Thu 5 Nov 2009
Best of the Record – 4 November 2009
Posted by wslack under Best of the Record at 7:35 am
The Spring Street Blues – From the Files of Security
- 10-31, 3:15 a.m., Spencer: Officers were dispatched to meet WPD officers who received a call of a person in distress. The only information that could be obtained was that the caller was in a fourth floor room in a dorm at the corner of Hoxsey and Main Street. Officers met WPD and informed them that there was no such room in Spencer House. Officers then checked Morgan and West. The person was located in West.
- 10-31, 4:05 p.m., Goodrich House: A fire alarm was activated due to a failed attempt to bake a pie.
NYC shuttle sees full-capacity ridership – By Katy Gathright
The weekend shuttles to New York City that Williams Transport began offering this year have enjoyed considerable success in terms of student sign-ups, meaning that the service will likely return not only for the spring semester, but also for the next academic year. A comparable service for Boston-bound students is also now on the table for next year.
No neighborhood magic – Christopher Holland ’11
As much as we might wish it did, no magic wand can make the lives better of those who are dissatisfied on campus. The report shows that an overwhelming number of students are dissatisfied with the neighborhood system. However, it also shows that students are dissatisfied with more than just the neighborhoods: They are dissatisfied with the same issues that led to the creation of the neighborhoods in the first place. The problems that the neighborhoods are addressing run deeper than where people live. We need to look critically at the College’s strengths and weaknesses and address in earnest what this report shows about student experience in the Purple Valley itself, rather than in our imaginations.
Open letter to Adam Falk – Elizabeth Hwang ’13
Don’t fall into the trap of complacency and bureaucracy. During your visits, it would be helpful to expose yourself to the wider Williams community. Attend a few sports games. Come to entry snacks. Eat at our dining halls (I would advise trying to jostle through lunch at Paresky, just once, to get the idea.) Sit in on classes. Continue what you started when you took the campus tour: Become a frosh. Do not, under any circumstances, simply attend meetings and walk around, admiring the view. Make yourself a visible presence on campus, and don’t let the administration act as a smoke screen between you and the College. [...]In some ways, you have it easy. President Edward Dorr Griffin, back in 1821, arrived at a deserted college. He had two professors – one rather old, the other reluctant to stay – and a handful of students. Most of the faculty and students had left for Amherst, along with the former president. Griffin then went on to single-handedly raise $25,000, bring two of our most influential professors to campus and build Griffin Hall. Not bad for a theology student with a Doctorate of Divinity. As a physics Ph.D., gifted speaker and experienced administrator, you might just have a leg-up.
Print • EmailA meal of epic portions, dining with the O-line – By Kari Yook
Sitting between linebacker Conor Ryan ’12 and offensive lineman John Rabiner ’12, I threw out a rumor that had been circulating around campus: There exists a chicken-nugget-eating title for a member of the football team who can stuff down the most McNuggets in one sitting. As it turns out, the rumor was true. According to my sources, on the first Tuesday of this season, 20 players on the team headed to the nearest McDonalds to test the willpower of the offensive line’s newest members. “Every year, there’s a nugget contest between the freshman offensive linemen,” Ryan said with a hint of a smile. “Cong shattered the mark with 100 nuggets.”According to Tian, the team was shocked. “I didn’t believe it either. I guess it just happened,” he said. Tian asserts that the Mission fare he is used to is appetizing enough that he “eats a lot” on a regular basis, but those 100 nuggets were the most food the freshman from Ronkonkoma, N.Y. has ever consumed in one sitting. “It can’t be healthy,” he said. “Right afterwards, I got back to Mission and a lot of chicken nuggets came back out.”
| « Immigration Follies | Alumni Social Security Numbers Lost » |
145 Responses to “Best of the Record – 4 November 2009”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
JeffZ says:
100 chicken nuggets??? That is insane. Frank Uible previously suggested the aptly-named Cong as next year’s Eph entrant in the Jack’s hot dog contest. I wholeheartedly second that nomination:
http://www.ephblog.com/2009/09/25/cant-miss-event-of-the-fall-fit-for-a-king/
I love Spring Street Blues; some things may have changed at Williams, but Billsville seems to always have more than its share of quirky security-related incidents. Both of the entries highlighted by Will have a certain zen quality about them … in fact, in the spirit of our haikus from last week, I might reformulate the second thusly:
Pie-baking attempt
Fruitless, no sticky sweetness
Only sour police
Ken Thomas '93 says:
hwc says:
Is the O-line story hazing under Massachusetts law?
JeffZ says:
HWC: give me a frigging break.
David says:
Here is the law in question.
Key phrase would seem to be “forced consumption.”
If a politically-motivated local prosecutor wanted to get her name in the papers, she would seem to have enough grounds here for convening a grand jury, at least. How much you worry about that depends on how much you trust local prosecutors. Should Bill Wagner ask Mike Whalen to guide his players toward other traditions?
hwc says:
I believe that other food/drink contests, including drinking water, have been considered hazing in other cases. The statutes are sometimes interpreted broadly, which is why I asked.
If this is “a team tradition”, the rookie players may well have felt some degree of coercion.
JeffZ says:
If this is “forced consumption,” then team-organized off-season work-out sessions could just as easily be considered “forced calisthenics,” or outdoors runs in January could be considered “exposure to weather.” I really don’t see a public eating contest at a fast food place as something that (a) is contemplated by the statute, (b) would get past a grand jury, or (c) puts the health or safety of students at danger, at least any more than eating at McDonald’s puts ANYONE’s health or safety at danger. It is a facially ridiculous reading of the statute to include this activity within its ambit.
JeffZ says:
Not only does this activity not willfully or recklessly endanger health, there is no indication that this serves as a method of initiation. Not every team bonding activity, even if there is some tradition or peer pressure encouraging participation, is an intitiation ritual.
PTC says:
Jeff- It is hazing. Textbook, even if the participants do so voluntarily. It might be harmless and well intentioned, but they should stop this tradition immediately. Forced, coerced, practiced or any other “”rite of passage” or “ritual” that involves consumption of any food is an instant flag… by just about any measure.
Also, according to the article, they are doing this to test “new guys”… as a ritual for rite of passage. Not the same thing as all as the team doing a practice or a run, or any other kind of workout.
PTC says:
Not that this deserves any kind of high level fan fair or punishment… but any coach should look at this article and instantly feel the hair raise on the back of his or her neck… and tell these guys to knock it off.
PTC says:
I’d be more worried about the reaction of the NCAA than a local prosecutor.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?key=/ncaa/ncaa/academics+and+athletes/personal+welfare/health+and+safety/hazing+homepage
JeffZ says:
I’d like to immitate Frank U. in my response to these concerns, but I’ll leave that to him. First of all, IF this is harmless and well-intentioned, then by definition, it is not hazing. Second, eating a lot of food and gaining weight is part of the training to be an effective offensive lineman, just like lifting weights and running is. The new guys get tested in the weight room and in wind sprints, sometimes to the point of throwing up or feeling ill. If this is hazing, then that is as well. Third, there is nothing in the article that indicates that this is anything but a fun, voluntary, unit-bonding activity. IT is POSSIBLE there could be a more nefarious, compulsary, dangerous, pressured type atmosphere at play, but again, there is nothing to indicate that is the case here, nothing at all.
hwc says:
PTC:
The reason that hazing continues is that parents, coaches, athletic directors, and school administrators enable the behavior by turning a blind eye and tacitly condoning it. If the coaches, athletic director, and Acting President of Williams College do not take action, the College is essentially condoning a behavior that could be considered hazing under any definition published by risk management consultants and insurance providers to fraternities and other organizations.
