Hazing

Editorial Paper
Joshua Pasion IV-A

The hazing of students, usually college freshmen, nowadays has been an accepted part of our
society. Its causes are seen every day at almost every university, the unmarked, unchallenged
"territories" made up of tables and chairs of the fraternities that imposes these dangerous, and,
sometimes lethal initiation "rights." When you so happen to sit down by these territories, a
representative of the "frat" will ask you point blank if you are already going to join their group,
making the place usually avoided. We pretend not to see these things. These little things that
impact the student body ever so slightly that we do not see their longtime negative effects. The
fear of messing up with their group and unexpected fistfights are common among college students.

This socially accepted fact that in order to join a fraternity one must undergo a set of usually
painful and occasionally fatal tests, is now being held in debate in light of the recent death of
Guillo Cesar Servando, an HRM student of De La Salle College of Saint Benilde. The problem
that started its roots from the time of the first recruiting of fraternities has always been resurfacing
every now and then when yet another brutal, unnecessary death of a college student occurs. The
debate now is along the lines of "Why does the government let the fraternities impose these kinds
of unnecessary treatment to young people that may last them to their deaths?” and, "Is hazing
necessary to be given to people who only wish to be a part of a group?"

We decided to side with the more logical reasoning. We question the right of the fraternities to
carry out these malicious acts against college students. We demand their attention regarding the
giving of these harsh conditions that some may deem to be unnecessary and inhumane. We
challenge if they have a prerogative over the people who wish to join them, people who only
wanted to belong and to have "brothers" or "sisters" that they might turn to in their time need. So
called "brothers" who even view the paddling of initiates as enjoyable.

We considered the reasoning of the people who are for this. They believe the hazing somehow
brings them together. They believe it gives them something solid to have in common. We think
they believe its bonds them to one another that when two “brads” meet they would be instantly
acquainted with each other whether they may be born on another side of the globe. They believe
it’s a test of their commitment to the fraternity. It gives the fraternity reason to accept them in their
brotherhood. Even though each and every one of them denies to have carried out these acts that
otherwise would be illegal and a cause for arrest. Though they would have the perfect explanation
citing that the initiate wanted himself.

Though these reasons might be acceptable to the general population, treating it as unavoidable and
unchangeable facts of life, there are many who are vehemently opposed to this. They imply that
the government are doing nothing because they themselves are fraternity members and they would
do anything to protect their sacred rituals. They also say that other lesser crimes are punished more
severely. Though we might actually root out their anger from a death of a loved one by hazing. We
might not actually blame them for their hate but they do cite very good reasons for the strict
prohibition of hazing, not just the flimsy laws we have now.

In this issue, we are a divided nation. We are not united against or for a common goal because of
differences caused by foreign fraternities and fraternities made in our own country. We should be
at one with a strong decision regarding this issue in order to achieve nationwide peace and
freedom from fear. We think the answer resides in the everyday choices ourselves and the leaders
of the society make. We think the answer is in trust. The answer is in trust that the leaders of the
fraternities would give to their initiates. We think that the answer is ultimately up to the
government, the embodiment of the people themselves. The effect of their decisions on the matter
would resonate generations hence.