About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (July 18, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govbamd0001 and id is 1 raw text is: ~* Congressional Research Service Informing the legislative debate since 1914 Updated July 18, 2019 Hazing in the Armed Forces Background Initiation customs have long been part of the culture in the United States Armed Forces as a method to welcome new members and mark rites of passage. However, several high- profile incidents have raised congressional concern that some of these traditions may subject service members to harmful or humiliating acts. Hazing may pose a threat to trust, cohesion, safety, and the health of members of the Armed Forces. Congress has oversight of this issue under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules relevant to their organization and discipline. Therefore, an understanding of the context of this issue and recent actions taken to counteract it may help Congress decide whether to address hazing in the military through oversight and legislation. Hazing Definition One of the main obstacles to effectively counteracting hazing is its similarity to other forms of unwelcome behavior, including harassment, bullying, and discrimination. The term applied to conduct cited in reporting can affect investigations and adjudications. DOD makes distinctions between these behaviors to maintain a comprehensive policy across all services. Current policy (DODI 1030.03) defines hazing as, A form of harassment that includes conduct through which Service members or DoD employees, without a proper military or other governmental purpose but with a nexus to military Service, physically or psychologically injures or creates a risk of physical or psychological injury to Service members for the purpose of: initiation into, admission into, affiliation with, change in status or position within, or a condition for continued membership in any military or DoD civilian organization. This may include, for example, branding or tattooing, forcing someone to consume food, alcohol, drugs or other substances, or orally berating someone with the purpose of belittling, or humiliating. Policies and definitions of hazing with respect to cadets and midshipmen at the service academies are codified in 10 U.S.C. §§7452, 8464, & 9452. Perceptions of Hazing Initiation rituals commonly follow a path of separation, transition, and incorporation, which brings members into a new role. Within the military, esprit de corps, or the capacity of a group's members to maintain belief in their mission, is considered a sacred value and is produced through various trials. Some believe that shared experiences of hardship during initiation rituals lead to greater group commitment and dependency. On the other hand, some contend that these rituals waste time and reduce a service member's ability to perform at his or her psychological and physical peaks. When taken to extremes, certain activities may also result in permanent injuries or death. As Armed Forces personnel often undergo physically and mentally rigorous training, particularly as new recruits, the line between acceptable behavior and reportable behavior (i.e., hazing) can quickly blur. Some members may even seek to participate in certain activities that are prohibited by policy (e.g., blood-winging/blood-pinning) in order to prove that they belong. Proponents of these rituals justify them by pointing to the differences in military and civilian culture. The services have established formal, community-specific indoctrination processes. For example, military members must meet certain standards in terms of conduct, physical fitness, competence, and marksmanship in order to be accepted and retained. Estimated Prevalence and Reporting Rates Efforts to discern accurate hazing prevalence rates have faced challenges. In 2016, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that each service branch has different data tracking requirements and that formally tracked reports were often limited to cases investigated by military criminal investigative organizations, rather than allegations handled by the chain of command or inspector general. Moreover, the Department and the services used inconsistent methods for counting cases and had decentralized points of contact throughout. However, an estimate of prevalence can be obtained from command climate surveys that include questions related to hazing and demeaning behaviors. Table I describes the degree to which service members perceive hazing and demeaning behaviors within their own units. Table I. Active Duty Prevalence of Hazing and Demeaning Behaviors Service Perceived Hazing Behaviors Army 9% Navy 5% Marine Corps 11% Air Force 2% Source: 2014 Organizational Climate Survey Data gathered by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute and analyzed by the Government Accountability Office. Note: Percentages in each category either that agreed or strongly agreed with all statements regarding hazing or demeaning behavior. Actual hazing complaints are significantly lower than prevalence statistics would predict. According to the DOD's FY2018 report, Hazing Prevention and Response in https://crsreports.congressge

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most