JeffZ says:
Do you also think, PTC, that the cross country team should stop its traditional Big Mac run? Is any team tradition that involves eating now off-limits?
Ronit says:
I don’t know about you, Jeff, but I seek approval from risk management consultants and insurance companies for all of my social activities.
What, you don’t read the latest research from McKinsey before you throw a party?
hwc says:
That defense is specfically rejected in the policy manual of the risk management organization comprised of 28 national fraternities:
FIPG Risk Management Manual, November 2008 (PDF)
rory says:
lmao. this is the least hazing-esque thing the football team probably does to its frosh.
i’d think the haircuts and the boilermaker competition (do they still do that?) are far lower-hanging fruit. only ephblog…
lol.
Ronit says:
The only reasonable solution is to ban all team dinners and team parties.
David says:
Ronit: Last time I checked, you are not Williams College. In fact, Williams does hire consultants from places like Marsh & McLennan Companies. (In fact, this was specifically listed in the latest Form 990, I believe.) What do you think they would tell Bill Wagner about this?
Ronit says:
Leaving the football team aside, did you know that Williams freshmen are encouraged to go on long hikes as part of their orientation? Also, at least when I was there, there was a contest to see which of the hiking groups could eat its entire supply of food, and the winners were rewarded with a Ben & Jerry’s Vermonster.
End WOOLF. WOOLF is freshman hazing.
Ken Thomas '93 says:
Ronit says:
@David: My position is clear: the practice of allowing students to eat together at an off-campus fast food establishment, where the administrators cannot keep a watchful eye on their portion sizes, must be stopped.
JeffZ says:
Williams is a college campus, and, accordingly, a place where a substantial percentage of the population breaks the law on a weekly basis via underage drinking. I think that going to McDonald’s to consume chicken McNuggets would be the least of any risk manager’s concerns.
JeffZ says:
One of the challenges with blogs is that they get out of hand. What begins as an innocent summary of class news can lead to disaster.
kthomas says:
JG says:
@Ronit: Agreed. Williams College is a hotbed of hazing. Compulsory swim test and pe credits = forced calisthenics. The pressure to get good grades definitely endangers physcial and mental health with stress, late nights, venturing out of cozy dorms to be exposed to weather. The whole place should be shut down immediately if coaches, parents, professors, and the Acting President have any desire to take care of students. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!
rory says:
chicken mcnugget
hazing/eating can make you fat
at least eat b.k.
rory says:
crap…i meant
chicken mcnugget
hazing/eating makes you fat
at least eat b.k.
David says:
JG and Jeff: Aren’t you guys lawyers? Have I cited the incorrect law here? Again, it specifically refers to “forced consumption of any food.” Here is what the article claims:
So, we have at least one student who ate so much he had to vomit.
It appears that every single freshmen offensive lineman participates. The law makes clear that “voluntary” participation is no defense.
Needless to say, my own political view is that this law (like 99% of the laws in Massachusetts) are stupid and should be repealed. Liberty for all. But, alas, this law and others are on the books.
If every single first year offensive lineman does thing X (which sure looks like “forced consumption of any food”) and thing X results in one (all?) of them vomiting, then wouldn’t a prosecutor be on reasonable ground to convene a grand jury?
Even better: the student himself says “It can’t be healthy.’
Laugh all you want, but I bet this goes away by next year.
rory says:
i’ll take that bet, as long as we stipulate ephblog can’t (stupidly) involve itself any further.
JeffZ says:
I’ve already given my legal analysis as to why this would be unlikely to lead to an indictment, and as to why it is factually indistinguishable under the statutory, based on what we know, from a wide variety of other activities that are considered perfectly appropriate. The whole point of a Grand Jury is to serve as a gatekeeper against potentially stupid prosecutions, such as the one folks on this thread are apparently advocating for. Just because one guy chose to eat so many chicken mcnuggets that he puked doesn’t mean he felt forced or compelled to do so. Now, if the story was about how this individual was mocked and threatened and belittled until he felt he had no choice but to quit football or eat 100 nuggets, that would be one thing. But there is no indication that any such thing happened. If anything, the article makes it seems like he is an enormous outlier.
rory says:
@JeffZ: “enormous outlier” CHEAP SHOT!
JG says:
@David: Indeed I am. Let’s interpret the statute a bit, shall we.
The introductory sentence says the defintion includes conduct that “wilfully or recklessly endangers the physical or mental health of any student or other person.” It then gives examples and concludes with “any other brutal treatment or forced physical activity which is likely to adversely affect the physical health or safety of any such student or other person, or which subjects such student or other person to extreme mental stress, including extended deprivation of sleep or rest or extended isolation.”
The endangering of health is required. The things considered are “brutal” and “forced.” We have zero evidence that students were forced (physically or through duress) to participate. While eventual consent is not a defense, but there still has to be a compulsory aspect to make it hazing. If not, then you and a few friends agreeing yourselves to go out and eat yourselves sick would count as hazing. Likewise, there is no evidence that anyone was forced to eat more than they want to. Going for the nugget-eating crown is not the same as drink until you puke or something like that. Did anyone want to stop after one seving of nuggest but couldn’t? Did anyone say they didn’t want to particpate but was still forced to do so?
If this is hazing, so are the haircuts and walk up Spring Street. Want to take bets on that ending? God, do any of your kids get to have any fun?
David says:
Does that strike you as a helpful comment? The issue is not what my “kids” do for fun. The issues are:
1) What Coach Mike Whalen say about this contest if he knew about it?
2) What would President Bill Wagner say?
3) What would the company which writes the College’s insurance policy say?
I don’t have a good sense about 1) and 2), but I would bet money that the company — whether it be Marsh & McLennan or someone else — would tel Williams: “No eating contests for freshmen offensive lineman.”
Is there anyone who doubts that claim? (It may be unreasonable or unfair or ridiculous of the insurance company to act that way, but that is just the sort of thing that they do. And, if you ask them, they will provide strong reasons for doing so.)
JeffZ says:
http://www.orangeandbluehue.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/appstate-goalposts.jpg
David says:
Jeff: Unless moving-the-goalposts is your code for inability-to-follow-a-discussion, that picture makes little sense.
I guess that you are now agreeing that the insurance company that Williams hires would likely end the freshmen-lineman-eat-till-they-puke-”It can’t be healthy” contest. Good! You agree with HWC.
Now, ask yourself why the insurance company feels that way. Are they stupid? Do they just want to piss off Williams, their client? Unlikely!
Much more likely is that they know that a broadly written hazing law puts Williams in a very risky position if it turns a blind eye toward these sorts of “contests.” And the reason for that risk is the structure of criminal and civil law in this country. In other words, the reason that the company cares is precisely its (expert!) opinion that Williams might get sued and/or criminally charged.
Or do you have some other explanation?
