Conference moira::parenting_v3

    I will say up front that I don't have a copy of the law at hand, but
    here's a little history of how the law came about.  The American
    International College in Springfield MA had a death a few years ago
    (early 80's I believe) due to a student's hazing, he was forced to
    overeat (spagetti if I recall correctly)  This along with several other
    college hazing deaths in a short timespan prompted an outcry by
    concerned parents for this law.  I will check with my sources at the PD
    tonight and see if I can post an accurate description of the law.
    
    I'm still not sure though, how this relates to a High School situation,
    please explain for those of us who haven't had a second cup of coffee
    yet.
    
    Lyn
    

    .0  I tend to interpret the law the way you do... but it sounds too
    good to be true and in marginal cases it also sounds unenforcable.  Can
    you imagine trying to criminally prosecute a 14 year old for calling
    your kid names, or once or twice using threatening body language?
    
    The kids social structure tends to tear apart kids who are different or
    are weaker or complain to adults.  If my son was the victim of 'mild'
    abuse at the hand of other kids my impulse would be to teach him how
    to fend it off himself rather than subject him to potential further
    abuse because he and his father made a criminal case of it.  
    
    Many of the anti descrimination/abuse being put on the books are fine
    in intent but I wonder how they will work in the 'real world'.
    
    If I had a nickel for every time someone abused me verbally when I was
    a kid I would be a rich person now.  Jeff
    
    

re: .0

I doubt that the law really makes "teasing" illegal.  And IMO, it shouldn't.  
The kind of behavior that the law is aimed at is life threatening, or so 
extreme that a single incident could have serious emotional consequences.

There was an extensive series about this in the Boston Globe a couple of weeks 
ago.

The legislation is largely the result of the efforts of a few mothers of young 
men who died as the result of hazings.  The deaths have typically been the 
result of alcohol poisoning and/or exposure.  I'm not sure of the specific 
example Lyn refers to, but there was a death at American International, but it 
was due to excessive alcohol, not spaghetti.  One specific incident that was 
mentioned in the Globe article was an initiation "spaghetti dinner" in which 
the participants sat at a table.  The dinner consisted of spaghetti and large 
amounts of various kinds of alcoholic beverages.  Garbage cans were provided 
in case the participants needed to throw up.  That's all I recall clearly, 
but if memory serves me correctly, the participants were not allowed to leave 
the table until all the alcohol was consumed.  Now, IMO if a person does that 
voluntarily he (the _documented_ cases are almost exclusively male) is 
unbelievably stupid.  But if a person forces, through any type of 
intimidation, another to do something similar, their conduct is, IMO properly 
labeled as "criminal".  In the case of the mother who was most responsible for 
the legislation, her son died in a hazing in which he was forced -- perhaps 
"intimidated into" is a more accurate term -- to consume something like a half 
gallon of whisky.  He was then was locked in the trunk of a car, naked, in 
subzero weather.  He died of alcohol poisoning and exposure.

Now some "hazings" are pretty harmless, and my even serve as a bonding 
mechanism for the participants and promote a feeling of belonging on the 
people who go through them.  I don't think anybody will ever be prosecuted for 
making underclassmen carry meal trays for the seniors, or for putting shaving 
cream in someone's sneakers, or making freshmen stand up on their chair and 
sing.  But there is some conduct which goes FAR over the line of what is 
reasonable behavior, and deserves to be treated as criminal.  This conduct 
includes the dangerous things mentioned above, and some conduct, which IMO 
constitutes sexual and physical abuse, outlined in the Globe article.

I'm working from memory, so I may not quote thing exactly, but I haven't 
embellished.  I've also put the remainder of the note behind a form feed, 
since it's pretty graphic, and some of you may be offended.  But suffice it so 
say, we're not talking calling someone names or even stealing a lunch.

Clay


In the Globe article, the lead incident involved a high school track team on a 
bus, unsupervised.  The larger (one of them 6'5" and 280 pounds) and older 
kids were at the back of the bus.  The younger, smaller kids were told -- 
accompanied with the threat of physical violence -- to sit at the front of the 
bus, to not look back, and to come back when their name was called.  When 
their name was summoned, they were told to do things like strip, stick their 
fingers in their anus and lick them or to eat pubic hair.  Eventually, the 
perpetrators were forbidden to participate in school activities, such as track 
and school dances, etc.  Of the ten perpetrators, six weren't punished at 
all, because they had not physically touched the victims.  IMO, the punishment 
was too mild.  The lack of phycical contact may be mitigating, but certainly 
should not excuse entirely.  The perpetrators could have been charged under 
the anti-hazing law, but to date haven't been.  So once again, we ain't 
talkin' about making a kid wear a beanie.

The attorney for one of the perpetrators was quoted as saying that his client 
"shouldn't be treated as a criminal for 45 minutes of stupidity".  Sorry, but 
I disagree.

In another incident, two students were stripped, and told to race, holding a 
cracker in their buttocks.  The loser had to eat the crackers.

