I didn't watch it with audio, so maybe more is explained, but maybe they are told they are falling from a great height?

Anybody know the deal?

In the explanation for the video, it says that the members of the youth group were told they were five feet off the ground when they were only three inches off the ground. And I have no idea why the let her fall like that...looks like she came close to whacking her head on the ground.

Regarding the California law,
That sounds like it could exclude athletic teams, no? Teams don't always live together, and they possibly could argue that they aren't a "club" or "society" because they don't have a constitution/bylaws/etc.

I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong. That just kind of stuck out at me.

PsychTau

Some of the worst cases of high school hazing I've read about were sports teams, but you're right: it does leave them out.

Maybe they were afraid that it would set up hazing suits in instances that people were hurt at practice, especially try outs.

Hazing, GLOs and "Trust Fall"
 

The usual "trust fall" exercise involves people falling into the arms of others who catch them. Even though this was given the name of "trust fall," obviously they didn't catch her, obviously she could have gotten hurt, and obviously it scared her enormously. Change the scenario and have a GLO tell a pledge that they're 5 feet off the ground, then tip them off, and the accusations will fly. To my mind, either it's hazing or it's not, and it shouldn't depend upon whether the group you're with has Greek letters, is an athletic team, or is a religious-based youth group. Laws which target groups rather than specific, objectionable activities (regardless of what group performs them) are biased and unreasonable.
- goldenphoenix

But I don't think we should expand the definition of "hazing" to include anything stupid or harmful a group might do.

"Hazing" as a term should cover physically harmful (or potentially physically harmful) or intentionally humiliating things that people are forced to do to pursue full membership in a group.

We should have other names and other legal definitions for all the other harmful things that groups might do to people under different circumstances.
Assault? Harassment? Negligence?

I just object to the over-application of the word "hazing." Everything bad doesn't have to be called hazing.

The girl in the video may have been victimized but I wouldn't call it hazing. (Was she in danger of being kicked out of youth group if she didn't do it?)

Personally, I think most of the sort of false-risk, trust-building stuff is a load of junk anyway.

This is where train wrecks start.:(
We all start looking at matters from our POV's, rather than the laws, the lawyers, the politicians et al:
Taken from another tread, part the LAW in question:
SB 1454- Section 4- (b),

"'Hazing' means any method of initiation or preinitiation into a student organization or student body, whether or not the organization or body is officially recognized by an educational institution, which is likely to cause, serious bodily injury to any pupil or other person attending former, current, or prospective student of any school, community college, college, university, or other educational institution in this state." [emphasis added]

This is not restricting any reasonable activities required of associate members or pledges in their pre-initiation days. This addresses the serious stuff we should all be eradicating in Greek houses.

And it does not create any added legal liability for nationals or housing corporations as can be seen below from another portion of the bill,

SB 1454- Section 4- (d),(e),

" (d) Any person who personally engages in hazing that results in
death or serious bodily injury as defined in paragraph (4) of
subdivision (f) of Section 243 of the Penal Code, is guilty of either
a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in
county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state
prison.
(e) The person against whom the hazing is directed may commence a
civil action for injury or damages. The action may be brought against
any participants in the hazing, or any organization to which the
student is seeking membership whose agents, directors, trustees,
managers, or officers authorized, requested, commanded, participated
in, or ratified the hazing." [emphasis added]

NOTE: Covers only schools. Does not seem to say anything about what we see in video.

Here in longer, fuller form:
http://www.stophazing.org/laws/ca_law.htm
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bil...chaptered.html
http://www.jour.unr.edu/interactive/...california.htm

Take the time to read it. It does not in truth matter what we think the law(s) should be, only what they are. And as I posted above, IMHO, the whole matter a mess. And in too many circumstances, we help the mess along.:mad::(

And if we think they need to be changed, have a conversation with your local rep.