Ronit says:
And here I thought this discussion was started by hwc asking: “Is the O-line story hazing under Massachusetts law?”
All this time, we were actually discussing what some insurance company might prefer with regard to students dining off campus! Who knew?
The insurance company might also prefer an end to binge or underage drinking. I wish them good luck with that.
JeffZ says:
OK, I guess I need to spell it out. You are Norm, an insurance agent. Activity (a) is most likely not hazing, and is almost certainly not going to be charged as such. But of course, there is some non-zero percent chance that an over-zealous prosecutor will attempt to do so, leading to some costs to the college. Meanwhile, the costs of the college prohibiting activity (a), in terms of expected costs, are zero. Because zero < non-zero, sure, an insurance agent might advocate against that activity. The question is not what would an insurance agent, looking out for the worst possible outcome, with no downside whatsoever from banning this activity so far as they are concerned (because, team bonding and fun aren't calculable from a risk perspective), would recommend. I trusted you were smart enough to see this for yourself, that this is a vastly different question from whether this is, in fact, actually hazing under Massachusetts law, not whether there is some non-zero chance that this behavior, like 1,000,000 behaviors we wouldn't want the college to outlaw, might be discouraged by a risk-averse insurance agent.
Ronit is right. Do you think we should ban mountain day? Does mountain day have risks? If faced with a choice between mountain day and no mountain day, what do you think an insurance agent might suggest? Is this how we are not going to govern the college on a going-forward basis?
David says:
The reason that the “insurance company might prefer” might prefer an end to the ”It can’t be healthy” contest is because of it might be considered “hazing under Massachusetts law.” This should not be hard to understand. In a different state, without this law, the company might feel very differently. There is a great deal of state-to-state variation in this sort of stuff and, therefore, in the insurance rates themselves.
Ronit says:
@rory: Given the College’s past record in terms of knuckling under to vague legal threats (cf: closing the health center), I have no doubt that a couple of “concerned” emails from Dkane, hwc, etc., would be enough to get the college to shut this down…
I’ll be extra impressed if they manage to end the WOOLF eating contest and associated Vermonster prize.
rory says:
@David: “Does that strike you as a helpful comment?” Pot, kettle, kettle bottle.
oh hey look! You’re both the same color! WHO’D HAVE THOUGHT?!?!?!
(note: JG, i got the joke. clearly, david didn’t)
JeffZ says:
For some reason my post did not “take.” Just trust me that explained to you in painstaking detail (just as Ronit did) why the two questions — whether this is hazing, versus what an insurance agent might recommend when banning an activity carries no costs (from a financial risk perspective) versus some very, very tiny expected costs — are worlds apart. I realize I am not gifted with the reading comprehension of a David Kane, but in this case, I feel pretty good that my graphic was the appropriate choice.
[post rescued, see above - Ronit]
JeffZ says:
In other words, David, in case that STILL wasn’t clear enough to you, I will grant that there is a greater than zero chance that this would be considered hazing under Mass law. An insurance agent would prefer zero potential liability to, say .1 x whatever the downside of litigation might be. Get it???
PTC says:
Guys… You are not thinking right. This is hazing. Just as David stated… it is textbook. The haircut tradition with “the walk” is sanctioned by the school and supervised by coaches. The haircut is given by a barber… in some ways, hazing is like pornography… and this case fits. It is textbook.
You guys can make light of this all you want, but the greater public and most institutions have a very different view of this kind of behavior. Zero tolerance. The guys could get themselves into a lot of trouble, and so could the coaching staff and team… not to mention the school. You need to take this seriously even if you do not want to. If it were my son being forced to eat until he got sick, I would raise hell. This kind of behavior is no longer accepted by any significant institution in our society that I can think of… not one.
You pull this kind of stuff in any kind of government job and you could be fired or demoted. This exact same act, could easily cause a demotion and forfeiture of pay. If it was discovered by anyone in a level of authority.. god god, if it was published in a newspaper- stand by! There would be an investigation into who knew about it, and action would be taken.
Supervisors would be all over you, and it would not be tolerated.
There is no training value in making some frosh eat until he vomits.
David says:
Has EphBlog iterated to agreement?
HWC asks:
Jeff admits:
PTC, the sort of local resident who might very well sit on the grand jury, insists:
Sure seems to me that a local prosecutor could easily convince, if she wanted to, a grand jury of folks like PTC to indict . . .
Ronit says:
@PTC: You may be right about this getting you fired if you have a government job, but testing positive for THC could also get you fired if you have a government job. I’m not sure the standards of federal government employment are the right ones to apply to college students.
In the industry where I work, eating contests (usually between first year associates or interns) are not uncommon, and I’ve never heard of anyone getting fired for this kind of thing.
David says:
The law only applies to “any student organization.” Employees in your industry can eat till they puke every day . . .
Ronit says:
I was responding to PTC’s attempt to compare this to federal government employment rules, and pointing out that said rules are hardly a good guide to judging other contexts.
So, David, you still haven’t answered if you are going to write to Wagner about shutting down the WOOLF eating challenge.
JeffZ says:
No, we have not. For something to “be” hazing under Massachusetts law, it has to (a) be charged by a prosecutor, (b) get past a Grand Jury (if a felony, which I’m not sure if this is, but assuming for the time being it is), (c) get past a potential motion to dismiss, and (d) result in a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt from 12 jurors, without a single one dissenting. Oh, and survive appeals as well as well as the inevitable rule 29 and motion for verdict NOV. Is there a greater than zero chance that could happen? Yes. I’d put it at well under five percent, however, maybe under 1 percent. There are probably 100 other things that happen at Williams routinely that also would survive the “greater than zero percent chance” test. That is not what HWC was asking. It is, per your frequent practice, intellectually dishonest of you to completely change the terms of the arguemnt, then accuse those who call you out on doing so of lacking basic reading comprehension skills. Well, intellectually dishonest and/or douschey. Take your pick.
Is your advice to Willaims REALLY force all student activities that have a greater than zero chance of leading to legal liability? Because that’s what it sounds like. if not, then why is the fact that there is a greater than zero percent chance this MIGHT be considered hazing under the law concern you so much?
JeffZ says:
To put it another way: the odds that this violates Mass law are, at WORST, 10 percent. The odds that students (like students at every campus in the state) violate Mass law every single day on campus by drinking under the age of 21 are, at BEST, 99 percent. This should be the least of the college’s concerns.
PTC says:
You guys are getting this… which is more troubling than this stupid incident. Yes, I said incident. Because that is exactly what this is, an incident of hazing. No doubt about it.
You guys obviously have a culture at Williams that not only condones, but encourages hazing. The light natured prose of the article… your reaction to it… honestly, I am shocked.
PTC says:
should read… “you guys are not getting this”
Ronit says:
@JG: No doubt the swim test is forced calisthenics. Students who fail are cruelly humiliated in front of their classmates and forced to take swimming lessons for a whole semester.
David says:
1) “That is not what HWC was asking.” Perhaps HWC can clarify. I certainly interpreted him to be asking, might someone be charged or threatened under this statute. Conviction is not required.
2) Is there an easy to figure out if anyone has been charged under this statute?
3) “Is your advice to Willaims REALLY force all student activities that have a greater than zero chance of leading to legal liability?” No, that would be stupid. So far, I have offered no advice to anyone.
