In Florida a panel has been set-up to investigate the 'cherished institution' of hazing which has become traditional in the music department at Florida A & M University. Before they get into the actual subject of initiating their band's members, they first have to decide if it is okay to talk about it publicly.
Bear in mind, this is not about the hazing of high school children, this is about initiating young adults to prove them worthy of joining a particular group. Fraternities do this all the time and it is considered a tradition. The military also participates in such rituals. It is true that deaths sometimes occur from this practice, but service members claim that such tests are necessary to ensure the strength of the unit and that it is better for one man to die than to put the whole battalion at risk.
Opinions on this topic vary as they do with any controversial behavior, but why would lawmakers try to circumvent an existing law in order to keep the subject from being discussed openly? Do you think that in this case they would like to discuss it differently in private than they would with an audience? Why?
It's fine to haze someone.
Just don't waterboard them too long.
If you don't want hazed, don't join the group.
I don't like the practice. I think it's a power trip and people get hurt.
Slim, I love your discussions. I have found you to be a person who is thoughtful about your discussion topics and without subterfuge. However, I have some questions. What is the definition of Hazing? Did you read the reasons given for the FAMU panels desire for an exemption to the sunshine law?
In the case of the Marine. I would in no way consider that the same as hazing. It was an act of punishment.
I do not agree with the actions taken. It was a failure of leadership by the senior NCO. No one knows why he took the action that he did. But, I bet his thinking went something like this. If I follow the letter of the law, this young man will be court marshaled and probably sent to jail. He will be ruined. My unit will be short handed and unit moral will be severely effected. If I let his fellow Marines take care of it. He will probably never let it happen again and I will avoid the consequences of Having a Courts Marshall.
The NCO made the wrong decision. His second major mistake was not supervising the actions taken by the unit personnel.
The WAMU situation is a whole different matter. From what I have read it had over time become hazing on steriods. Peoples lives were being put in danger. This was not something that was advertised so the persons being initiated did not enter into the situation fully informed as to what they would be subjected too.
It needs to be terminated. However, if this panel is to come up with recomendations about what will replace the current practice, I can understand why they might not want to operate under the same rules as political panel should.
It's a complicated area. However, my main concern about this discussion is that the two examples have very little in common. And, in my opinion, should not be addressed in the same discussion.
CWO3ROBBI is a pretty smart guy.
TeeBubbaDee, yes CWO3ROBBIE must be very intelligent.
CWO3ROBBIE, Thank-you for the compliment. I agree that the case of Marine Lance Cpl. Lew has little to do with the FAMU situation and it was never my intention to make such a comparison. I notice that the word 'hazing' when used in that article seems to encompass many different meanings and refers to several different incidences. My topic concerns the FAMU's purposes for taking exception to the Sunshine Law and why. Since hazing often has negative connotations, I wanted to give some examples offering varying opinions on the the subject as a lead-in to my question. In doing so, I borrowed (paraphrased) a quote from the introductory paragraph of the article in question. My purpose in providing the link was simply to cite my source for that one statement and allow anyone who might doubt its origins to read it in context. This is what I call "covering my ass".
I have read the panel's reasons for wanting to evade this law. If ease of communication would facilitate a decision in this case, wouldn't it do so in any circumstance? If so, why have the law in the first place? What makes this case different? And why do five members feel so strongly about keeping this private that they are ready to quit if it is discussed openly?
I'm not looking for answers, just theories, thoughts, opinions and discussion.
Thank-you for participating and bringing a new level and perspective to it.
furst thang to splains is how such hazin is the imatayshun of ackshul life
Clod, in my opinion it is not an imitation at all, but do you see hazing as an imitation of life? Or is life and imitation of hazing? Perhaps hazing is like art. ;-)
Usually I, and I assume most people, draw on their own life experiences when discussing other situations. I know that any exchange of information that is being monitored by government officials has to be very carefully worded to avoid misunderstandings coming back to bite you in the ass.
This inhibits a free flow of Ideas. The experience I drew on for referance to this situation was my experience as a witness for the defense at a spy trial. This was a serious situation, as the government prosicutor was asking for the the death penality if the person was found guilty.
The first hearing was held under the rules of a closed court. It was to determine if a recording could be entered into the record as evidence. The questions and answers were free flowing with few objections. This was due to the court being "closed" and no lawyers screaming "Objection" to questions and answers. The next day started the actual trail.
It was a whole different atmosphere. There were so many objections from the lawyers that when in the wittness box I felt as though I was the one on trail. You had to be extremely careful about what you said and how you said it. It was like existing in two totally different worlds. And it took twice as long to get anything done. Now, I know that the hazing situation and the trial that I just referenced to are totally different types of events. I do believe that recording the procedings is a good idea. But, I do not think identifying who said what, is very productive. In the FAMU controversy I don't think you will be able to assemble a productive panel under the sunshine rules. I would say, let the panel hash out what they think, and then have a formal panel present the findings and how those findings were determined.
Oh, and thanks very much for the complements.
Hazing in any form should not be used to determine anyone's "worthiness" to join any group. It is a rediculous form of bullying that serves no purpose any where, any time, any place.