Posted on May 20, 2014
ARTICLE: Military Hazing and Why It’s Necessary
31.1K
59
54
1
1
0
This is gonna be a doozy, but I would like to start a discussion on the article found here: http://shtfjournal.com/current-affairs/military-hazing-necessary/
Resiliency
Discipline
Corrective Training
Hazing
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 14
9
9
0
Hazing is a social act not a professional act. The US military is an all-volunteer, professional force. The use of the term hazing to describe tough, realistic, performance-oriented training to well-defined, challenging standards is flawed. Hazing does not contribute toward the transformation of any volunteer from a member-of-society to a professional soldier. That transition is provided by instruction on battle tasks required of soldiers. Good leaders use corrective training to reinforce lessons where deficiencies in performance are demonstrated. Hazing provides membership in an exclusive clique at best - and occasionally contributes toward toxic unit performance at worst. Hazing doesn't make units better or improve soldier performance; training and leadership does that. Good quote from Schofield.
(9)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Sir,
The problem is semantics now. hazing for the sake of hazing does not provide a statistical benefit, to that I would agree. However, actions that once were taken as corrective training or punishment are now considered hazing. "dropping" soldiers, verbally admonishing (yelling at), any number of things are now off limits. These and other activities served us well in the past to drive home the importance of what we were trying to teach a soldier. Now we have to handle them with kid gloves, being carefull not to offend them or embarrass them. The military is a professional environment, but what we do is rough work, were not white collar suit and tie workers, we need to temper the professional side with the fight and die for your country side, so that we stop creating a weak, whiney generation of soldiers that are more apt to tell on their NCO for hazing them, than they are to face the fact that they are ate up and fix theirselves.
I was "hazed" as a new PFC, and if I had a choice, I would endure it all over again. It made me tougher and more resilient over my carreer, the non punishment hazing also served to bring me closer to my fellow soldiers and bond us. We cant have it 100% both ways. We cant create poster child soldiers with etiquetee and table manners, and expect the same soldier to be a hardened battle ready instrument of war. It doesnt work that way.
The problem is semantics now. hazing for the sake of hazing does not provide a statistical benefit, to that I would agree. However, actions that once were taken as corrective training or punishment are now considered hazing. "dropping" soldiers, verbally admonishing (yelling at), any number of things are now off limits. These and other activities served us well in the past to drive home the importance of what we were trying to teach a soldier. Now we have to handle them with kid gloves, being carefull not to offend them or embarrass them. The military is a professional environment, but what we do is rough work, were not white collar suit and tie workers, we need to temper the professional side with the fight and die for your country side, so that we stop creating a weak, whiney generation of soldiers that are more apt to tell on their NCO for hazing them, than they are to face the fact that they are ate up and fix theirselves.
I was "hazed" as a new PFC, and if I had a choice, I would endure it all over again. It made me tougher and more resilient over my carreer, the non punishment hazing also served to bring me closer to my fellow soldiers and bond us. We cant have it 100% both ways. We cant create poster child soldiers with etiquetee and table manners, and expect the same soldier to be a hardened battle ready instrument of war. It doesnt work that way.
(2)
(0)
LTC Jonathan Howell, CSEP, PMP
Doc Hill, you've described a ritual that had a positive effect - induction to a clique - that followed some highly regarded, performance-based training. It was likely conducted in a formation and provided recognition for those who distinguished themselved from those who only completed the training.
The Expert Field Medical Badge is a rigorous series of events with stringent requirements. Many who participate in the training do not achieve the level of distinction that produces a permanent award.
