Oh, I totally agree that in some cases they have thrown out the baby with the bath water. The problem is trying to define things so there is no room for error. In some cases, it is a matter of following the law. In others, it is removing the chance for a mistake.
I helped my mil when she was a court reporter in a case involving a suit against a fraternity. It was obviously the fault of the member who chose to indulge in risky behavior, but the fraternity was still held accountable. National and International HQs can't be blamed for trying to limit their liabililty - we are talking MILLIONS of dollars in just one suit. It is a harsh reality, but a reality none the less.
Do I think it is ridiculous that you cannot require new members to interview actives, for example? Yes - but I do understand the slippery slope that concerns HQs. If the choice is going a little too far in defining hazing, or exposing the GLO to massive liability, I too must vote for the former.

To me, it sounds like the OP isn't talking about things like interviews or scavenger hunts... he is talking about things which would clearly fall under any definition of hazing, including activities which could lead to physical and mental abuse (push ups and mental abuse by actives trying to "motivate"). There is a difference for sure.

And sometimes its not what you do--its how long you make the new members do it, and what the consequences are if they refuse to do it or finish.

Since interviews were brought up--this is a great example of what I call an unhealthy tradition. It may not be hazing or dangerous in anyway, but it does create a "level" of sister versus active. Many unhealthy traditions, if modified, should not be considered hazing. So in the case of interviews, why not have the sister and new member meet for coffee one on one and interview each other? Accomplishes the same thing--the new member gets to know the active sister, but in a less hierarchical environment. And the active sister gets to know the new member better, too.

I don't understand. When you say "interview" actives, what do you mean?

We had to meet every active and learn something about her, then get her to sign our pledge book. We didn't have to DO anything to get that signature, just talk to her, perhaps discuss some aspect of our pledge training, get to know her a little. Of course, there were fewer than 20 actives, and we pledged for a full semester. I can't imagine having to have a 30-minute conversation with every sister in an 80-member house, not if you're going to keep the grades up and meet other obligations. But what's wrong with an interview?

Or does "interview" now have some connotation I'm not familiar with? Perhaps it isn't a real interview?

The interview I referenced is exactly what you described, and in some cases it is now considered "hazing" because it is an activity required of pledges that is not required of actives. I used it as an example of something I consider NOT to be hazing - in fact, something which serves a valuable purpose - but which is considered sometimes to be hazing and thus outlawed.
I assume that it was the past abuse of some - making pledges "earn" the interview by doing something like washing a car - that made this problematic. Still, this is an example of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".

You bring up exactly the point I mean -- defining something as hazing simply because someone else doesn't have to do it. We are not all equal, and the sooner a student realizes this, the better off he is. We have a right to be treated equally; that doesn't mean we have equal abilities, talents, capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, or wants. We shouldn't be making rules that say we are.

It's one of the (many) reasons I no longer support the greek system in universities. This is an instance where something is prohibited (not outlawed; there's nothing illegal about it) simply because it might, conceivably, get out of hand (though I honestly don't see how an interview can get out of hand). It teaches our students to take the safe way. The safe way is seldom the right way.

Nothing wrong with earning an interview. In real life, we do that all the time.

You're such an enigma to me, Tess!

You speak so poorly of the greek system here and on your blog, but yet you identify yourself with your GLO in your user name. You are clearly a proponent of individualism and yet you bemoan the loss of activities that tried to force "group think" on pledges. You clearly don't like laws (or the government) to tell you what to do, but you think older sisters should be able to tell newbies to do what they tell them to do because they tell them to do it.

What's wrong with interviews? Just like was mentioned before, it's not necessarily the activity itself but the length to which it can be taken. You mentioned in your blog that you were in a chapter of about 20. Interviewing in that chapter would have been a snap. What about the women (and men) who pledge into chapters of 100-200? (I did and we did have to do -- AND MEMORIZE -- interviews of all 100+) There was nothing about that process that built my leadership qualities, that's just what I had to do to get through my FIVE MONTH pledge period. Trust me, I would happily have lived without it.

What did give me leadership qualities? Taking on offices and committee chairmanships and learning, at 19 and 20 years old, how to manage 90-110 of my peers and the organization that we all belonged to. Holding committee meetings, preparing agendas, writing and presenting reports, organizing philanthropies, writing letters to corporations to asking them to sponsor our fundraising efforts, building relationships with other fraternities and sororities as well as other campus groups... the list goes on and on. I remember being shocked when I was just a couple years out of school how much further "ahead" I felt than some of my peers in the working world. Some of these folks came out of college never having "run" anything and some didn't even know how to behave in a meeting, write a report to superior or work on a team.