Good to know.
Are you familiar with the concept of costs and benefits? It would be almost impossible for Bill Wagner to stop underage drinking and if he, somehow, were to do so, applications from elite students to Williams would drop. So, even if he wanted to do this, he can’t.
It would require one e-mail from Wagner to Whalen to stop this contest. Assume he sent that e-mail and the contest stopped. How much worse would the football experience be for the Ephs on the team be in that world? I think it would be identical. So, there is zero cost to making the change.
The critical thing — and I apologize for belaboring the obvious — is that the football team can still do all sorts of fun things and eat all sorts of food and do it all to excess. It just can’t have an annual contest that every first year lineman participates in that involves eating till you puke.
JeffZ says:
PTC: government shouldn’t be able to delay sales of guns to potentially mentally-ill people at gun shows, but god forbid a bunch of football players want to have an eating contest, THEN we need the nanny state to step in. Glad you have your priorities straight!
David says:
I am not writing to Wagner about any of this. (No worries, Jim Kolesar will probably bring the topic to his attention, if he has not already done so. Jim is a smart guy and he knows about the hazing law already.)
Does anyone (everyone?) vomit at the WOOLF eating challenge?
JeffZ says:
David, for the tenth time, ONE guy, who ate more than DOUBLE what anyone had ever eaten before, puked ONE time, after ONE of these endeavors. That is all we know. Maybe you better brush up on those reading comprehension skills, ehhh, because you make it seem like the goal of this contest is to eat until you puke, when in no way can that inference be drawn from the article.
While we are at it, we better ban Williams particiption on the Jack’s Hot Dog contest. And I am with Ronit — we MANDATE frosh take a swimming test — what is more dangerous, novice swimmers jumping in a pool, or a 280 pound kid eating a bunch of chicken nuggest? What say ye, actuaries of Williams?
JeffZ says:
By the way, I’ve definitely heard of vomiting involved when the cross country team does its Big Mac run (assuming they still do that, I have no idea). No one would bitch about that … of course, they aren’t nefarious FOOTBALL players, so I guess it’s totally different.
PTC says:
Jeffz- I do not think you understand exactly how destructive hazing is to an organization. I don’t think David really “gets it” either.
This is not some kind of high crime, and there should be zero punishment in this instance… but acceptance of this kind of thing is criminal in my opinion. Williams should have zero tolerance policy on this, and anything like this. A policy that is fully articulated and enforced. It reflects very poorly on the institution if they do not.
The gun reference is irrelevant.
JeffZ says:
PTC, I am actually pretty stunned by your stun-itude here. This kind of activity, and more generally, the football team, represents the kind of salt-of-the-earth, more regular guy kind of activity / attitude that you are always bemoaning is lacking at the horribly elitist Williams. if you want Williams folks to behave more in line with “regular” people, then for God’s sakes, let ‘em.
JeffZ says:
PTC, I do understand. We just disagree as to whether this is hazing. And apparently, we always will. So I guess I’ll leave it at that.
PTC says:
Regular folks in positions of power do not tolerate this kind of thing… if they do, they get fired. MGRHS would never get away with anything like the traditions you guys are describing on this thread. That is the norm.
This kind of hazing is not normal. It would not be tolerated by any organization that I can think of. Maybe they make you guys eat until you puke at the firms you work at, but that does not seem normal to me….
rory says:
lol…you think high schools don’t let worse happen under their noses? i’ve got some stories from lacrosse (and we were tame) to share. LOL.
PTC says:
David- Can you name any legitimate Wall ST firm that would look at a newspaper article exactly like this one (where interns were subjected to this kind of thing)… without a pretty serious reaction?
JG says:
I definitely know of kids who vomited after eating the prize for the eating challenge, and I personally felt quite ill after forced GORP and other weird WOOLF food eating. I also know of a kid who got sick after going with his entry to eat a Vermonster – GASP THE ENTIRE ENTRY WENT – HAZING HAZING. I think we need a Drudge flashing siren for each potential hazing incident included on EB.
I also know kids who hurt themselves quite badly doing WOOLF events. Thank god insurance agents and attorneys aren’t the ones making the policies on everything. Their (my) jobs are to come up with the worst possible scenario of what could go wrong, the costs, and the likelihood of that actually happening. The actual policymakers then evaluate whether that risk is serious enough. Under David’s theory of school management, there would be no sports, stairs, hills, showers, student-accessible cooking equipment, campus events involving alcohol, school activities involving ice or snow or physical activity. Because these things involve the risk of students slipping, falling, lighting fires, blowing themselves up, or other potential lawsuits. The school, in it’s infinite wisdom, has decided that some risks are absorbable because the likelihood of them occurring is so remote.
And PTC – your apparent defintion of hazing actually has nothing to do with the statute. But let’s take it to its logical conclusion: if a coach goes and watches the kids eat McNuggets, which are of course cooked by “professionals,” this would then not be hazing. Do we know if a coach was present?
The haircuts are actually quite a bit more likely to result in emotional harm than one bad meal. Additionally, I think it MUCH more likely that a kid would feel forced to participate (which is the KEY part of the statute) in the haircuts with the force of alums, fans, and tradition coming to bear.
Again, nobody has evidence or even informed suspicion that this activity was compulsory, forced, threatened, or even more than casually invited. Nobody has a shred of evidence that any student felt they HAD to eat more than they wanted to. I’ve seen football players in the dining hall eat FAR FAR more than the equivalent of 100 chicken nuggets in one sitting. This is absurd.
PTC says:
Rory- Maybe they do “let it happen”… if so, they deserve to be fired. That is not the same as having something like this come to light, and not taking it seriously.
If any coach or teacher of my son ever knowingly let this kind of thing happen to him or other students I would be mad as hell. I’d sue… big time.
PTC says:
Maybe Williams parents don’t care about this kind of thing… but I suspect some of them do. I doubt every parent would be real fired up to have their kid subjected to this kind of behavior… especially if they thought the school ignored, or worse yet, condoned it. I’d be asking a lot of questions right away… especially about less mentally tough and physically weaker students, and how they might be treated in this kind of environment.
JeffZ says:
Thanks, JG, for as usual providing a voice of reason among the lunacy of this thread. PTC’s level of outrage is commensurate with someone being tied down and force-fed nuggets against their will, not a bunch of guys notorious for voracious eating (and, in fact, who generally need to eat copious volumes as part of their training regimen) engaging in some, by all accounts, wholly-without-reservation, voluntary team bonding.
Ronit says:
I think we should sue McDonald’s for letting this kind of thing go on under their noses.
David says:
JG: You provide such a fair summary of my views that I am eager to continue this conversation with you.
Or not . . .
PTC: If 12 of 20 first year analysts at a Wall Street firm do stupid young people things out of the office, few care. If it got to the stage where every single person in category X were doing something, folks would get concerned. I believe that this almost never happens, but Ronit is closer to that world than I am.
PTC says:
JG- I can tell you that the simple reading of that law leads me to believe it may have been broken in this case… I can tell you that having an eating contest where underclassmen are encouraged to eat in this way is hazing in my opinion.
If the coach was involved.. I would want him reprimanded.
