Silver, This might also be a tool for organizations to use - with all the discussions pro/con on hazing, I'm reminded of something I learned (sigh, a LONG time ago...) in graduate school about the phenomenon of GroupThink (Irving Janis):
GroupThink is a concept that refers to "faulty" decision making in a group. Groups experiencing GroupThink do not consider all alternatives and they desire unaminity at the expense of quality decisions (Bay of Pigs, Watergate, and the Challenger disaster are all "worst-case" scenarios of GroupThink).
Negative outcomes can be caused by (1) Examining few alternatives, (2) Not being critical of each other's ideas, (3) not examining "early" alternative, (4) Not seeking expert opinion, (5) Being highly selective in gathering information ("Tradition?" - some "traditions" that I have seen or been told of are less than one year old in many instances!), and (6) not having contingency plans.
Groups (in this case picture a fraternity or sorority chapter) showing symptoms of GroupThink will have (1)having an illusion of invulnerability (anyone ever hear "it can't happen to us"?), (2) Rationalizing poor decisions (tradition), (3) Believing in the group's morality (what doesn't kill you makes you stronger), (4) Sharing stereotypes which guide decision making (makes a "man" out of you, or I did it, so can they (to me the WORST excuse of all)), (5) Exercising direct pressure on others (tradition), (6) Not expressing your true feelings (fear of retailiation), (7)maintaining an illusion of unanimity (if no one speaks out against it, we must all agree it's right), (8)using "mindguards" to protect the group from negative information (don't listen to nationals, they don't know what REALLY works - ever hear that one?)
Some potential solutions/fixes for the symptoms of GroupThink are (1) Use a policy-forming group which reports to the larger group (do all "hazing" activities have a tie back to the ideals of the founding fathers/sisters?), (2) Having leaders remain impartial (keep an open mind to new ideas, always hard to do), (3) Divide into groups and then discuss differences (are there consequences that we hadn't considered - is this "hazing" activity worth perpetuating at the cost of the 30, 40, 50 year old charter?), (4) Using outside experts (objectivity!), (5) Using a "Devil's Advocate" to question ALL the group's ideas, and (6) hold a "second-chance" meeting to offer everyone one last opportunity to choose another course of action.
I really think there are ties to this phenomenon when it comes to hazing - being in college, you are still young and impressionable, and it is VERY hard to question the beliefs/traditions of those who came before you at the cost of not fitting in (which everyone desires to do) - if the entire chapter can start utilizing tools such as these, and the suggestions Silver has listed, I would bet you would see some behavioral changes. If not, then I would believe the chapter has lost it's moral compass, and what will happen will happen, and I only hope the worst-case outcome is the loss of the charter, for it could be much much worse.
Sorry I was so long in this post - but I think it bears posting. Let me know...
------------------
Don't be your brother's keeper; rather, be your brother's Brother.
|