hurt your performance in all but the most team-oriented activities.
posted by Skwirl at 9:17 PM on May 17, 2006
God, whatta buncha liberal sissies y'all are. I've seen worse treatments at a church camp for middle schoolers.
Why are you guys here and not out protesting video stores with Dazed and Confused for glorifying this sort of EVIIIIIL?
posted by klangklangston at 10:27 PM on May 17, 2006
Why are you guys here and not out protesting video stores with Dazed and Confused for glorifying this sort of EVIIIIIL?
posted by klangklangston at 10:27 PM on May 17, 2006
"However, you're still limiting your pool of potential talent by excluding non-joiners, which will hurt your performance in all but the most team-oriented activities."
Y'mean, like soccer?
posted by klangklangston at 10:28 PM on May 17, 2006
Y'mean, like soccer?
posted by klangklangston at 10:28 PM on May 17, 2006
I am not a joiner. I would not put up with hazing. I would not generally choose to be part of teem sports, either. And I think the hazing thing is a good thing to ban.
That being said...I see photos of people laughing and having a good time. One person's 'degradation' is another person's absurd humor.
posted by Goofyy at 12:20 AM on May 18, 2006
That being said...I see photos of people laughing and having a good time. One person's 'degradation' is another person's absurd humor.
posted by Goofyy at 12:20 AM on May 18, 2006
Lyndie England thought the same thing.
Hitler did too!
posted by soiled cowboy at 8:27 AM on May 18, 2006
Hitler did too!
posted by soiled cowboy at 8:27 AM on May 18, 2006
Actually from what we know, no. Anecdotes abound regarding the fact that he was pretty queasy when it came to immediate, actual suffering--especially when it came to animals. In some ways this makes him even more of a monster, IMO.
No, Lyndie England and bible-camp counselors who peg 8-year-olds with bananas and the stereotypical coach who's only in it to dish out what he got when he was younger? Suburban, banal followers of whom there are far too many. I just don't understand the "fun and games" excuse being made so often here. And if you disagree with me on a moral basis, well, there's the practical fact that the tens of thousands of students, professors, and alums of a given uni have every right to expect that this sort of garbage doesn't represent them, ever.
posted by bardic at 9:37 AM on May 18, 2006
No, Lyndie England and bible-camp counselors who peg 8-year-olds with bananas and the stereotypical coach who's only in it to dish out what he got when he was younger? Suburban, banal followers of whom there are far too many. I just don't understand the "fun and games" excuse being made so often here. And if you disagree with me on a moral basis, well, there's the practical fact that the tens of thousands of students, professors, and alums of a given uni have every right to expect that this sort of garbage doesn't represent them, ever.
posted by bardic at 9:37 AM on May 18, 2006
« Older Finally, a decent use for silicone. | O'Rielly ♥ white christians Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
My response then, and to stuff like this now, is that it's always sick and twisted to degrade another human being. What team captains who encourage this type of molestation think they're getting in terms of "unity" and "bonding" is beyond me.
posted by bardic at 3:43 PM on May 17, 2006