It would appear that the Marines have a harder policy and more aggressive position against Hazing than Williams does… we are not talking about the boy scouts here folks, and these rules exist and are enforced for a reason. This kind of behavior should not be tolerated. Period.
JeffZ says:
David, I guess as you like to say, you’ve now iterated to agreeing to our position. 20 football players (out of 85 or so who start out on the roster) attended this event.
(Yes, I know your rejoinder, all THREE frosh offensive linemen — we don’t actually know, of course — may have been there; so I guess if all FIVE first year analysts from non-Ivy schools have a tradition of going out getting smashed together, that is a serious problem we need to concern ourselves with — right?).
PTC says:
and again… I do not think I am alone in saying that this raises all kinds of red flags. I’d be honestly worried about this kind of a climate. You guys should be taking this seriously.
JeffZ says:
I don’t know about the Marines, PTC, but at the Coast Guard Academy, which I do know something about, far more activity that could rightly be called “hazing” occurs on a daily basis, and is not only allowed, but is institutionally mandated.
David says:
Jeff: I only know what I read in the article:
Is this “every year” or not? Does it include all the “freshman offensive linemen” or does it not?
The obvious red flag, to anyone familiar with hazing, is that the “contest” only includes freshmen . . .
rory says:
lol…the things i heard about what first-year investment bankers are expected to do.
ptc, you actually worry that an eating contest is a sign of bad climate? seriously? cmon. this is laughable.
someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.
david–as to your comment toward’s JG’s (joking) description of your views, well, i’ve got to say that you do far worse to other people’s views/comments quite often. perhaps now you’ll stop putting words into other people’s mouths so often?
rory says:
the obvious red flag is that ptc, hwc, and david are the three “concerned” about it.
David says:
I did not read JG as “joking.” I thought that she was claiming that the logical implication of my views about this incident was as she stated.
David says:
Rory:
1) I am not “concerned” about it. I could care less. I just am always amazed that some folks are unable to objectively judge certain aspects of life at Williams.
2) To the extent that ptc, hwc, and I (and Jeff!) all agree that this contest might reasonably constitute hazing in Massachusetts is a sign that others should take that view seriously since the three of us disagree so strongly on lots of other issues.
hwc says:
That was not a “vague legal threat”. That was the local medical practice and its insurer refusing to provide medical coverage at the Williams College health center at night or on on weekends, due to their unwillingness to deal with and/or absorb liability risk for what they peceived as an unacceptably high number of alcohol poisonings.
We can pretend it was something else. We can pretend that we don’t live in the 21st century. We can pretend that we should be able to keep doing things the way they were done 50 years ago, but that is not the reality of the situation.
The docoment on hazing I linked to above is from THE national risk management organization for fraternities. It was formed, in association with a new insurance underwriter, when all existing insurance carriers refused to underwrite liability insurance for fraternities. It is what it is. Trying to argue that a little bit of hazing is OK is simply not a viable argument in 2009. Any college administration that ignores hazing, even borderline hazing, is assuming serious liability risk, both peronally and for their institutions.
Ronit says:
@David: What might happen is that on one trading desk, two or three young men (not always interns) might get into a vending machine challenge or a McNuggets challenge or something like that, in the office. Sometimes egged on by superiors or co-workers, sometimes of their own accord. Results of said contest may be gleefully documented on Facebook, Twitter, Dealbreaker, etc. The number of people involved is usually not significant – as they don’t seem to be significant in this football team “incident”.
Obviously, this is not something that is considered a proud tradition, but it’s also not at all something that anyone in management is likely to spend much time worrying about (though maybe HR would have a fit if they found out).
(Drinking games outside of the office are obviously far more common)
Ronit says:
Are we agreed then that WOOLF’s eating challenge constitutes hazing? It obviously involves and affects a FAR more significant number of freshmen than this O-line challenge. I’d just like to make sure that no one in this thread is irrationally prejudiced against helmet sports and fraternities, and is willing to apply the same criteria to other activities.
JeffZ says:
And David, you MIGHT have gone to Amherst. Please do not lump me in with you, PTC, and HWC when (as usual) I am arguing against all of you.
PTC says:
http://fas.org/irp/doddir/navy/secnavinst/1610_2a.pdf
Marine Corps/ Navy policy on hazing…
Parent '12 says:
Bear with me…. I only skimmed..
Is this the Onion? Or, am I giving this thread more credit than it’s due.
By comment #83 I wouldn’t be surprised if how I felt was equivalent to eating 100 McNuggets.
Get a grip.
PS: Not one McN has ever passed my lips.
hwc says:
David, I can clarify. I posed my initial reply as a rhetorical question. I already believed this incident to be hazing. I had not looked up the specific Mass statute, but it fits the definitions of the standard anti-hazing regulations and laws.
An “eating challenge” conducted by upperclass students for freshmen, during freshmen orientation, is — in all likelihood — hazing, too. Wagner should be looking very seriously at the extent to which hazing is a part of the Williams culture. It’s an issue that is taken very seriously these days and one that requires zero-tolerance by the College.
kthomas says:
Ben Fleming says:
Personally, I think anyone trying to claim this isn’t hazing is out of their mind. The Massachusetts definition of hazing might not be as broad as the one in the Navy/Marine Corps guidelines posted by PTC, but it doesn’t have to be. A prosecutor would simply have to get a grand jury to agree that this is “a method of initiation into any student organization” which “recklessly endangers the [physical health]” of a football player. You might try and show that the contest is either “forced consumption” or “brutal treatment,” but a prosecutor will say the second clause is a non-exhaustive list, and that’s a plausible reading of the statute.
And of course this is only a problem if there’s a problem, i.e., something goes wrong with the eating contest and somebody gets hurt. Otherwise, there’s no way anyone blinks twice. But that’s the whole point — is there potential liability here? And I think that’s a slam dunk.
The contest bothers me not a bit as somebody who has both engaged in eating contests and hazed fellow members of sports teams. I’m not outraged in the least. But hey, the Commonwealth has a fairly robust law against this sort of thing. And the fact that I (or JG or Jeff) thinks that’s fairly misguided isn’t really the point.
Ben Fleming says:
Well look, PTC thinks this is really serious, and my opinion aside, I think a lot of folks feel that way. The element of coercion, explicit or otherwise, puts people off completely. The element of humiliation is there, either on its face or buried. Now, the other side is that of course there’s no humiliation really involved here, and of course all the players involved think this is fun, and participate of their own will. But it’s very difficult to tell whether people being hazed actually feel coerced, because they’re utterly unlikely to admit it, and it’s very difficult to know when someone feels humiliated for the same reason. That’s a real problem, and it’s why people might think a bright line rule against this sort of thing is a better policy.
kthomas says:
Football player chokes while regurgitating McN in room… I don’t want to spell it out from there.
PTC says:
Let me set the record straight… I do not think this particular incident is very serious at all. Tolerance of it is. This kind of behavior should not be tolerated. Zero tolerance for hazing.
What comes next? A drinking contest for frosh? Then what? Stand in the cold naked contest? Again… not a “huge deal”- but not having a policy against this, and not speaking out against this kind of behavior, is a big deal. This is a slippery slope.
No one is suggesting these adults get into trouble for making some frosh eat a bunch of chicken, especially since it appears that this kind of climate is the norm at Williams… in this case the problem appears to be the climate, not these athletes. It appears to be generally accepted, and that is a really big problem.
