Charges Of Hazing Are A Gross Exaggeration
Charges Of Hazing
Are A Gross Exaggeration
To the Editor:
Iâve followed this story at armâs length since it first appeared in the July 30 edition of The Bee. First, I must mention that I have a personal interest in this particular report. One of the people referred to in the article is my son, so believe me, it grabbed my attention. However, I waited to see if anybody else would take the time to express dismay or at least a contrary opinion to the one so prominently featured on the front page before writing something myself. I was pleased to see that several took the time to contradict the hyperbole that was generously ladled throughout the article. I commend Amy Rosentel and Donna Djonne for speaking up. I believe they did a nice job of putting the situation into perspective.
Another item that should be put into perspective is the matter of referring to what occurred as âritual hazing.â I took the time to check The Connecticut Hazing Law (Sec 53-23a) and it just doesnât meet the standard of hazing as stated. As far as ritualism is concerned, I suspect that was a subjective enhancement on the part of Ms Barrett and/or Mr Voket (the reporter). As far as I know, there were no reports of voodoo masks or chanting in tongues or anything else of the sort. Did Mr Voket look into this at all? Did he ask any other parents about the incident? It appears to me that the report was one-sided and a gross exaggeration.
Articles and letters such as those proffered by Ms Barrett and Mr Voket do a disservice to the community. Aside from being misleading about safety at the town camps and tarnishing the reputations of the directors, counselors and CITs (who are kids themselves), they often prompt action on the part of the town (or state) administration. This sometimes consists of discontinuing an activity that may have at one time been deemed harmless â like dodge ball. Yes, dodge ball. If the camps have to respond to enough complaints like that, the kids wonât even be allowed to play tag. What would be deemed safe? A six-hour nap under the pavilion? Although Iâm being somewhat facetious here, we should all work to ensure that overreaction to parental gripes does not become standard operating procedure thereby dooming the camps. I donât believe anyone wants that.
We have also heard from William Downing (in the August 6 edition) who agreed with the substance of Ms Barrettâs complaint. Clearly, he has no idea of what happened, other than Ms Barrettâs version of the story. However, he makes the bold claim that âAll those responsible, from the top down, should be fired!â How high up is âthe topâ? Where do you suggest the firing should begin? And based on what? No rules or laws were violated.
Iâd also like to draw to Mr Downingâs attention the fact that the parents of the directors, counselors, and CITs are also taxpayers and should be able to expect that their kids are not assailed by other parents looking for a reason to point a finger or lay blame. As the parent of one of the targets of Mr Downingâs ire, I take exception to his admonition. Perhaps he should have taken the time to ask a few questions or visit the camp before he wrote his letter.
Finally, the kids who work at the camp should be acknowledged for the great work they do for little or no pay. They should also be commended for enduring unreasonable treatment by some overprotective parents who expect nanny-level attention at day camp-level prices. Responsible adults need to be level-headed about matters such as this. We want our children to have fun and be safe. But engaging in alarmism will only serve to penalize our kids (all of them) in the long run. Letâs refrain from doing that.
Gary Saunders
24 Horseshoe Ridge Road, Sandy Hook                    August 18, 2004