One of my pledge brothers didn't drink during pledging. He wasn't forced to drink, but there were several times when the rest of us would have to drink his share. It is all about pledge class unity.

Although most pledge processes are suppose to be dry, I've found that at least at my college, it really means the candidate educator will decide for you when you're going to drink. Not only is that an inconvenience, but it is a way for him/her to monitor how much alcohol you're consuming to keep things safe.

I wouldn't let that discourage you from deciding to pledge. Most respectable chapters will never put you in any sort of danger or force one to do something. Although at the time you may think they are, but that is most likely because you are nervous or something.

No, it is a way to haze.

If the pledges are underage (not to mention the educator) alcohol should be a moot point. If a pledge is not underage, and someone's not "allowing" him to drink (in a situation where drinking would be acceptable) that is HAZING.

I don't know how many times I have to say this...DRY PLEDGING IS HAZING. As would be not allowing pledges to smoke, or drive, or do anything else that the laws of the state/town/country deem legal for their age.

You know what else is hazing? Mandatory study hours for pledges. How many colleges/universities crack down on that? None that I know of.

I'm not sure what you're arguing but I'm willing to bet that almost every single greek organization in the country has at one point or another hazed their pledges. It may go unnoticed or it may be unintentional, but there is a certain degree of hazing in every education process. Some haze more than others and some haze worse than others.

I'm not condoning hazing, but in my opinion, people need to stop being so naive about it. It happens...even on the most minute of scales.

What?

You think that having a pledge educator serve drinks is a way for him to monitor alcohol consumption, and others are being naive?

I'm pretty sure mandatory study hours are placed for good reason. Whether it is to make sure the pledge class can make grades, a member get out of Probation, etc.

In Frat Boys, during Hell Week they made the pledges sit in a gray room together while not at class. That is hazing. Study hours while not at class is far from it.

No.

Just because something has a positive result doesn't mean it's not hazing. We're only allowed to require study hours for members who are below our minimum grade standard. Some organizations are okay with it as long as everyone must meet the requirement.

If most of your pledges are first-semester freshmen, then they can be viewed as not yet having met your minimum grade standard. Your requirement can be phrased as "members/pledges without an established college GPA higher than X must do study hours". It's a fine distinction, but I really don't know of any instances where a group got in trouble for having pledges do study hours.

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham Student Affairs Webpage

What Activities Can Be Considered Hazing?

Striking or paddling swats of any kind
Phone duty or answering the phone differently from members
Treasure and scavenger hunts, road trips, etc.
Requiring calisthenics such as sit-ups, runs, etc.
Requiring the carrying of any items
Preventing/restricting class attendance or sleep
Requiring personal service or acts of servitude
Forcing someone to eat or drink against his/her will
Work parties or work duty for pledges, new members, candidates, or associates only
Preventing/restricting personal hygiene
Marking or branding
Causing nudity or indecent exposure at any time
Physical harassment such as pushing, cursing, shouting, etc.
Requiring uncomfortable, ridiculous, or embarrassing dress
Treating a person in a degrading or demeaning manner
Requiring pledges/new members to practice any periods of silence
Conducting “interrogations” or any other types of questioning
Requiring signature books, paddles, etc.
Theft or defacing property under any circumstances
Misleading or deceiving pledges, new members, candidates, or associates in an effort to convince them that they will not be initiated, that they will be hurt during initiation or that initiation is anything other than an inspirational and dignified experience.
“Suggesting” that new members “acquire” paraphernalia from another chapter
Conducting any type of Hell Week activities or calling any pre-initiation activity Hell Week
Keeping the date and time of initiation or crossing a secret
Requiring anything of pledges, new members, associates that is not also required of members
Telling new members to wear specific clothing
Having new members run errands for active members
Yelling at new members
Requiring only new members to do study hours

Unless you have initiated members of the organization studying along side the pledges during study/library hours then library hours are considered hazing. Most schools prohibit hazing but seem to miss things like this. It is most likely because library hours are thought to be a constructive and positive activity even though it is really hazing.

Same thing with pledges wearing a shirt and tie on certain days during pledging. It is hazing but often overlooked because it is relatively harmless.

Like I said in my earlier posts, it is my opinion that nearly all candidate education processes contain some form of hazing. People may not realize it and even the pledges may not realize it. That's just my opinion.

There is a reason why it is worded this way, emphasis mine.

Some of these activities are mandated or accepted by the organizations' national bodies.

It's that whole "open for interpretation" and "taking things too far" that can cause this to be a grey area.

ASA HQ condones "stringing for bigs" - using yarn throughout the house and your big is on the end of your yarn - but my university banned it because they found a fraternity pledge sitting on the basketball hoop outside a 2nd story window undoing yarn. His big had thrown it out the window and then threw it over and over into the basketball hoop.:rolleyes:

I find this one a bit surprising. I only know of one fraternity at my campus who outright tells their pledges when they will be initiated. As for the other groups, including mine, dates get thrown around and it is called something different, such as a "test" or "reviews", or "etiquite dinners". But the date is given with another name attached.

I for one think keeping the date a secret helps new members concentrate more and not get too overzealous, such as buying stitched letters before initiation.

That's part of what causes it to be a grey area. The other thing that causes it to be a grey area is that different jurisdictions, different schools and different GLOs have different definitions of hazing and different understandings of what constitutes hazing. As Dr.Phil says, some activities that are considered hazing by some GLOs are mandated by other GLOs. One benign example comes up at GC all the time: prohibiting pledges/new members from wearing letters. Some GLOs consider such a prohibition hazing, while other GLOs require such a prohibition.

Obviously, there are some things that just about any group will consider hazing. But when you get past those things to the "gray area," it seems that it can't be said enough at GC that people should comment on what their own campuses or GLOs would consider hazing without making the assumption that everyone agrees.

This is standard practice in many if not most of our chapters.

You can't apply the "anything the actives don't have to do" standard as an unbreakable law, or there would be no such thing as mandatory pledge meetings.

Now, if you were requiring pledges to be at study hours at 2am or something, yes, most groups/universities/local jurisdictions would consider that hazing.