This kind of a climate should not be tolerated.
frank uible says:
Does “eat your spinach” constitute family hazing of a 5 year old?
rory says:
“this kind of climate”. LOL.
meanwhile, the two lawyers in the thread are the ones saying it isn’t hazing yet others are making legal claims and reading statutes?
this thread is f*cking weird.
PTC says:
Rory- I can tell you that in most jobs/ schools in this country where others are granted supervision of people under and over the age of 18… supervisors would be reprimanded, even fired, for allowing “this kind of a climate”.
You can joke around about it all that you would like… but there are a lot of people who take this kind of thing very seriously… there are hundreds of thousands of government employees who would look at this particular article and immediately intervene to stop the behavior. I can say with 100% certainty that organizations who supervise millions of americans would launch official investigations if they read anything like this about their charter in the papers. There is very clear policy for this. You are not doing your students any favors by letting them think this kind of thing will be accepted elsewhere.
Jeff mentions the Coast Guard: The US Coast guard and military, as well as other government agencies, as well as institutions like Williams, have age old traditions that are a part of training and developing young adults. That is not the same thing as what we are talking about here. The bottom line is, unless the coaches, faculty, president, and others at Williams would be comfortable sitting down at a table and being filmed for an event like this (like everyone is for the walk, mountain day, etc), they should attempt to shut it down.
This is not rocket science… nor is it as complex an issue or as confusing as people are trying to make it here.
If Williams is not comfortable having this kind of an event done in their (your) name, then they should enforce the policy of zero tolerance for hazing. If Williams is ok with it, then they should go ahead and press on with public acknowledgment of this and other of these kinds of traditions, supervise them, and tie them into some kind of legitimate growth for young adults.
Ronit says:
Not exactly, but team naked runs were pretty popular.
Ronit says:
Those are literally the only options for student life. Administrative participation and endorsement, or a zero tolerance crackdown..
If your game of beer pong is not something
MortyWagner would be proud of, it should be banned.False dichotomy much? The administration does not need to be involved in monitoring and approving everything that students do.
rory says:
PTC–like i said earlier, this is not a low-hanging fruit of “hazing” @ williams. Hell, not even in regards to the football team. See: the haircuts.
To pick this as where the battle lines are drawn is silly.
To excuse the marines/coast guard because of their “age old traditions” is hypocritical. What if this eating contest had been going on since 1922? Would that change it? again, where you are drawing the line in the sand is on its face laughable. The amount of student activity that would not be deemed “hazing” would be next to nothing.
It is similar to the fear from about five to ten years ago of college men having to ask and then record on paper consent for each individual sexual act they performed with a college woman.*
and again, we’ve got laypeople on one side and lawyers on the other. I’m guessing the lawyers know the correct interpretation of the statute better than you or i.
*note: that’s actually a much more legitimate thing to require, imo, than calling this hazing. I don’t support it, but i find being over-cautious/zealous in regards to sexual acts far more important than being over-cautious/zealous in defining an eating contest as hazing.
Will Slack '11 says:
The fact that many on this thread would treat a single reporter’s account as absolutely authoritative and worthy of complete and total condemnation, as opposed for asking for more information so as to gain a more complete understanding of the situation, goes to show exactly how reality based those conclusions are and how much they are based on assumptions, guesswork, and stereotyping.
kthomas says:
Will makes a very, very good point.
We might begin by asking– did he or did he not consume 100 chicken McWhatEvers?
PTC says:
Ronit- No dichotomy at all. Hazing is wrong and illegal… and one clear way to define it is to give it the litmus test I described. If college leadership is not willing to put a stamp of approval on historical indoctrination events for younger classmen, then such “initiations” should not be ignored, it should be stopped.
Rory- Food consumption in the way being described here is not authorized in any military tradition today. Yes… even if it has been done since 1777.. or even earlier. Such acts are strictly forbidden in fact. The policy is clear… if you are a commander and cannot justify putting your name on an event that is based on tradition… then don’t have one. For example: Mountain day= ok, “The Walk”= most likely ok, with control, WOOF contest and other acts being described here- not ok.
Any person in our military who instituted a traditional initiation event that involved the consumption of food in the way described by this reporter would be in a lot of trouble. I cannot state it any more plainly than that. Read the policy. It is quite literally, zero tolerance without having to “do away with mountain day.”
Will- I really do not care if the report is accurate to be honest. Others blogging here have continuously justified initiations and hazing on this thread. “This example is tame”. “This is no big deal” “Wait until you see WOOF events” “I did this, others should do it” – That is what I would be more worried about if I was an administrator. It’s your school, all I can do is tell you what I see as an outsider looking in… as stated previously I would think there are other parents who would not be at all comfortable with some of the sentiments being displayed on this thread. True or not, from my reading here, it appears that these kinds of initiations are widely accepted at Williams. That is too bad, because there is considerable liability attached to this… and, its wrong.
PTC says:
rory says:
Rory- Just how bad is the hazing at Williams? A lot of people blogging here have expressed your sentiments that there are much worse initiation traditions at the school…
if you are not comfortable writing about all those traditions in detail on a school centric blog- then what does that really say about such “rites of passage”? Perhaps- that they are degrading, destructive, and wrong?
hwc says:
RE: #100
I agree with your post in its entirety. Hazing continues because it is condoned by students, alumni, parents, coaches, professors, and administrators who fail to draw a bright line and put a stop to it.
wslack says:
@PTC and hwc: I would appreciate an understand from either of your as to if there exists a “rite of passage” that does not constitute “hazing.”
It seems that some on this thread believe that this tradition contains echoes of hazing, but is functionally not, while you think that it belongs squarely on the same continuum as the sort of hazing that brought about these laws in the first place.
Does that seems correct?
Jr. Mom says:
I haven’t seen any concern for the recent student blogger who claimed a post here on EB made her throw up. Course, It is possible she was exaggerating. But, nonetheless, it could also be a sign of a very “unsettling” problem. Who here is turning a blind eye? If one blogger has admitted to getting sick, how many others might there be?
Jr. Mom says:
I should add that I really enjoyed the post that the anonymous blogger didn’t like. Chicken Mcnuggets? Not so much.
;-)
JeffZ says:
So, just so we can be clear, things that will no longer happen at Williams if HWC and PTC get their way (speaking of slippery slopes …):
– The Walk (“forcing” football players to march up spring street, consume beverages, and get their hair cut)
– Mountain Day (peer-pressuring students to walk up dangerous mountain slopes)
– Off-season voluntary practices by athletes (a tradition of “forced calisthenics” that kids will feel peer-pressured to do)
– Graduation — even more forced calisthenics
I could go on for a few more pages …
PTC says:
wslack- Any kind of initiation or write of passage that involves the consumption of food in a way that is designed to cause discomfort is pretty much textbook for the definition of hazing. Every hazing definition has a clause in it that includes food consumption.
Mountain day does not include hazing… does it? That is a rite of passage. Prom night… no hazing… Wrestle offs to make the varsity squad… not hazing… boot camp, no hazing, I doubt the tradition of “the walk” is hazing… but I would have to take a closer look at that one…
All of these events, are not hazing. As soon as you start to have “events within events”… like forced eating, forced drinking, taping, hitting- then chances are, you are crossing a line. Any “tradition” invented by students that involves consumption of food by younger classmen is an instant flag.
