Just as a reminder for everyone who can't see the big honking letters in Kayla's sig :rolleyes: this is not an NPC or IFC group or under FIPG, so the hazing rules espoused by those groups DO NOT APPLY.

As Senusret said, if it was conducted in the presence of the campus police, obviously it did not violate campus rules. I'm not sure who it would be "reported" to.

Great stuff! Anyone who says this was wrong should remove the stick from their a$$

Check the Law
 

Georgia law says
§ 16-5-61. Hazing


(a) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) "Haze" means to subject a student to an activity which endangers or is likely to endanger the physical health of a student, regardless of a student's willingness to participate in such activity.

(2) "School" means any school, college, or university in this state.

(3) "School organization" means any club, society, fraternity, sorority, or a group living together which has students as its principal members.

(4) "Student" means any person enrolled in a school in this state.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to haze any student in connection with or as a condition or precondition of gaining acceptance, membership, office, or other status in a school organization.

(c) Any person who violates this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.


So....any organization better check out their own state's laws to see if it is a serious offense. IT IS IN GEORGIA AND YOU WOULD HAVE A CRIMINAL HISTORY.

Well I know at VSU the campus police were the only ones that could handle stuff that went on at the houses. The local police would not and have refused to respond. If her campus is the same way the campus cops wouldn't do nothing since they particapated.

When ANY fraternity or sorority - NPC, IFC, high school, or otherwise, hazes, the ENTIRE SYSTEM SUFFERS. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Re Georgia law says...
 

Whose physical health was endangered?

eta: She's in Ohio but regardless lets assume similar laws. :)

Re: Re Georgia law says...
 

It does say "likely to endanger." What if one of the students had a health problem (as was suggested earlier in this thread)?

Counselling needed?!
 

It would have to be SOME seriously sensitive heart condition or something to place someone in jeopardy like that preciousjeni! Even if that were the case there was a trained (campus) police officer who would have full access to emergency services, be fully trained in first aid and resuscitative techniques etc. Hazing is a real and important problem but if we're suggesting because it might give someone a shock that this was 'reckless endangerment' etc than by that same token taking them to see a movie like 'The Ring' as a fun night out (it certainly made me jump a lot!) would be 'likely to endanger' in the event they had a health problem which could be triggered so easily as that.

I think this would be considered Harrassment Hazing.

It would only be hazing if someone got hurt, and even then maybe not.

Hazing is as much a crime of perception as anything else.

I am going to start giving out the Dean Warner Award for Greek Self Hating soon lol.

In my humble opinion... I think is the real problem with this thread is that a PNM or a GDI, who might not be able to recognize that this sorority is not a NPC or know the difference, will read this. Besides the fact it perpectuates a negative stereotype of greek life.

That is one of the most condescending things I think I have seen someone write! LOL

Up until that staement I thought that you were an intellegent, perceptive person with insightful comments that thought outside the box.

Please tell me within the elements of the law how what she did was hazing?

Wow! Now that was a pretty negative comment about my opinion.

I never said I stated that it was hazing, I just didn't think it was something that I could ever imagine doing to a fellow sister. I don't know if you think that the NPC or non-NPC comment was condescending, but we all know that locals have a lot more freedom (in general) when it comes to what is considered hazing especially after reading some of the things that have been posted by this poster before. My problem was that a post like this could shape negative opinions for a naive high-schooler or a college student thinking of greek life, which I would like to believe goes against what GC tries to be. I would be a little more than scared if something like this happened to me in my initial stages of joining a house when I have barely begun to form ties to the sorority. This is a time when pledges should feel welcomed not vunerable. I just think that there are better ways of bonding or "loosening up" pledges than this that nurture a strong and sisterly bond than scaring the s**t out of people.

Like I stated this is my own opinion and I'm regret if anyone thinks it is rude because I generally like to sit on the fence here on GC.

I'm sorry, James :)

Re: Re Georgia law says...
 

According to the laws in Ohio looks like actionable case of hazing to me.

The Ohio Statute

§ 2307.44. Civil liability for hazing.

Any person who is subjected to hazing, as defined in division (A) of section 2903.31 of the Revised Code, may commence a civil action for injury or damages, including mental and physical pain and suffering, that result from the hazing. The action may be brought against any participants in the hazing, any organization whose local or national directors, trustees, or officers authorized, requested, commanded, or tolerated the hazing, and any local or national director, trustee, or officer of the organization who authorized, requested, commanded, or tolerated the hazing. If the hazing involves students in a primary, secondary, or post-secondary school, university, college, or any other educational institution, an action may also be brought against any administrator, employee, or faculty member of the school, university, college, or other educational institution who knew or reasonably should have known of the hazing and who did not make reasonable attempts to prevent it and against the school, university, college, or other educational institution. If an administrator, employee, or faculty member is found liable in a civil action for hazing, then notwithstanding Chapter 2743. of the Revised Code, the school, university, college, or other educational institution that employed the administrator, employee, or faculty member may also be held liable.

The negligence or consent of the plaintiff or any assumption of the risk by the plaintiff is not a defense to an action brought pursuant to this section. In an action against a school, university, college, or other educational institution, it is an affirmative defense that the school, university, college, or other institution was actively enforcing a policy against hazing at the time the cause of action arose.


§ 2903.31. Hazing.

(A) As used in this section, "hazing" means doing any act or coercing another, including the victim, to do any act of initiation into any student or other organization that causes or creates a substantial risk of causing mental or physical harm to any person.

(B) (1) No person shall recklessly participate in the hazing of another.

(2) No administrator, employee, or faculty member of any primary, secondary, or post-secondary school or of any other educational institution, public or private, shall recklessly permit the hazing of any person.

(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of hazing, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.