No...sincerely...I have no idea what he is trying to get at because he does not consistently back up posts with facts or information.

Since I live in Texas--I am curious why someone would think that Baylor is not a good school. Is it because it ascribes to certain values and has what some would consider high expectations for its students' behavior?

Related, is the overall challenge with hazing that students don't understand Greek values or just don't want to be told what to do? Or is it because they don't see the liability or circumstances of their actions, and have not been taught to think through moral and ethical dilemmas? Is it because hazing is easier than the alternative?

He never said Baylor wasn't a good school. He said the Greek Life wasn't good, which is true.

Again, your questions are asked with the connotation that hazing is negative, a liability, and not morally right. You have to consider the subject on a chapter by chapter basis. You can't just lump everyone in together and throw out a bunch of negatives concerning the act of hazing and pledge programs. Yes, some chapters and groups of individuals do very stupid things....but not all of them.....even the ones that will say that they haze and have a specific program for their pledges. The word hazing has become far too broad a term...one which is pretty much impossible to discuss rationally as far as i'm concerned.

How do you propose a national organization maintain different sets of standards or expectations for each chapter? Are you saying that we tell one chapter its ok to haze but we tell others that they can't because they aren't big, or southern, or in a house?

That may explain a lot.

A majority of fraternity men (about 60% in the last survey I saw) have jobs, and many struggle to pay their dues.

I wish we didnt have nationals, what is their point? insurance??? all they do is take our money and try to tell us what to do...now I know that is not possible to just boycott our nationals, so I realize that they have to have a no hazing policy. How well they uphold that policy should be based on a chapter to chapter basis, depending on the situation.

I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly naive outlook.

No, you misunderstood what I was saying. I think you have to consider the subject of hazing from a situational standpoint. Not all chapters think of hazing like you and AGDee do. Not all chapters try to make hazing negative and immoral.

What does that explain? I'm sorry, but I don't think nor have I ever thought that very strong chapters with good reputations garner those titles because of what an insurance company thinks about them.

When people talk about FIJI at Texas or KA at Alabama or Phi Delt at Ole Miss.......they don't say, "Oh they're great chapters because their insurance company says so." or "They must be really strong because their insurance is low."

Whether or not I have to pay for my dues is besides the point.

My point is--chapters don't make the rules. Chapter leaders have a duty to follow the rules and ensure their members do as well. It doesn't matter if your chapter thinks its ok to haze--there are rules, and therefore, you are putting your chapter's longevity in jeopardy if you choose not to follow them.

I don't make the policies or decide what is moral or negative--I educate people about the policies so that they will, hopefully, chose to follow them.

YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT IT IS THAT IS BEING DONE.

....you can't just tell everyone that they are putting their chapter in jeopardy until you know what it is that is being done.

Alabama's Definition
 

Again, I don't make the rules--I just follow them. If activities fit the definition of hazing, then, it is technically, putting a chapter in jeopardy.

Since Bama was brought up, what follows is the definition from The University of Alabama. It is fairly extensive, probably for liability reasons:

Hazing Is

[B]Hazing includes any act which inflicts extreme physical, emotional, or psychological pressure or injury on an individual or which purposely demeans, degrades, or disgraces an individual. Though most commonly associated with sororities and fraternities, hazing can occur in any academic, social, service, military, or athletic organization. All national sororities and fraternities have regulations strictly prohibiting hazing...In the State of Alabama, individuals committing acts of hazing can be charged with a Class C misdemeanor and can be subject to both criminal and civil prosecution. Additionally, an individual or organization participating in a hazing or knowingly permitting hazing forfeits entitlement to public funds, scholarships, awards, and grants.

The University of Alabama Hazing Policy

The University of Alabama does not condone any form of hazing, and students involved in hazing incidents are subject to University disciplinary sanctions. The University has accepted and approved the following anti-hazing policy:

Hazing, as defined by Section 16-1-23, Code of Alabama (1975), and such Section as may be amended from time to time.

Additionally, for the purpose of this Code, hazing shall include any mental or physical requirement or obligation placed upon a person by a member of an organization, individual or a group of individuals, which could cause discomfort, pain, or injury including, but not limited to, striking, laying open hand upon, treating with violence or offering to do bodily harm to a person with intent to punish or injure the individual, or other treatment of a tyrannical, abusive, shameful, insulting, or humiliating nature.

Hazing is an action taken or situation created, whether on or off University premises, to produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule. Hazing is also considered to be the creation of a situation, which results in or might result in mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule, including involuntary servitude, often called “personal favors.” Both individuals and organizations may be held accountable for such activity.

This statement prepared by the Fraternity Executive Association further clarifies this policy:

Hazing is defined as any action taken or situation created intentional, whether on or off fraternity premises to produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment or ridicule. Such activities and situations include paddling in any form, creation of excessive fatigue, physical and psychological shock; quests, treasure hunts, scavenger hunts, road trips or any other such activities carried on outside the confined of the house; wearing publicly apparel which is conspicuous and not normally in good taste; engaging in public stunts and buffoonery; morally degrading or humiliating games and activities; late work sessions which interfere with scholastic activities; and any other activities which are not consistent with fraternal law, ritual or policy or the regulations and policies of the educational institution.

The Interfraternity Council maintains an anti-hazing policy as part of the organizations constitution and by-laws; and the Panhellenic Association supports National Panhellenic Conference unanimous agreements concerning hazing. Upon notification of an alleged incident, the Office of Dean of the Dean of students instigates an investigation based on information received and Current University policy.

Was it really necessary to post Alabama's hazing by-laws. I'm sure ours at Texas says the same thing. Haven't read it in a while, probobly does.

Again, you have to consider what is being done.

If you are breaking the rules of your organization, the mandates of your college/university, or local or state laws, it doesn't make any difference what is being done.

If you are doing something to void your insurance coverage, it doesn't make any difference what is being done.

Fair or not, that's the way it is.

I suppose in law school they will teach you that ignorance of the law is no excuse?

First, it isn't naive not to appreciate nationals. When we go to convention, our officers from the big southern chapters are the ones they ask to speak in all the sessions. So basically, we pay to teach everyone else what to do. Most national officers are people who weren't in good chapters, and therefore really have nothing to pull from in helping other chapters around the country. Secondly, nationals does treat different chapters differently. Our national org constantly looks the other way regarding things we do, and we generally ignore what they do. We don't follow the changes in terminology, or the PC'ing of our fraternity literature. We don't have a regional advisor, which I assume is due to the fact that they really just don't wanna know. It works for them, it works for us.