Debate of what constitutes hazing is subject to opinion and perspective of course. Often a comparison is used. Context is equally appropriate, though. It is because of context that I disagree with your opinion that the ritual of pounding an award into the chest has become characterized as "abuse." Here is a comparison to demonstrate:
When I was promoted to LTC, my commander wound up and pointed to my daughter who walloped me in my gut. She was 8 but the creative adaptation to the ritual was unexpected. I said "oof." Plenty of award ceremonies still include a peremptory fist on the rank/ribbon or slap on the shoulder. Compare that to another incident from that same time frame where a large mallet was used on a young servicemember. That servicemember was struck so hard and violently with the mallet that he was knocked to the floor striking his head and suffering a seizure. Same context for both but one is clearly more severe than the other. It is difficult to draw a line where one is acceptable and the other is not but ritual is not diminished by the absence of abuse. Allow me to highlight a distinction in context again:
One noteworthy unit ritual of "blood wings" involved a separate induction from the public recognition within that separate unit for its own members. That ritual required the use of a straight-pin type medal rather than the stub-pin with retainers (dammits!). The unit representative literally stuck the straight pin in through the individual's flesh and back out before closing the clasp. Only after that physical blood-pinning did the individual get pounded in the chest by all of the unit's membership of that clique. While perhaps members were willing participants, there was unequivocal abuse. Again, during that same time frame, I had to review my soldiers for branding rituals following an increased incidence of blood infections that resulted in lost duty time. Those are from the early 1990's.
Not all social acts are hazing but all hazing is a social act. Neither the young servicemember nor I were any less qualified to carry the rank and/or distinction as a result of the ceremony. Military orders provided the certification. The public recognition - the social act - serves another purpose. The covert ceremonies, both for blood wings and branding, were conducted in secret and the very act itself was the certification. The airborne qualification was immaterial in the case of blood wings.
I restate that corrective training is not hazing nor punishment. Both corrective training and punishment will "weed out the ones that will get YOU killed" but hazing isn't even necessarily linked to any demonstrated performance.
In regards to suicide, when someone is at their weakest we don't berate them, we support them. Context again. The wounded warrior is carried from the battlefield not impugned for a lack of physical, mental, or emotional capacity. If not for your brothers and sisters in arms, then for whom? Challenging training provides ways to improve physical, mental, and emotional resiliance but that training isn't a "cure" for suicidal ideations.
Much longer than I intended but disagrement is not disloyalty and would be no reason to vote down any comment in my opinion.
JDH
The Expert Field Medical Badge is a rigorous series of events with stringent requirements. Many who participate in the training do not achieve the level of distinction that produces a permanent award.
Debate of what constitutes hazing is subject to opinion and perspective of course. Often a comparison is used. Context is equally appropriate, though. It is because of context that I disagree with your opinion that the ritual of pounding an award into the chest has become characterized as "abuse." Here is a comparison to demonstrate:
When I was promoted to LTC, my commander wound up and pointed to my daughter who walloped me in my gut. She was 8 but the creative adaptation to the ritual was unexpected. I said "oof." Plenty of award ceremonies still include a peremptory fist on the rank/ribbon or slap on the shoulder. Compare that to another incident from that same time frame where a large mallet was used on a young servicemember. That servicemember was struck so hard and violently with the mallet that he was knocked to the floor striking his head and suffering a seizure. Same context for both but one is clearly more severe than the other. It is difficult to draw a line where one is acceptable and the other is not but ritual is not diminished by the absence of abuse. Allow me to highlight a distinction in context again:
One noteworthy unit ritual of "blood wings" involved a separate induction from the public recognition within that separate unit for its own members. That ritual required the use of a straight-pin type medal rather than the stub-pin with retainers (dammits!). The unit representative literally stuck the straight pin in through the individual's flesh and back out before closing the clasp. Only after that physical blood-pinning did the individual get pounded in the chest by all of the unit's membership of that clique. While perhaps members were willing participants, there was unequivocal abuse. Again, during that same time frame, I had to review my soldiers for branding rituals following an increased incidence of blood infections that resulted in lost duty time. Those are from the early 1990's.
Not all social acts are hazing but all hazing is a social act. Neither the young servicemember nor I were any less qualified to carry the rank and/or distinction as a result of the ceremony. Military orders provided the certification. The public recognition - the social act - serves another purpose. The covert ceremonies, both for blood wings and branding, were conducted in secret and the very act itself was the certification. The airborne qualification was immaterial in the case of blood wings.
