In campus, students start their journey from the first cycle of organization regeneration. It starts from preparation and introduction of campus life and ethiques applied in social environment.
In this digital era, we see more informations publicly. One of the unpleasant information come up to the public will be how the organization regeneration events are held that involve human and student right-violating acts. Of course, I believe that it doesn't represent any other or I hope majority of regeneration events in organization. Shouting, violence, authoritarian, submission acts, in the name of disciplinary and ethique education in training programs have to be discussed further. Are these methods effective? How is the risk-benefit ratio? Is it better than "soft" methods? I get few prespectives and come up with a temporary conclusion that neither do the "hard" and "soft" methods are well-defined.
To define this point, I would like to share a kind of relationship between trainer or organizer with the new student of a training program that might show some potential gap in the event,
First, I believe that every training-type programs (even any other programs) must respect human rights and also the student rights. Their free will to choose what kind of life they want to have and get any kind of facility that set for them during their study. But new student can be forced to participate into the programs by linking the benefits with campus requirements (even though sometimes it just a made up lies), such as required certain certifications to graduate, to join other student community, or to get campus' facility. Some training certifications might be used to those reason as formal requirements. But, how if the student doesn't want to get those benefits? Should we force them (at least to fulfill their graduate requirement)? Well those requirements doesn't have problem if it is formally set. However, there is a big possibility that those benefits are just lies. If the benefits are lies, it means that the organizer has violate the student rights.
Second, after the students participate, does the training programs organizer have the rights to do everything literally to the students? Of course not, they need to design their training program according to certain values that desired to be taught to the students. The values have to be based on what the campus need. However, can those values be made up? Yes. How? The organizer have a structural advantages. They can say whatever they want and base the argument with having real experiences longer than the new student and it cannot be cross-check and evaluate by the new student before they have the same position. Even though they will still have lower experience than the organizer) but at least they have the authority estafet to design new model of the training programs and the cycle will start again. I think it is a debatable idea that longer experience determined higher quality on the field.
You know its hard to imagine being in the new student shoes winning conceptual change debates. Even though there are rooms for negotiate, you are not in the same position. Structural gap have high chance to disadvantage you in the process. For example, you are demanding for higher quality of food provided during training programs. Well, the organizer that know overall budgeting, vendors used, and have been through the program with those food earlier can just give sarcastic reply such "I can do it so it means that you can do it too" or maybe "Why don't you held the event instead? I quite sure that you can handle all the bureaucracy in the campus right?". Disclaimer, It just my imagination.
So, hard or soft way? if we frame the hard way includes physical abuse, we have to question it "Does these experiences of physical abuse will get me to study better, be smarter, and getting facilities"? Well, I couldn't judge because maybe, just maybe in few environments, those values are needed (at least I can say that it doesn't needed in my campus). Well if it is me, maybe i can come up with a straight "no" answer, but can i do anything about it? The unequality of power between me and the organizer have to be balanced by bravery, intelect, and rhetoric actions. Even though I don't think it can make guarantee changes, at least I do what I can and I feel right in my position. I can ended up confronting a sophisticated, philosopic, wise senior and organizer (that will be a good person to build relationship in the future) or a weak, narrow-minded, and only has courage based on slight string of structural advantages.