But I don't think we should expand the definition of "hazing" to include anything stupid or harmful a group might do.
***************
Good point! I think that a lot of people have gone overboard when it comes to what they define as hazing.

"Hazing" as a term should cover physically harmful (or potentially physically harmful) or intentionally humiliating things that people are forced to do to pursue full membership in a group.

We should have other names and other legal definitions for all the other harmful things that groups might do to people under different circumstances.
Assault? Harassment? Negligence?

I just object to the over-application of the word "hazing." Everything bad doesn't have to be called hazing.

The girl in the video may have been victimized but I wouldn't call it hazing. (Was she in danger of being kicked out of youth group if she didn't do it?)
************
I doubt that there was intent to scare her, but the outcome was the same. My point is that if we switched the groups, we'd be reading, "Terrified Sorority Pledge Dumped Off Plank in So-Called 'Trust' Exercise." I think that the organizers of that particular activity showed very poor judgment. She could have twisted a knee, broken an ankle or knocked out some teeth.


Personally, I think most of the sort of false-risk, trust-building stuff is a load of junk anyway.
************
I was once involved in a "trust-walk" activity in a group. I had a broken leg at the time and was on crutches, so I got to sit down in a location where I became one of the "obstacles." The object of the exercise was how trust and responsibility go hand-in-hand (trust from the unsighted person and responsibility from the sighted one). Afterward the group leader had people talk about the experience. -goldenphoenix

Why'd you quote me on this one?
I understood from the very start what the California law did. But let me know if your organization defines "hazing" the same way. I bet it's much broader.

LXA did this at a leader ship conference as a trust your Brother type thing.

While I was not in agreement with it, it is supposed to point out the fact that you should trust your fellow Brother.

While it is a good point in fact, the problem is it worked there and maybe instilled the seed of thought.

But, at the Chapter level, there are to many times when Brothers do not take care of brothers in times of need and harm. Is it wrong, yes!:(

Ergo, because of these to many times that death or harm has come to someone there are soon laws enacted.

As was said, there is a fire in XYZ Dorm and deaths are involved it is regional news, and if it is something to do with Greeks, it becomes National news.:o

Was not in any way an attack on you, your POV, or group.

And if you perceived that it was in any way, shape or form I am sorry.

This thread started out talk about the "new" California Law on Hazing.

In truth, it could have been about any state and/or campus.

Our POV's. looking into a situation as outsiders, do not really mean much.
And just cause unneeded drama and augments.

The POV's that mean a great deal:
The law makers, and the law keepers in any given area, place and time.

As has been pointed out in many threads, there are over 40 state hazing laws. All different.

Just about every school has it's own policy.

Just about every GLO's National has it's policy.

So where do Greek POV's come into play? The Brothers and Sisters in a
given chapter, on a given campus in a given state.

They have to know, understand, and operated under the laws, rules and policies that apply to them.

And as we have seen all to often in our own chapter, our own campus, our own state. in the news or posted here too many of us (or perhaps just enough of us) fail at that. They fail and hurt themselves, their GLO, and us.

They fail, among other matters, the "trust" test.

As did the church group where ever they were located.

And if this sounds or seems a bit personal, it is. My chapter went from just about the top living group on campus to GONE. Because they failed.

And as much as I enjoyed meeting, several times, the Sigma Nu's who are now "guest" in my house I want it back.;):D
Off of soap box, and pulling on Kevlar and nomex.

I can understand how my not wanting all behaviors called "hazing" might have come across as a defense or an excuse for bad behavior. You may have thought I was saying, X Y and Z aren't really hazing, so they're OK. That wasn't what I meant.

I think we all ought to follow the rules of our GLOs and schools and the laws of our states. I don't want to permit or encourage harmful behavior by any group.

I just think it's counterproductive to label everything with the same term. Let acknowledge that things can be against the rules, immoral, or illegal and just not fall under the heading of "hazing."

Isnt this so true?

But when there is Govt. intervention, things get askew?