I restate that corrective training is not hazing nor punishment. Both corrective training and punishment will "weed out the ones that will get YOU killed" but hazing isn't even necessarily linked to any demonstrated performance.
In regards to suicide, when someone is at their weakest we don't berate them, we support them. Context again. The wounded warrior is carried from the battlefield not impugned for a lack of physical, mental, or emotional capacity. If not for your brothers and sisters in arms, then for whom? Challenging training provides ways to improve physical, mental, and emotional resiliance but that training isn't a "cure" for suicidal ideations.
Much longer than I intended but disagrement is not disloyalty and would be no reason to vote down any comment in my opinion.
JDH
(2)
(0)
LTC Jonathan Howell, CSEP, PMP
Top,
It is in fact the word choice that is the point. Interpretation by your unit is a condition that you operate within so I understand what you have indicated. Physical exercise can be used for corrective action. Requiring Soldiers to perform a reasonable number of repetitions of authorized physical exercises in FM 7-22 as a motivational tool is permitted for corrective action. However, consideration must be given to the exercises, repetitions, and total number of times each day that exercise is used for corrective action to limit the potential for overtraining and injuries...somewhere between a punch by an 8-year old and a mallet to the chest inducing seizure intensity. Use of physical conditioning as a corrective action may be severly restricted as an option for you but hazing is wrong as the day is long. Leaders have other options - albeit limited by command climate from the full spectrum - to move behavior and/or performance from unacceptable to acceptable.
JDH
It is in fact the word choice that is the point. Interpretation by your unit is a condition that you operate within so I understand what you have indicated. Physical exercise can be used for corrective action. Requiring Soldiers to perform a reasonable number of repetitions of authorized physical exercises in FM 7-22 as a motivational tool is permitted for corrective action. However, consideration must be given to the exercises, repetitions, and total number of times each day that exercise is used for corrective action to limit the potential for overtraining and injuries...somewhere between a punch by an 8-year old and a mallet to the chest inducing seizure intensity. Use of physical conditioning as a corrective action may be severly restricted as an option for you but hazing is wrong as the day is long. Leaders have other options - albeit limited by command climate from the full spectrum - to move behavior and/or performance from unacceptable to acceptable.
JDH
(0)
(0)
SGT Shon D. Hill
Thank you Colonel, I agree and was long because you brought it all together for me for sure! I also really failed to properly complete my reference on Cadet Ryan to another posting about Civilians and who belongs here. His response was excellent, and certainly correct coming from a future officer of Psychology. I noticed he's a moderator for site as well, then thought, about 95% RP site feels he's not qualified to be here :(. My apologies to him for not presenting this in a cohesive manner. I'm a lucky vet to be home, I believe my PTSD issue just scattered that on a man desiring to help me with that problem. You roped it back sir, thank you! I'm not worried now "my" 1st SGT on active duty will sue me, LOL. I stand corrected and I appreciate it :)
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
There is a difference between tough training and hazing.. Hazing does nothing, hazing is an immature act for the sake of making someones life miserable because someone is amused by watching someone be miserable. Troops need to be trained, not hazed. Our enemies will cut us down in a second and we need training to deal with them, not petty acts of an immature sense of humor.
(7)
(0)
4
4
0
SSG McCulley,
Although I understand the concept of hazing as tradition and building bonds the mentality of victim blaming for suicide is not the way to address the problem. I do not personally believe that an author who writes "This loser chose to kill himself" about a suicide victim has a firm grasp of the mental health situation.
Although I understand the concept of hazing as tradition and building bonds the mentality of victim blaming for suicide is not the way to address the problem. I do not personally believe that an author who writes "This loser chose to kill himself" about a suicide victim has a firm grasp of the mental health situation.
