Are they ‘traditions’ or abuse?

‘‘INITIATION.’’ It can mean, simply, a beginning (‘‘the initiation of criminal proceedings’’), but can also describe rituals of admission to a group, ranging from the welcoming and affirming, such as baptism (if the water’s warm), through the rituals associated with admission to

Masonic lodges, to the humiliating violent ‘‘hazing’’ inflicted on new entrants to some military academies.

In the 1960s the university college where Civis lived for some years had an ‘‘initiation’’ tradition, on a Wednesday afternoon, involving everyone getting rather muddy, blindfold buneating, and a damp ‘‘race’’, followed by shower, dinner, and a hop at Brown House with guests from an oppositesex college (all Otago University colleges were singlesex then). But no compulsion. Civis missed the afternoon because of (don’t laugh!) a rowing training commitment, but noone worried.

Twenty years on, possibly related to a deficit of mature students, due to shorter college residencies, that college’s ‘‘initiation’’ had become a prolonged period of mental and physical abuse, including sleep deprivation. A determined effort to eliminate abusive behaviour, including, for some, summary expulsion, followed by active community building, reestablished the college as a civilised and mutually supportive community. Civis suspects, though, that constant vigilance is needed in all colleges to prevent abusive behaviour, ‘‘justified’’ by appeals to spurious ‘‘traditions’’, developing or reemerging.

Now, it’s reported, initiation rituals are being inflicted by those occupying some student flats on those moving into the flats next year. That seems odd, to say the least — after all, those leaving a flat aren’t going to be living with those taking it over. But, human nature being what it is (little wonder that churches talk of Original Sin), some individuals will grab any possible opportunity to dominate, humiliate, and abuse those seen as being in a less powerful position.

The only obligation that Civis incurred (indirectly) from previous occupants, on moving from college to an empty flat, was cleaning out the kitchen sink, full of unwashed plates (with a luxuriant growth of mould), which they had abandoned some time before, and brutally cutting back the white climbing rose which almost covered the front door (it flowered profusely next season).

Now, apparently, it’s shaving heads, requiring incomers to partially strip and drink until they vomit, then urinating on, and pouring the vomit on, them. That’s simply disgusting abuse.

The university’s Code of Conduct is clear: ‘‘Organising any initiation event or ceremony that jeopardises your fellowstudents’ wellbeing, personal safety, or encourages breaking the law’’ puts students ‘‘at serious risk of exclusion’’ and ‘‘In particular, organising initiations involving the consumption of alcohol or the use of any drug, are strictly forbidden. The statement by any student that they willingly participated will not excuse the organisers of responsibility.’’

The student president seems remarkably blase about these regulations. Though he described urinating or pouring vomit on someone as ‘‘a step too far’’, he’s reported as considering that head shaving is ‘‘somewhat standard’’, and that flat initiations are usually goodnatured fun, even if they involve drinking games. Can’t he read?

Civis wonders why anyone submits to it — presumably the outgoing tenants have no real power over incomers. Is it masochism? Is it ‘‘Stockholm Syndrome’’ (loving ones abuser), often seen in abusive relationships? Have the recipients been conditioned to expect such treatment by behaviour in some colleges reverting to the abusive practices of the 1980s?

Civis has heard recently of college ‘‘initiation’’ and other customs, allegedly ‘‘justified’’ as being ‘‘traditions’’ (they aren’t), which demean women residents and encourage a ‘‘rape culture’’ — and let’s not pretend that real rape, not always reported to the police, doesn’t occur in the university. Do ‘‘flat initiations’ reflect such a culture?

The university needs to show that it means what it writes. And some colleges may need to review their socalled ‘‘traditions’’: are they institutionalising abuse?