Again, this is not rocket science folks. Any “initiation” “rite of passage” “tradition” “indoctrination” that faculty and administrators would not feel comfortable with is most likely hazing. If you are not willing to say to the world “this is how we treat others at Williams” in bold print, then why are you doing what you are doing?
The contest described in the newspaper article raises flags. It reads like a mild textbook hazing tradition. This kind of event would not be tolerated in most institutions outside of Williams. That should tell you all something is not right.
PTC says:
Jeffz- Don’t be ridiculous. All of these traditions that you just mentioned are supervised by faculty and coaches. The school is fully aware of these events, even sponsors them. I doubt very much anyone in authority at Williams who is involved with “the walk” or “mountain day” would want there name attached to what is described in the record article above. You still, don’t get it.
JeffZ says:
Again, we have a (as far as we know — there is no indication that there is ANY pressure whatsoever to engage in this event) a wholly voluntary, fully public, non-compulsory, apparently sober, eating contest engaged in by a small subset of a team. That is far less compulsory that team-organized off season workouts and practices, which can not (at least practices) be sponsored or organized by coaches under D-III rules, or at least I believe that is the case. If one is forced eating, why is the other not forced calisthenics? There is no evidence that this event is compelled in any way. There is no evidence anyone ever pressured anyone to participate, let alone to eat unhealthy amounts of food.
I could list fifty things that happen at the Coast Guard Academy that are FAR more akin to actual hazing than this, by the way. Forced push-ups as discipline. Inability to look at your food while eating for an entire year (try it some time, it ain’t fun). And on and on and on.
You’re wrong, I’m right. I get it. You don’t. Does that help? It is as helpful as your patronizing statements in the opposite direction. Why don’t we ask some former membeers of the football team, off the record, if they ever felt hazed by this event? I’d trust the account of people who were actually there rather than people making assumptions, grounded in stereotypes, based on third-hand account of an event they have on personal knowlege of, or even know anyone who has any personal knowledge of. Before you impugn people’s character, maybe get some facts, at the very least? But of course, that wouldn’t be the Ephblog way!!
JeffZ says:
So PTC, if a member of the Williams coaching staff is at the eating contest next year, I trust you’d have no problem with it? What if it turns out one was there this year (we don’t really know, now do we)?
Jr. Mom says:
Real torture might be forcing the players to read this thread.
Or give them a choice, McNuggets or EB? Then again, they might find all this concern for their welfare (from a usually critical corner) quite touching.
PTC says:
Jr mom- Well, we disagree on hazing. Especially the acceptance of it by anyone in authority. I have my reasons, and they are good ones.
Cheers.
PTC says:
Jeffz- If a member of the coaching staff goes along for what is described in the record article he is a damn fool. Yes, I’d have a major problem with that. If I were a parent of one of the athletes, I’d be all over that person.
Do you all really believe that Williams has the right to force or coerce or cajole your kids into eating until they vomit? Really? As soon as a person who represents the school gets involved… it had better be a school sanctioned activity.
Where are you guys on coaches drinking with teams? Socializing outside of approved and known functions? I am firmly against that.
Jr. Mom says:
PTC,
I don’t disagree with your argument that hazing is a bad thing, but I don’t see any evidence that it is happening at Williams, nor have I ever heard one word from my son that even a trace of it occurs, and believe me, he would tell me. He is not the type to suck it up if anything like that was happening. Not a stoic, that one.
hwc says:
I’m still waiting to hear about the more extreme examples of hazing several Williams’ alumn here have indicated they were subjected to. Things got kind of quiet when PTC asked about those….
PTC says:
Jeffz- Every event you can describe USCG Academy, if it is sanctioned by the academy, has a legitimate military training objective attached to it that is well beyond some poor excuse such as “it bonds us”.
The eating you describe is a measure of discipline. While the academy cannot simulate a long watch for 6 hours after working 18 straight, it can push candidates to show practical discipline in the daily routine. While it cannot test if these young adults will follow hazardous orders in war, … even orders that put themselves in danger, it can test the will of these young people to follow orders and show discipline without question. That is a very important training objective of any service branch. If a group of students at the academy did what was done as stated in this article, they would face serious punishment, even expulsion. That is the policy.
Williams is not a branch of military or government service that requires any such objective to the degree that military academies require it.
If the football coach forces a kid to do sprints to get faster… all good. If he forces players to stand quietly to show restraint and discipline… all good.
Jr. Mom says:
Umm, where might those “extreme examples” be? And from athletes? I must have missed those comments.
PTC says:
jr mom- throughout the thread, other alum have indicated that this event, as described, was very mild in terms of other “traditions” and “initiations” that are common at the school.
That is really the only reason I started wondering about this.. because others defended this particular hazing incident, and stated that other “traditions” were “far worse”.
hwc says:
I don’t know. I was never hazed at Williams College. That’s why I was asking.
Jr. Mom says:
HWC:
Sorry, I wasn’t clear about what I was asking for.
You indicated there were specific comments “here” from “several” alumn (presumably athletes since you say they indicated having been subjected). Where are those comments?
PTC says:
jr mom…
# 17- A bioler maker competition involving freshmen athletes? That seem ok to you?
# 97
# 88- The contest bothers me not a bit as somebody who has both engaged in eating contests and hazed fellow members of sports teams
# 65- I definitely know of kids who vomited after eating the prize for the eating challenge, and I personally felt quite ill after forced GORP and other weird WOOLF food eating # 58…
etc. etc. etc.
You can say what you like about the above newspaper article, but I will bet anyone in here, anyone, that if they were to hand that article to any dean or the president of the college and ask for an opinion… it would not be a comfortable answer.
Jr. Mom says:
PTC:
With all due respect, I am asking HWC about his specific comment implying that athletes had commented “several” times “here” about being subjected to “extreme examples” of hazing.
The only comment in this thread that seems to come from a former athlete, is from Ben Fleming, which you cite @ 88 with him saying that the eating contest “bothers [him] not a bit”. And the thread was hinged on the eating contest, right?
Look, again I will say that I agree with your argument that hazing is a bad thing. But, so far, I don’t see any evidence that “extreme examples” of hazing exist at Williams.
PTC says:
Mom- If these kinds of traditions are accepted by the school, I bet more extreme examples do exist.
That is why he is asking. No one is commenting on it…
Others have stated that this is tame in comparison…which begs the question.. in comparison to what, exactly?
A boilermaker drinking competition for frosh that is part of a initiation? That sounds pretty severe to me.
Jr. Mom says:
@PTC:
BTW, I don’t see as how you have come up with one good example either.
Comment # 17 is the closest, and that’s a drinking contest, right?
But Rory at #97 cites the “haircuts”, #88 is the one from Ben I mention above, #65 is talking about Woolf, which is completely separate from the athletic department, and “etc., etc., etc.” is well…what?
PTC says:
mom- I am not limiting this to sports at all. The case in record, if factual as written by the reporter, is clearly mild hazing.
A hard alcohol drinking contest with freshmen that is attached to a “tradition” of a sports team…? That is about as dangerous as it gets.
