itary institution being shut down because a soldier was “discomforted” by the drill instructors actions. This further illustrates the bias shown in the Kansas and other state statute when the wording specifically targets fraternal organizations yet fails to mentions the other institutions and categories known and evolving into hazers such as the military, athletic teams, high schools and even in the job market. The simple wording of the definition is so broad and vague nearly every facet of life could be interpreted in its context. With the pecking orders of corporations and the “all nighters” college students experience, the argument could be made that employees and students are being hazed on a daily basis, but no headlines are published, no colleges shut down, not businesses fined. This is a preview of the arguments for and against what legislations and other institutions have defined as “hazing.” THE ARGUMENT AGAINST HAZINGMYTHS VS. FACTS Myth #1: Hazing is a problem for fraternities and sororities primarily.Fact: Hazing is a societal problem. Hazing incidents have been frequently documented in the military, athletic teams, marching bands, religious cults, professional schools and other types of clubs and/or, organizations. Reports of hazing activities in high schools are on the rise.Myth #2: Hazing is an effective way to teach respect and develop discipline.Fact: First of all, respect must be EARNED--not taught. Victims of hazing rarely report having respect for those who have hazed them. Just like other forms of victimization, hazing breeds mistrust, apathy and alienation.Myth #3: If someone agrees to participate in an activity, it can't be considered hazing.Fact: In states that have laws against hazing consent of the victim can't be used as a defense in a civil suit. This is because even if someone agrees to participate in a potentially hazardous action it may not be true consent when c...