Don't take your experience from 30 years ago in a small chapter and assume that only you somehow managed to have a worthwhile experience because you were called a pledge and had to wait to wear your letters or do phone or suite duty. I had to wait to wear my letters too but that period of waiting (and "earning" them as some people just love to call it, which I call hooey on), really added nothing to the sum total of what I got out of my greek experience. I still benefit from what I learned back then and have no doubt that the women of today are getting the same core benefits from their membership.

And for someone with such disdain for the greek system, you still seem very attached to it -- here you are on GC, you blog about it and your letters are part of your very name... maybe you'd have more positive feelings if you would let go of some of your antiquated (and I can say that because I'm not much younger than you) expectations of how things "should be" and understand that college students today face a MUCH different world than we did. And they didn't choose the changes in the system they're joining, the older adults (ala our age) made these changes because the reality of the legal system, risk management issues and getting and maintaining insurance is so different today.

I don't appreciate the psychoanalysis. It's one thing for you not to understand me. It's another to try to state my beliefs.

I said I no longer support the greek system in universities. They've become less than they should be.

Disappearing, keeping my mouth shut, not pointing out inconsistencies, not working to get people to think about what I see as hypocrisy, and playing rah-rah-cheerleader are not ways to make things happen. They're the way things have degenerated as they have. They're a (small) part of the problem - students who can't act as adults because they aren't permitted to. That translates into graduates (read: workers) who can't act as adults either.

I've never denied that I understand the differences between large houses and small, and between 30 years ago and now. I'm pointing out that the changes have not all been for the good, and that blanket rules are frequently ludicrous. What worked well for my chapter won't work for all. But I also refuse to believe that a six-week pledge period somehow gives you time to make a decision for life.

If you couldn't get to know all your sisters in five months, what makes you think someone can now in six weeks? If you had to memorize things about 100+ people just for the sake of memorization, you had a choice to make -- was it worth it to you? Obviously you thought so.

Where should the greek system be if not in a university setting? High schools? Corporations?

I really don't understand... :confused: Please elaborate and help me understand what you're suggesting.

Parents and American culture don't allow children to grow up and be young adults. Most American teenagers are catered too bailed out of their problems and excuses are constantly made for their screw ups. How can you expect them in one or two years to understand what going to far is. It is just unrealistic to think that they can make these types of decisions.

For clarification I was hazed I had to do interviews and scavenger hunts and be put into line-ups and sometimes it did get out of control. I couldn't imagine if God forbid someone was killed or something had happened to a potential new member. I earned my letters I say that with confidence and I wouldn't want to go back and have it any other way, but when me and my pledge sisters became older sisters we took steps to make our program positive. It's not my fault that hazing is illegal look at yourself and people of your generation who abused their power and crossed the line one to many times.

Disclaimer: I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE FELT HAZING WAS THE BEST WAY TO DO ANYTHING. AND BY NO MEANS DO I AGREE WITH THE ACTIONS OF THOSE WHO TAKE PART IN IT.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that NA "obviously" thought it was "worth it" to do 120 interviews and memorize them. The post did state, and I quote: "Trust me, I would happily have lived without it." and "I had to wait to wear my letters too but that period of waiting (and "earning" them as some people just love to call it, which I call hooey on), really added nothing to the sum total of what I got out of my greek experience."

But I digress... that's for NA to clarify :)

NA -- good post :)

Questioners rarely enjoy being questioned.

Granted, but you're not proposing what could be re-integrated into TODAY's college climate in light of why current rules have been put in place; you're just complaining that things aren't how they used to be and why that's so wrong.

And your claim that you're just "pointing out inconsistencies" isn't quite reflective of the message you're sending --- you flat-out say in your blog that today's greek organizations aren't providing real leadership opportunities. And then you reduce it to questions of how asking greek members to vote for someone in a pageant or contest is considered leadership. That's just silly. And simplistic. And unfair to the community as a whole.

What about the women (and men) who are in huge chapters that also have a chapter house? Do you have any idea how many "real world" issues they have to deal with? Leases and laws and paying bills and maintenance ON TOP of all the internal organization stuff. Some of those chapters must have yearly budgets well over a million dollars. How can you demean the real experience those members are having by taking on that level of responsibility and leadership? And how can you overlook the need to protect the investment in that chapter, in that facility, in their relationship with the university and greek system, through real and effective risk management measures?

