According to the hazing policy posted on the Bowdoin website, the College defines hazing as any initiation activity that "1) physically or psychologically humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers—regardless of a person's willingness to participate; 2) results in the disruption of the educational process or the impairment of academic performance; or 3) violates College policy or state law."
Though I may be wrong, I don't think any parties involved would describe what happened in the Meddies situation as humiliating, degrading, abusive, or dangerous. I assume that the scavenger hunt portion of the initiation may have required the new Meddies to cross Maine or College Street. This was probably the most dangerous aspect of the initiation, as I understand it.
Barring any unstated stipulations of the College hazing policy, part one of the above definition can be dismissed as inapplicable to the Meddies case.
Additionally, I doubt educational process or academic performance—part two—was impacted by what happened that night.
In regards to part three, the underage consumption of alcohol at this event certainly constitutes a breach of College policy and Maine state law. It seems quite absurd, however, to claim that this alone constitutes hazing. When I drank at social house parties as a 19-year-old first year, I was violating College policy, but I was not hazing myself.
That being said, I doubt the arbitrating members of the Student Organizations Oversight Committee (SOOC) or any of the administrators (for example, Dean of Student Affairs Tim Foster and Director of Student Life Allen Delong) involved in the Meddies proceedings would claim that alcohol is either a necessary or sufficient condition of hazing. It is important to keep in mind that one of three first year Meddies abstained from drinking that night without abuse from seniors.
Where, then, in the definition of hazing is there evidence that the Meddies initiation constituted hazing?
Delong cites the presence of a "power differential," and the SOOC reports a "distinction of members by class year" as key elements in hazing. Neither of these phrases appear in the College hazing policy.
For nearly a week before I started classes my first year, I was singled out based on my status as a first year and was coerced, by a person in a more senior position of power, to participate in activities that I perceived as mandatory for inclusion at the College. Yes, using the SOOC and Delong's reasoning, first year orientation constitutes hazing.
That is, it would, save one note in the policy: "Hazing does not include actions or situations that are subsidiary to officially sanctioned and supervised College activities."
Basically, hazing is hazing unless the College sanctions it.
Of course, I don't actually consider orientation to be hazing, though it seems to share just as many (if not more) elements consistent with the College hazing policy as the Meddies initiation.
Determining what does and doesn't constitute hazing is not an exact science, and as such, a broad College policy is probably warranted.
Additionally, given the nuanced contexts of most hazing incidents, it makes sense to deal with them on a case-by-case basis, depending on the actual events.
When physical or psychological injury occur, or when participants are uncomfortable with what they are asked to do, it is clearly hazing and such activities should not be condoned. However, with the Meddies' case, no injury occurred, and senior Meddies encouraged younger members to abstain from activities that made them uncomfortable.
Having not been present at the initiation, I can't speak to exactly what happened. However, I was present at the open party that followed the initiation. Upon entering the off-campus house, the first thing I noticed was something I have become accustomed to: impromptu singing.
The atmosphere was generally what one might expect after an initiation. Senior Meddies patted the backs of newly-initiated members, who grinned from ear to ear.
In considering the SOOC and administration's treatment of those events, I don't think there was a failure of process, nor do I blame an overly inclusive hazing policy for the unwarranted punishment—though some specification is clearly needed.
The Meddies' punishment is the result of widespread failures of judgment (that were not necessarily the fault of the arbitrating SOOC members) to see the events for what they really were.
After the hockey incident last year, the College administration is clearly over-eager to show off its tough stance on hazing. As noted by both Foster and Delong, they had the option of simply bypassing the SOOC and dealing with the matter themselves. Whether this possibility (a threat to the SOOC's governing power) actually influenced decisions made by SOOC members is unclear, though probable.
Importantly, all parties involved allow that the incidents entailed nothing more than "minor" hazing.
I would argue that no hazing—only an initiation—occurred. If a scavenger hunt is hazing, I'll need to call home and scold my mother for hazing my party guests at my seventh birthday.
To Foster and Delong: Keep an ear open to the student response to this incident; I direct you to the most recent Orient editorial as a starting point. I eagerly await your response and welcome any form of discussion on this matter.
Doug Johnston is a member of the Class of 2012.