I agree with shinerbock in that hazing isnt bad provided it has a purpose. If it is there to weed out the kids that dont want to be there and to make the pledges work towards a common goal, then yes it is good. There are many people on here who when they think hazing, they think people getting beat near death and all sorts of ridiculous things. Hazing with a purpose is beneficial in my opinion.

People do get killed during basic. But not that many.

I had to think about that a little.

Certainly the military is in the hazing business, but the hazers (DI's, etc) may be a little more mature than the average fraternity man (or sorority woman). They all have several years of military training themselves which probably creates some amount of that maturity. Additionally, while sometimes calling for "creativity" on the part of the DI, the military has the training down to a science and many years of "experience." The people doing the hazing are, for the most part, highly disciplined -- not the case in an organization of 18-22 year old college students away from home for the first time.

Changing gears, of course I was hazed during the pledge process. In those days, everyone was.

Over the years, I've been an advisor and division officer, and I can see absolutely no indication that physical hazing and mental distress somehow creates "closer" relationships or better pledge classes.

However, I do feel strongly that the definition of hazing needs to be honed. Some laws and rules are so broad as to be ridiculous -- but it is my opinion that the reason for these far ranging rules is that when allowed some level of hazing, some chapters and members don't know when to stop and things get terribly out of hand.

I can fully understand how people think hazing is dangerous, it sometimes can be. However, I don't see how there is a debate over whether times of hardship bring people together. I mean, any difficult situation you are in with other people usually breeds relationships. It may not make you best friends, but you are close. Also, in order to have the "brotherhood" so many on this board speak of, I think it is important to know you can trust your fellow members, especially those within your pledge class. Such difficulty will also show who the pledges that lack motivation and performance are, and it better helps you to make membership decisions. This would help fraternities like those on my campus, who do not automatically decide to initiate each pledge that accepts a bid.

I wasn't beaten...I wasn't forced to drink excessively...I didn't have to circle my fat or anything like that--but I was hazed. It was the subtle kind that many are arguing creates unity--and I again will restate that my class was not close with each other or the active members because of those activities. The people that were close were those who spent time with one another, sharing their lives and working through real issues together. The whole period just led to people being manipulative, rather than accepting, and it cuase problems down the road with lack of trust and people leaving the organization.

It was several months AFTER my new member period that I began to feel a part of the group, and even then it has not extended into a lifetime bond with those people. I am much more connected to other sisters from around the country as a result of my volunteering than I am to any sister from my chapter.

Did all the sisters from your class and chapter initiate into D Phi E when your local colonized or did some of them stay local? I ask simply because I think that may have contributed to the lack of a bond just as much as any hazing you may have experienced.

Its also important to note the differences between guys and girls. Loyalty is completely different in fraternities and sororities.

I dont know if i agree with that. I've seen atleast in the BGLO's the same love and loyalty i have for my bruhs i've seen in sororities on my campus.

I don't even know what a BGLO is. However, I think its quite different. For example, at least where I'm from, most guys going through rush will state that they feel pledgeship is incomplete without some sort of hazing. I don't think girls have nearly as much of a need to feel that they earned it. However, from what i've seen on this board, rushees in other parts of the country may not feel that need either. I think down here, where a lot of these guys fathers and grandfathers went through it, it is a rite of passage and a testing of will. Back to love/loyalty, those are completely different things. Girls are much more likely to love and care for their sisters than guys are in fraternities. However, I think guys are much more likely to go to bat for each other, more likely to be honest and tell a fraternity brother to their face what the problem is. There are plenty of guys in my fraternity I wouldnt choose to hang out with all the time, but if they were in trouble, I'd be there without hesitation. Also, please don't tell me this is a sexist comment, because everyone knows it to be true.

BGLO... Black Greek Life Organization... and i can understand your post but paper is paper where i'm from whether you be male or female. I really do feel their is a huge difference in rushing versus pledging and the feelings of the people toward those who put them thru it afterwards. I wouldnt call your statement sexiest because the way you present it supports your point, i guess the difference i see is cultural. Hazing is hazing no matter what but i do feel that it is gender blind to the fact that if you encounter a hardship and that other person is there to help you thru it... your gonna have that bond with them. Social silence is another thing that helps people develop that love for one another... i dont know if yall do that but i know it made me grow close to the only people i could talk to. It also helped me learn to just be somewhere without having to draw attention to myself or be the loudest person in the room.

I initiated into DPhiE after I graduated--several years later, so I spent almost my entire collegiate experience as a member of the local sorority. So when I speak of the lack of bonds or unity, it is definitely from that lens.

Everyone from my class who was still active at the time I graduated initiated into DPhiE (other than one person who transferred). At that time, I can tell you that we had eliminated all hazing from our programs, and I believe we were stronger, more cohesive (although certainly not perfect) as a result.

Just my two cents.

I think you kind of missed my point, which is that a colonization of an existing local (or a local thinking about going national) 99% of the time has things going on and differences happening that have nothing to do with hazing. So holding up your experience as a "hazing didn't create unity" example isn't quite the same as someone from an already established chapter. Not to say you're wrong, just to point out that the group you were in may have had another "layer" of things happening that others may have not.

We did not pursue national affiliation until almost a year after I initiated, and we did not colonize until two years after I initiated. I am not sure that going national had anything to do with the lack of unity, as it really was not something the founders had ever really planned on doing--I really do, sincerely, attribute it to the way my class, which was the alpha class of this organization, was treated. To get back to the initiatl question--we were hazed, and we were not unified nor did we TRULY respect one another.

Actually, the colonization did not happen for a couple of years AFTER our pledge period - and it was actually the founding sisters doing the hazing (and who actually 'advertised' they had a hazing-free pledge program!). Hazing was VERY common on campus from what I could tell and remember even among the well established locals and nationals (both fraternities and sororities). Having been a chapter adviser for a NPC sorority on a Big 10 campus, the opportunity for hazing was always there - the only difference was the chapter had an international organization to be accountable to and a university that actually enforced the laws about hazing. The school that Heather and I attended was strict about alcohol but not at all about hazing. THAT is the difference.

The only reason, I'm assuming since I have long since left that school, that hazing would no longer be tolerated is because of the influence of the international organizations. HOWEVER when we had to do the activities it was under the guise of becoming a united group and getting to know the actives and our fellow pledges.

You've said exactly what I expected. I can completely see how hazing, of this sort, would serve to bring people together. Even well-moderated hazing on the college level could potentially do so.

BUT,

I fully agree with this statement.

PRECISELY! And, then you could get into the difference between pledging and hazing. I honestly believe that some level of strain is beneficial. If a group were to develop a "pledge program" that is overseen by their inter/national hq (however that would happen, I don't know), I can see how it would be a good thing.

Of course, I absolutely DO NOT believe that physically assaulting pledges should ever be tolerated when the pledgers are undergraduates. And I also believe that all elements of the "pledge program" should have a very clearly defined purpose. If it's just to see a pledge squirm, you'd have a hard time convincing me of its worth.

To everyone who keeps equating the military with collegiate organizations...it's not the same thing. It's not a fair comparison.

I beg to differ in regards to the topics of hazing or pledging. In fact when I think about it, they are a lot alike.