(4)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
I think the author's point is that the Soldier should have never enlisted in the Infantry.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
He clearly shouldn't have enlisted at all. My opinion is far more crass that what is considered "acceptable" by our "kinder and gentler" military, so I will do my best to rope myself in. We all chose a career that could very well ask us to kill or die in the scope of our duties.This alone requires a certain amount of fortitude that even the best DS can't intill in 9 weeks. It also requires a certain amount of discipline and SELFLESS SERVICE, a core army value. Chen "repeatedly" fell asleep on guard duty. This soldier couldn't stay awake to protect his fellow soldiers, not once,but repeatedly.Was is right that these fellow soldiers took a possible threat to their lives into their own hands? Maybe not. Was it understandable? Absolutely. Was this soldier not hardened enough to deal with the repercussions of his actions? Clearly. That is the part that our kinder gentler military no longer understands. It take a much more emotionally hardened individual to effectively do what we are asked to do. Combat has no place for feelings. Save that for your downtime.
(1)
(0)
LTC Jonathan Howell, CSEP, PMP
SSG McCulley, You say "I think the author's point is that the Soldier should have never enlisted in the Infantry." But the Soldier did in fact enlist - he was certainly not prohibited from enlisting - and completed Basic and Advanced Individual Training. The hazing he was subsequently exposed to did not contribute to the creation of a better infantryman. The results are self-evident if extreme. On the other hand, realistic training and intense re-training regularly corrects similar instances of sub-standard performance on a regular basis. It happens every day because it is part of the Army NCO Creed - covered very clearly in the second paragraph to be specific.
(2)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
Sir, I agree with the sentiment. I am speaking on far more general terms in relation to corrective training. Our Army habitually deploys rifle companies undermanned. According to the system in the books, it should be a simple matter to separate soldiers who are not committed or competent enough. In my experience, reality doesn't often mirror the FM's. Commanders have a hard enough time manning taskings as it is.
Again, I do not condone what happened to Danny Chan and I do not know the full story. I don't know the extremes his NCOs went to with him. Because of the political life this incident took, some things may have been exaggerated. My apprehension is that incidents like this will take corrective training (SOMETIMES mistakenly referred to as hazing) out of the hands of NCOs and remove any way of enforcing discipline. It is kind of happening already. I've smoked only two soldiers in my 6 years wearing chevrons. It isn't about being able to smoke Joe for indiscipline. It is about them knowing that you can.
Problem Soldiers, in my experience, don't care about paper. I saw a soldier piss hot for cocaine FIFTEEN TIMES before they managed to finally kick him out. I, on the other hand, did. One of my NCOs would say, "Do you want paper or do you want to take the physical challenge." I had a bad attitude when I first came in and I was brought around. I know what an abusive NCO is because I had one, until he was thankfully fired. The hardest part was that I corrected my attitudes BEFORE he became my leader. An example of real hazing and NCO Abuse was one of his favorites: "Low crawl to my feet private.." THAT is hazing. Having the crap smoked out of you for mouthing off, that is corrective training.
Again, I do not condone what happened to Danny Chan and I do not know the full story. I don't know the extremes his NCOs went to with him. Because of the political life this incident took, some things may have been exaggerated. My apprehension is that incidents like this will take corrective training (SOMETIMES mistakenly referred to as hazing) out of the hands of NCOs and remove any way of enforcing discipline. It is kind of happening already. I've smoked only two soldiers in my 6 years wearing chevrons. It isn't about being able to smoke Joe for indiscipline. It is about them knowing that you can.
Problem Soldiers, in my experience, don't care about paper. I saw a soldier piss hot for cocaine FIFTEEN TIMES before they managed to finally kick him out. I, on the other hand, did. One of my NCOs would say, "Do you want paper or do you want to take the physical challenge." I had a bad attitude when I first came in and I was brought around. I know what an abusive NCO is because I had one, until he was thankfully fired. The hardest part was that I corrected my attitudes BEFORE he became my leader. An example of real hazing and NCO Abuse was one of his favorites: "Low crawl to my feet private.." THAT is hazing. Having the crap smoked out of you for mouthing off, that is corrective training.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google