I've actually heard that it's more like 8 weeks normally, but tomato tomahto. And why is your opinion on this right more than someone else's? How long "should" it take and who gets to decide that? Did I know after 2 months of pledging that I for sure wanted to be in my sorority? Absolutely. Truth be told, I was sure sooner than that, but we still had to wait it out for the full 5 months. Your message seems to be that "intelligent" women shouldn't be "herded" and "forced" to make a lifelong decision after just 6 (or 8) weeks, but aren't you, on the flip-side questioning these women's intelligence and whether they're capable of making that decision for themselves? Who are you to tell them they're not ready to do so?

TexasPrincess already did a fine job of responding to this (and thanks, TP :)). And doing the interviews had nothing to do with my "getting to know" anybody, it just was what it was, something we had to do because we were pledges. Just because I knew one sister was from Shippensburg and another one was from Philly didn't really tell me squat about "who" they were.

ETA: I have no idea if I did the split-quote thing correctly through this, so if it's a garbled mess, I apologize...

A great reason to belong to a "t-shirt club" --> today, hazing is illegal.

Fraternities and sororities are non-profit organizations that must follow the law. A collegiate member is not above the law.

So to those of you who break the law today, bravo. You are "real" men and women, without a doubt. It must be very nice to scoff at the laws that the rest of us have to follow.

I agree with those who have cited the leadership challenges for being in a sorority today, and it does not just extend to large chapters. Just tonight I had to discuss the business/management sides of sorority membership with a chapter of 30 women. They are learning to make decisions about their organization based on the financial bottom line as well as trying to balance personal relationships and use interpersonal skills in dealing with one another. All important things for when they enter the workforce.

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but DGTess, it seems to be that you are against following the herd or being sheeple, yet you are advocating that things should be done the way they were in your day, therefore, adhering to tradition (following the herd) regardless of whether it works for today's students or organizations. This seems, to me, to be hypocritical. Maybe you can explain that further... I too am curious about your thoughts on the Greek system in universities. If not in university communities, then where?

Which is why I love our organization and women like you who GET IT. Makes me very proud that you are carrying on the legacy and not subscribing the herd mentality. You go girl!

JSL,
Denise

Interviews are NOT an unhealthy tradition. They're one of the best things that has been lost. Many groups had ALREADY instituted sisters interviewing pledges on their own. If there were chapters or sisters that said "you have to do x, y, and z before you get my interview" then those chapters/sisters should have been disciplined before throwing out the whole thing.

And when I was pledging, in addition to interviews, we had what we called "coke dates" - the sister treated me (the pledge) to lunch or dinner. Then she wrote a page long signature about how glad she was that I was going to be part of the sorority. How the eff is that "hierarchical"?

And yes, THERE ARE LEVELS. Not everyone is the same in a sorority, and I think that pretending everyone is is why we've been getting such an influx on GC of "OMG, everyone in my sorority hates me - I haven't bonded with anyone - I want to quit." The poster then goes on to say she hasn't gone to any extra events, has blown off a lot of required things and barely knows the names of any of her sisters or pledgesisters. And she expects them to be her lifelong friends!! Honestly, if people in this age group are that socially backward, we need to reinstitute interviews and other pledging activities more than ever.

I agree with a lot of what Tess is saying. I would never tell the ASAs at Truman or Mankato or Penn State what I think is best for their chapter, and I don't think they should tell me what is best for mine either. Interviews and scavenger hunts in SOME chapters were used as hazing tools. I'm sure ritual was too. Did we get rid of it?

And I'm not saying "tradition for the sake of tradition." I'm not someone who was active in college and then never went back to the campus. I worked with my chapter long after our pledge program had been "diluted." There was a difference in the way the women treated each other and treated the sorority. And it was NOT a good difference. Other women I attended college with have said the same thing. It was almost as though the women were encouraged to be more businesslike and less sisterly. Maybe that works for a 200 member chapter, but I am not from one of those. As for your "one on one" coffee idea - we weren't even allowed to do that. No sister was to be alone with any pledge at any time. Everything was group, group, group, constantly. Now of course it's swung to the other end of the pendulum and everything is an "individual challenge" but that's another thread.

whittleschmeg - your post is so full of inconsistencies I don't know where to start - perhaps by telling us exactly what an "interview" entailed that made it so dangerous?