The Line: Crossing the Rubicon
![Picture](/uploads/1/8/3/4/18349677/2374276.jpg)
The line is easy to cross
Hazing is clearly a complex issue, but administrators continue to want to view the subject as a simple matter, feeling as though they must ban hazing in their institutions. However, a line exists between harmless and harmful hazing that makes hazing a manageable activity that can still be safe. Administrators are forced to make this decision because of the deaths and injuries incurred because of the practice. As Tracy Maxwell, the founder of hazingprevention.org, explains, “it’s a slippery slope. Next year the group will try to take it a step further” (Hosanksy 140). This insight into the minds of administrators outside the Greek system shows that they feel they must ban hazing in their institutes because allowing even the smallest amount of hazing can lead to a spiraling path that progressively becomes worse and worse, inevitably concluding in some atrocious act that hurts everyone involved in the process. However, despite administrators seeing hazing as a simple black and white issue, a line exists between harmless and harmful hazing that complicates the problem. As Waldron and Kowaiski allude to in their study on hazing, those conducting the hazing understand the line between actions that are innocuous and those that are detrimental. In their study surrounding athletic hazing, which is similar in nature to the hazing found in fraternities, a collegiate runner named Fred is quoted as saying “There’s a pretty fine line with getting out of control and staying in the limits. But, [hazing is] all right as long as you respect the person and you just know the limits and when to stop” (Waldron and Kowaiski 298). This quote cuts to the heart of the issue of hazing: hazing can be harmless and acceptable as long as the person being hazed is respected and the older individuals know when to stop. However, that line is fine and can be crossed easily, leading to the horror stories so often publicized by the media. If performed correctly, hazing does not need to be hurtful and can be a great bonding tool, but when those being hazed are no longer respected, the practice can be distressing and destructive. Many times, fraternity members either cannot find the line or ignore the line, and those members must be held accountable for their actions. However, not all rites of passage are hurtful and some fraternities successfully find that line and adhere to it. Despite administrators’ actions, fraternities currently haze and will continue to haze. Instead of focusing on banning hazing, administrators should focus on educating members of fraternities on the line between harmful and harmless hazing, promoting bonding activities that will both appease fraternity members and keep pledges safe.