If a tough pledge period isn't a test of endurance, I don't know what is.

You're using loaded words that imply moral judgement. "Unhealthy," "better," "high expectations," "convenient." Who are you to tell me what is better for me, and visa versa. And about hazing being convenient? No chance...

Thats like comparing apples and oranges. My dog doesn't haze, neither does the Spanish monarchy, or a warm slice of cheddar cheese.

Businesses pay salaries, have set work hours (9-5 Monday to Friday), and are established to make a profit, not for the betterment of its employees or as any sort of a social or service entity. Its PC to think that businesses are big trust fall hugfests, but they're established for profit, and completely different.


All I'm saying is that as a culture of gratification, we tend to jump on top of things we may not understand or seek to understand outside of an immediate inflamatory emotional response. I couldn't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home, or in the privacy of their fraternity or sorority, because its none of my business whether I agree with it or not.

FH--

1. The point with the sports analogy was that physical endurance is important in sports and that is why a coach would have an athlete run--not to haze them.

2. If you believe my words imply judgment then so be it. When I was using the word "better" it was meant in the context of things that work better to establish stronger bonds than taking the "easier" way of hazing or doing activities which are not positive in nature (unhealthy traditions, as I call them.)

3. College and universities are in the business of preparing young people for the workforce. I believe that fraternities and sororities, as guests on campuses, have an opportunity to do the same in order to remain pertinent in the lives of students beyond just the social and fun. Businesses--yes they do put profit as their main focus, but they do also care about having happy employees because that affects the bottom line. And they do care about servicing their local community, because that, affects the quality of life for their employees, as well as creates a positive image of the company. (I work in fundraising for a university, and most of the large donations come from corporate friends who want to impact education and help the community.) The point is....if you went to work every day and got yelled at, forced to line up, had to memorize a ton of information or eat weird things.....you probably wouldn't feel great about the company and you would leave.

Its not enough to recruit members, they have to want to stay. And hazing is one of the reasons good, strong members, don't stay.

In my opinion, to be a pledge means you should be hazed on one level or another. Now the degree to which the hazing goes is up to the chapter of your fraternity. I was hazed (whether I knew it was going on or not at the time) and it definitely brought my pledge class together. Sure some of the incidents had no meaning what so ever, but most of them did.

Your whole argument is based on the fact that you think "hazing" implies morally degrading, demeaning, and harmful situations. Why you feel you can make generalizations about what different chapters consider hazing is beyond me. I was hazed pretty damn hard....and I can honestly say it was never dangerous, degrading, or painful. I became strong mentally, extremely close with my class, and came out of it very knowledgeable about my fraternity and what it meant to be in it.

Because hazing, by definition, is either morally degrading, demeaning or harmful. I have never seen a hazing definition that didn't include those words.

ETA: link to a bunch of hazing definitions

I guess one person's degrading is another person's bonding experience. I do not believe my whole argument as presented throughout this thread says that hazing is always dangerous or degrading--in fact, I do not believe that at all (read my post on unhealthy traditions.) The center of my argument is that there are ways to accomplish unity without hazing, and I find many of those activities will create stronger bonds and build stronger membership in our organizations.

Second to that, because we have rules that forbid certain activities and call them hazing, we should not engage in those activities. My thoughts on this are two fold--some of those activities are not positive in nature and, second, if the activities are uncovered and discovered, Greek letter organizations as a whole will get a bad name for the actions of a few. As I have said before, if you do not like the rules, then you should work to change them, not simply decide to ignore.

And the reason I think I can make generalizations is because I have studied this topic extensively in my own organization, in my master's coursework, including a legal issues in higher education class this semester, and I, myself, have experienced the results of hazing.

Scavenger hunts are morally degrading?

Better tell my law school because we had one such event as part of an assignment in my legal research & writing class.

I think that in a lot of cases, you might be right, but I think your net is being cast a tad too wide.

I have posted here numerous times that scavenger hunts in and of themselves would have been fine if the following types of things hadn't started to happen:

Highly degrading/illegal items on the list of what to collect (used condoms, parking tickets, street signs, "mushroom prints" in peanut butter)

"Punishments" for not obtaining the items (drinking a shot for each item not obtained, etc).

High risk behavior when racing to get the items (ie. running across streets without looking, driving recklessly to beat the team just ahead of you, etc).

They are a high risk activity for anybody, not just new members and our alumnae club had to stop doing their annual road rally because of liability, not because of hazing. As far as the hazing go, it's the first two points that are the problem.

The reason scavenger hunts are "wrong" is because FIPG, the organization that directs most national organizations in terms of insurance and liability, forbids them due to liability. And, what I have been told, this came about because people were taking this fun activity to the extreme (sending people long distance or stealing things) and people were getting hurt or arrested.

<nod nod> Exactly. We can't do them even if everybody is initiated. We certainly can't do them with just new members.

Haha, I almost got arrested on mine!

However, it was one of the best times I had with my pledge brothers during pledging.

me and another guy had to drive to new orleans from Austin at 3 in the morning for our last item. I will never forget it. one of the best times I have had.

What was your last item?

Scavenger hunts are tricky in the fact that it is possible to hold one that isn't morally degrading, and involves no alcohol. However, they tend to take quite a bit of time and a lot of distance to be covered. Once you start on one, you get the feeling that you have to finish it and keep going on and on just to get to the finish.

I think you're confusing what is "moral" and what is a liability risk. I don't think that they are one in the same.

You could possibly argue that it's immoral to place your organization in financial jeapordy so that you or your chapter can operate outside of the rules. I just don't see that argument working with 18-21 year old kids though.

had to go to a restaurant and bring back food