    Just a clarification -- the after school program my daughter is in,
    and which distributed the note, is for 6th graders.  I don't think
    6th graders do the sort of "hazing"
    in the previous notes, but some children are quite abusive (spitting
    in other children's food, namecalling, putting dirt in their hair or
    backpack, attempting to make them fall when riding their bike, etc.)
    Since grownups have the right not to have people
    do that sort of thing to them, I think children have the right to
    be treated with respect as well.  It is difficult to make things
    that aren't immediately life threatening criminal, though.
    
    Radia

    Sometimes it seems that we should turn all public learning institutions
    into military acadamies.  
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike

I doubt that general teasing and abusive behavior of peers will ever get
with under the hazing law.  Hazing implies abusive behavior as part of a
formal or informal initiation into some group (ie: sports teams, fraternities,
private schools).  These laws were a long time coming and are really
necessary.  Unfortunately for everybody concerned, they rarely define
hazing.  Or when they do, it is by example (usually poor ones).  An example
of the poor definitions is the NY law whose only explicit example of a
behavior that consitutes hazing is scavenger hunts.  It does not prohibit
making freshman or pledges from being told to jump up and down on one foot
and squawk like a chicken in public.

Dick

    I'm thinking about this one. If I had to define "hazing" I would say it
    is an act (verbal, physical or mental) which is used as an initiation
    stunt. The AIC incident was part of a fraternity initiation, if I'm
    remembering correctly. Kids don't go out and say "let's haze people
    tonight". You usually know the people doing the hazing and you accept
    it as part of the initiation. 
    
    My swim team in high school somewhat had hazing for the initiation of
    freshman. It fell upon 2 types of people - those who were "accepted"
    swimmers (the kids who were great swimmers and in the in-crowd) and
    those girls who wouldn't say "boo" but really wanted to be on the team.
    It was merely getting your bathing suit pulled off and thrown back into
    the pool. Yes, an accident could have happened from a struggling,
    slippery swimmer. We did have a girl report it, namely because she
    didn't want anyone to see her naked. We didn't get in trouble per say,
    but were told not to do it anymore. The intent was never malicious, it
    was never to hurt or harm. It was merely an initiation and it didn't
    happen to everyone and no one sat around a scheduled the initiation
    "activities". 
    
    I think initiation rights are okay if they are within reason. It
    becomes labelled as hazing when it seems to be over the top. I do think
    there should be a law to protect victims of hazing incidents and
    "prosecute" those that go over the top with the stunts they pull. I
    don't think this law should have any impact on teasing. They are
    seperate things from my perspective (even though teasing can be very
    damaging). 
    
    There is no way the government could ever come up with acceptable
    hazing activities so it is easier to ban them all together.
    
    Andrea

    To read between the lines on .7.  Are you saying thats its ok to strip
    someone naked against their will because its labeled as an initiation.
    If that was tried under any other label it would be called sexual
    assault. Define the line for me please.
    
    Jeff

    <Now some hazings are pretty harmless and may even serve as a bonding
    mechanism...>
    
    Coming from a college sorority, I can say (in my experience at least)
    that historically, that's what hazing was meant to be. . . a bonding
    experience.  It used to consist of the wearing a beany stuff, singing
    for your supper stuff, etc.
    
    Unfortunately, each class strives to "out-haze" the class before. 
    Hence, the extremely dangerous activities that abound today.  I was
    lucky in that I was a founding member of a national sorority on my
    campus, thus we had no class to outdo.  We didn't do _anything_ to our
    pledges (trial members).  If you tried to do anything, even "get me a
    coke" - you were out of my sorority.
    
    That was 7 years ago. . . I'm afraid of what the kids may be doing now. 
    Why am I afraid?  I personally know of other sororities/fraternities on
    campus who:
    
      - tied pledges up naked in sub-zero weather to trees, roofs, cars,
    anywhere public
    
      - had pledges of one fraternity shoot bee-bee (sp?) guns at the
    sorority girls across the street.  When the town police were called,
    they didn't respond because it was only a "fraternity" incident
    
      - had their male pledges lie in a circle with their mouths open,
    while they poured _anything_ (I won't be graphic here) into their mouths
    they desired
    
      - had their male pledges sit naked, on large blocks of ice, for hours
    at a time.  Some of them are probably reading infertility articles now,
    and I'm not making light or joking - think about it
    
    This stuff is child's play compared to what I've heard goes on in the
    bigger schools where fraternities and sororities are more popular. 
    This includes the stuff like go to a rocky gorge where a coffin is
    strung across the top, you pretend you die and get in the coffin and
    they string you across.  After of course everyone is roaring drunk. 
    Yup folks, the rope broke on somebody and he died.
    
    Sorry to ramble, this is a subject I feel very strongly about.  There's
    no place to draw the line, so _all_ hazing has to be off limits.
    
    And don't think this isn't happening in junior high.  Ask an
    ex-cheerleader, football player, or other organized activity member. 
    The ones who are a part of it now probably won't tell, but the ones who
    have grown up and know better probably will!
    
    I applaud the new law - but don't think it was meant for "unorganized"
    type teasing.  I hope somebody posts a note here with a little more
    info for us all.
    
    Thanks for the topic!