Adapted from an Article by Gregory Parks

Topic1

After the hazing death of Robert Champion last year, his parents sued Florida A&M University claiming that the university had failed to eradicate the hazing culture that had persisted at the school for decades--- the hazing culture that directly resulted in Champion death. In the response to the wrongful death lawsuit, the university stated.”Respectfully, as a 26-year-old adult and leader in FACU’s band, Mr. Champion should have refused to participate in the planned hazing event and reported it to law enforcement or University administrators. Under these circumstances, Florida’s taxpayers should not be held financially liable to Mr. Champion’s Estate for the ultimate result of his own imprudent, avoidable and tragic decision and death.” While college hazing deaths and injuries are both tragic and problematic, it is a legitimate question to ask how much blame the aspiring fraternity or club members share. Of course, there are powerful psychological forces that may compel a young person to remain in a hazing situation once the hazing has begun. People have a need for affiliation and young people in particular are often drawn to organizations that they deem to have a great deal of prestige. Moreover, extensive psychological research has documented how individuals can feel compelled to obey authority figures, even when actively protect their students-especially freshmen-and that institutions should be held accountable when dangerous hazing practices are ignored. However, several surveys suggest that most hazing victims knew that hazing would be part of the process of joining a club of fraternity prior to deciding to join. While it may seem insensitive to “blame” hazing victims for their hazing experiences, the issue is like saying that auto theft will stop when thieves stop stealing without considering the role that not having an alarm, leaving doors unlocked and leaving valuables on the front seat play in victimization. With regard to civil cases, more states should follow the example of Alabama which completely bars recovery for hazing injuries against fraternities and sororities on the basis of assumption of risk on the part of the pledge. If people want to get serious about addressing hazing, they have to be serious about assigning responsibility to those who are in a position to bring about change. And, without question, all too often hazing victims have that responsibility

Adapted from an article by Gregory Parks

Question:

1/ What is the writer saying?

2/ Do you agree or disagree with him?

3/ is the evidence used to support the writer’s argument convincing or weak? If weak, offer a better one.

My short answer:

1/ The writer is talking about the irresponsible response of University administrators about the death of Robert Champion. He stresses on the role of organizations in guiding freshmen participating the clubs to eliminate the violation happen. The University administrators knew about the hazing practices but ignored it, that fact lead to the death of Champion. After the event, blaming at the victim was all what they did.

2/ I agree with the author

3/ the evidence is strong enough to back up the argument.