PTC says:
pushing kids to eat until they vomit as part of a school sanctioned initiation/ competition…. that seems pretty severe to me too.
hwc says:
The word “athletes” is your word. I didn’t use it.
Here is my comment, in its entirety from #115:
115. I’m still waiting to hear about the more extreme examples of hazing several Williams’ alumn here have indicated they were subjected to. Things got kind of quiet when PTC asked about those….
I was referring to the same comments PTC just cited by number.
hwc says:
BTW, if I were an administrator at Williams, I would be very concerned about reports of eating contests for freshmen organized by upperclassmen on the orientation trips. Hazing during freshmen orientation would be reprehensible.
PTC says:
hwc- What exactly is the “WOOLF” competition? How is it done? Did you experience that at the school?
hwc says:
It’s the camping and hiking trips, sponsored by the Williams Outdoors Club, during freshman orientation.
Somebody made a vague reference to vomiting after freshmen eating contests on these trips. The sense I got is that the eating contests are an annual tradition. I don’t know. I was hoping to get a bit more clarification from former participants, but I suspect that is unlikely.
I’m not a fan of freshman orientation trips that divide the student body into interest groups three days after arriving. I would prefer to see orientation programing that builds a more inclusive community. That’s a separate issue, although my guess is that the factionalization often cited in the Williams community, especially by minority students, begins with these freshmen orientation events.
In any case, that first week is an extremely fragile time for some students leaving home, perhaps for the first time. To think that they may be subjected to hazing turns my stomach, to be honest with you.
PTC says:
hwc- say that again? These bloggers are referring to “eating contests” done by freshman during orientation that make kids get sick while they are far away from campus in the woods?
You have got to be kidding me pile. Why would anyone… anyone, want to keep that kind of climate going? Who supervises that genius idea?
PTC says:
hwc- What is the traditional “big mac run”?
Jr. Mom says:
HWC:
LOL, that’s the best you can come up with? PTC’s list? Talk about commenters “getting quiet” all of a sudden.
Okay, I broke those down at #122, in case you hadn’t noticed. But let me do it again:
#17: A drinking contest cited by Rory, not someone who was “subjected” as you imply.
#97: Haircuts. Again cited by Rory, not someone “subjected”. I do remember seeing footage of the “haircut hazing”. Funny, it didn’t look scary or dangerous. In fact, they looked like they were having fun.
#88: Ben Fleming. He is the only one in this entire thread who implied ever being “subjected” to hazing, and here is what he says about the partiular incident this thread is discussing (and which is exactly the quote that PTC cites):
“The contest bothers me not a bit as somebody who has both engaged in eating contests and hazed fellow members of sports teams”
#65: A Woolf event, cited by JG with not a little bit of irony, in case you both missed it.
That’s it, guys? That’s all you have? The worst is the drinking contest, and I don’t think coaches can be expected to prevent those.
It wouldn’t be so bad if this were a discussion about the perils of hazing, but instead it has also become a criticism of specific Williams coaches and administrators without any solid evidence that a real problem exists.
Yup. I’m done here. Perhaps another sucker will come along, though.
PTC says:
jr mom- I guess I can understand why you think acceptance of all these kinds of events is ok in your book… but not really to be honest.
This is hazing. Mild cases here (except the drinking contest), but hazing, none the less. Multiple cases of it in fact. It does not matter if a person agrees to it, or even “wants to do it”. There are multiple examples of food oriented hazing events on this thread… that most bloggers here seem to think are just fine. I guess everyone has a different line they need to cross before they become uncomfortable with hazing… but that is the point of my criticism of other bloggers here and Williams in this case- when you play by those rules… that “mild” hazing “is not really hazing”… or that “mild hazing” is ok, then you have to be prepared to accept a climate like that… where no hard line is drawn against hazing, and what can come next that is not on the surface… or what can happen at events like these when it “gets a little carried away”.
I do not think that is a healthy environment for any place really. So, we disagree. Zero tolerance for hazing. I too, am done here. Bloggers here will need to find someone else, who condones hazing- I don’t.
Jr. Mom says:
BTW, HWC, love how you switched gears at 128.
You were the one who originally set the course of the thread as a criticism of the Williams athletic dept, citing “players”, “team traditions”, and “coaches”. Now all of a sudden you’re worried about the Woolf events.
hwc says:
I’m also worried about freshman entries going to eat Vermonsters (ice cream sundaes with 20 scoops of ice cream) and vomiting. Are these eating constests as well? Most people do not eat ’til they vomit just going out for an ice cream sundae.
JG says:
hwc & PTC, it must be nice to be so perfect that you never did anything remotely silly, like eat too much ice cream or ever drink to much as a teenager or college student. Just because several people go do something does not mean they are forced to do it. A joking challenge to eat all the food you packed in your WOOLF trip is not “forcing” anyone to anything.
It undermines the seriousness of actual hazing by trying to class something like that as hazing. If people are *forced* to participate, absolutely that is serious. But a bunch of kids getting together to go eat ice cream is now hazing? Really?
PTC says:
JG- Oh, don’t get me wrong. I’ve seen far more serious hazing than anyone else blogging here. It used to be a serious problem. I can tell you that no one is perfect, and when it comes to these kinds of traditions and hazing, you are much better off drawing a line in the sand. You all seem to not understand how serious this is.
For the last time- no one needs to be forced into anything for it to be hazing. Frat hazing is quite voluntary… as are these drinking and eating contests, I am sure. People most likely think it is fun or funny… until someone gets hurt. Then, you will see… no one will be laughing.
hwc says:
Actually, I believe that the Williams Record article set the course, being about a potential hazing tradition and the Williams College football team.
Jr. Mom says:
@hwc:
No. The article is about the “mealtime regimen” of football players (one guy talks about how many bananas he eats in a day). You were the one who decided to call it “hazing” right at comment #3. From there you went to “team traditions” and “coercion” @ #6, then by #13, it had escalated to “parents, coaches, athletic directors, and school administrators enabl[ing] the behavior by turning a blind eye and tacitly condoning” what you had deemed “hazing”…all from an article dealing with a bunch of athletes talking about how they keep their weight up during the season.
PTC says:
jr mom- Well, we disagree. I agree with hwc. This article is a description of a hazing event. No two ways about that in my mind.
frank uible says:
The relevant question: are we going to be silly enough to try to enforce the hazing law against such activity?
PTC says:
frank- No law needs to be enforced. The coach or other administrators could end this simply by telling these guys to stop. If they don’t, bench them. No one needs to get in any real trouble here to stop the climate. That is what is so frustrating about this thread and the attitudes in it. School leadership is putting students at risk by allowing this kind of behavior.
If it ever gets away from the college, (and one day it will)- if someone gets hurt or files a complaint, these young people could end up in a lot of trouble. All that needs to happen is for one of these frosh to take offense one day, or a parent to get wind of this and make this an issue… and there is drama that is not needed.
frank uible says:
Then the relevant question becomes: is the College administration silly enough to try to stop this sort of stuff?
JG says:
Lovely feature on the Walk up Spring Street here. For those on this thread claiming otherwise, I’ll note how carefully anyone official at Williams refers to it as a *student* tradition and coaches have no official knowledge of what happens inside (aka, it’s not endorsed or supervised by them). Take that as what you will. Example: