Sorry, but IMHO, "Coke dates" =/= "interviews" (in the traditional sense)

I'm just stating that an interview, which in our case had 3 parts - a coke date, an interview, and a signature - was far from a one-sided thing. It's not like we pledges had to show up, clean the house with a toothbrush and then MAYBE get the interview. It was definitely a mutual getting to know you process and you could choose your own questions. One of mine was favorite band - obviously if a sister and I like the same bands we're going to DISCUSS it not just have me say "oh. ok."

Not everyone is comfortable just going up to new people or having new people approach them in a free form style - interviews gave you a template and a reason to do so. I think as alums we tend to forget this - hell, at 18 some of those seniors were intimidating! I know there's people I might have avoided had I not been required to get interviews. Would I have gotten to know them eventually? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Until we radically change our style of rush and membership selection, how rushees and sorority members relate to one another - who likes who - is going to be the MAIN reason one girl joins ASA and another joins ZTA. To prevent those sort of "getting to know you" activities in pledgeship, or to dilute them into group activities where the quiet members never get to speak up, IMO completely defeats the purpose.

I want to pick up on the idea of "earning letters." I note that most if not everyone who has responded to Crowboy is female, while he, of course, is male. I can't speak for the female view of "earning" letters, but I think I can speak to a male perspective. In fact, I have done so before, in the thread Hazing Works!, so I'm just going to be a little lazy and copy myself from that thread:

American society as a whole is woefully bereft of rites of passages, particularly for boys: rites that mark the transition from boyhood to manhood. For many young men, fraternities (I am going to talk mainly about fraternities here; I'll try not to go too Robert Bly ;) ) and fraternity initiations provide such a rite. Indeed, the pledge manuals of many fraternities speak of initiation in terms of a rite of passage.

Globally, rites of passage in less "civilized" societies typically involve what might be termed testing, trial, or ordeal. That is, prior to actual initiation into manhood, the initiate must prove himself and his worth (to himself and to the men he wishes to join) by undergoing and passing one or more trials or tests. To be quite honest, I think there is something inbred in males wanting and needing to prove themselves in this way. Rituals (and here I am using the term broadly) that succeed for boys understand this and tap into this primal need. An example: initiation into the Order of the Arrow, a sort of camping brotherhood for Boy Scouts, is preceeded by a weekend-long "Ordeal" that involves no talking, manual labor (with others, which can be challenging with no talking), camping alone in the woods, meager meals, and the like. Upon completion, a boy feels like he has really accomplished something, proven himself and earned the right to be initiated.

Quite simply I think, where hazing "succeeds" (if that is the right word), it is when it taps into this primal desire to be tested and proved worthy, which in turn engenders loyalty to the group one has been found worthy to join.

Don't get me wrong or report me -- I am against hazing (although I quickly agree that the term is used to broadly). I do think, however, that alternatives to hazing can only be really successful, at least for most males, if they tap into this idea of earning one's letters, of being tested and proved worthy. I am also conviced that tapping into this idea can be done, can be done (probably more effectively, even) without hazing.

MC: that quoting yourself thing works. So much so, that I'm going to do the same thing.

Does anyone here know if there's an active attempt to define hazing for Greek organizations. Like, is there a Greek Task Force somewhere, with representatives from NPC, IFC, etc., whose goal is to clearly define hazing? It seems there's a need for such a definition; I wonder if we'll ever get one.

If I were on my organization's High Council, I'd be very cautious about ceding that sort of authority to outside persons. My lawyers might be telling me that I don't need a policy as restrictive as my peer organizations.

I'd also feel uneasy about the political ramifications of signing up for something like that, then backing out if I didn't like the result as well.

A policy which is over-restrictive can do more harm than good.

Kinda like the policies (some) people here are complaining about? ;)

I agree with you, 33, that a Coke Date is not hazing. You likely would not see 2 people in Court over a Coke Date.

"But, Your Honor, she bought me a cola and told me how happy she was to hear I got an A+ on my physics test! Oh the humanity!"

But I disagree that the law is unreasonably broad. Laws should have some specificity to allow people to police themselves, but should be open enough to allow broad interpretation -- to keep up with all of the things people will do to try and get "away with something."

I would argue that the hazing laws are able to be interpreted. We spend an awful amount of time and money producing programs to help our members understand the hazing laws, how to prevent hazing, and the repercussions within the organization if you violate not just the law, but also the by-laws of your own GLO. With education and a good faith effort to behave reasonably and maturely, collegiate members can understand and abide by the hazing laws of their states, and the bylaws of the university and their GLO. Often, the policies of your GLO are even stricter than the state laws. Although it doesn't take a genius to figure out the policies or the law: be respectful of one another.

There's nothing wrong with a Coke Date, on its face. Or a sisterhood walk or ball of yarn to find a sister. When you go to extremes, well, that is where things have a tendency to unravel.

It's a shame that a lot of traditions have been abolished in favor of a zero tolerance stance at hazing. Alumnae remember a lot of fun that they feel the collegians are missing out on. Almost every older alum would argue that the shorter pledge period designed to reduce the temptation of hazing has resulted in higher membership attrition rates.

But the sororities (and to some extent, the fraternities) are doing these things to stay one step ahead of the law --they are trying to cut off their liability for Susie Sorority's stupidity at taking that Coke Date one step too far.

If the members could present reasonable alternatives, propose amendments to these bylaws at convention and/or demonstrate better decision making at the collegiate level, I am sure these would turn around.

Most of the collegiate members demonstrate great maturity and good decision making. I know it is preaching to the choir that it is the very loud minority of poor decision making that ruins it for the current collegiate members. If there were a better way to police those members, we'd likely see a big difference.

When I did interviews when I was joining my local organization--I had to set up the interview by asking in person, come with a list of questions, be early to the meeting, and then I could get the signature. The point is, nothing was two way--it was all on me. Further, if they didn't like the questions, the sister could refuse to sign. And one sister made me come back the next day because the first day she wanted to watch Days of our Lives. This is the kind of interview experience I am talking about--and it was light compared to what I have seen other people have to do to "get" interviews.

So what happened when I initiated? I knew a ton of useless facts that I had memorized and I knew a little more about the actives, but they did not know me. That did nothing to make me feel welcome in the group and it did nothing to unite us as an organization. It just created a division--and I was involved in everything and I did go to events all the time.

Since my class, that chapter has worked diligently to eliminate hazing from its programming, and it is the strongest chapter on campus, either men's or women's. I think the two are correlated. Is it easy to have both--no, because it requires creativity and a dogged commitment to standards and to recruiting the right women.

You can set expectations without hazing. You can have high standards without hazing.

It's not the interviews that are dangerous but its how they are used. A "new member" interviews a sister and then the next day is asked a series of questions about the interview and the conversation may go something like this:

Sister: Where does sister Melissa live?
New Member: Ummmm I'm sorry sister but i don't remember
Sister: Why don't you know, didn't you interivew her yesterday?
New Member: Yes, yes I did but I do not remember where she lives
Sister: Well can you tell me two things about her that you do remember
New Member: Yes, she has two brother and her major is business
Sister: How about telling me something I don't already know about someone I have lived with for 2 years. First I want you to go and apologize to sister melissa for not knowing anything interesting about her and wasting her time yesterday during your interview. Next I want you to find out 5 things about her that I do not know and tell me tom. when you come and visit me.


The interview was harmless most likely it was an enjoyable time until the next day. The problem is if you give an inch people will take a mile.

I have not heard of such an attempt. Of course, the NPC has its definition of hazing (you have to scroll down to get to it).

And like Kevin, I think that many orgs would be reluctant to cede that kind of authority to those outside the org.

Even if such an attempt were made, though, it would still leave open the problem of as many as 51 different legal definitions of hazing throughout the country, plus hundreds of collegiate definitions (remembering that a college's concern with hazing extends, or should extend, beyond GLOs).

I would have to disagree, unless you are using "laws" to mean policies of GLOs and universities. Violation of hazing laws is a criminal offense. One of the foundational principles of criminal law is that the law must be sufficiently clear put to a reasonable person on notice as to what conduct is prohibited. A person shouldn't have to wonder whether a judge or jury will consider doing x a violation of the law. Yes, I know there are the obscenity laws, but as a general rule, allowing broad interpretation = vague = unconstitutional.

I would hazard a guess that almost everything that has been mentioned in this thread as "going to far" (such as interviews) is perfectly legal under legal definitions of hazing, but not permitted under a GLO's policies or institutional policies.

I would say that almost always they are.

BOTH of these are hazing and NEITHER is the way to do interviews. Neither of your groups should have been allowed to use them in this fashion and the privilege of doing them should have been taken away. From YOUR CHAPTER -not your whole organization. (And yes LPI, I know yours was local)

We NEVER had to spit facts back out about sisters - I think one time someone jokingly asked me what a sister's pet cow's name was, but it was quite obvious it was a joke. The only time we had sisters complain about questions was when one of our pledges (who was later terminated and probably shouldn't have been initiated in the first place) was asking really crude things along the lines of "do you look at what's in the Kleenex after you blow your nose?" The only hard and fast requirement we had was that we had to call and set up the interviews in advance - and that's just common courtesy. And if a pledge was visiting the house during her free time, some sisters - MANY sisters - would say "what the heck, I've got some time, do you want to do my interview now?"

I'm sorry you guys had such a crappy experience with them, and I'm sorry your chapters were full of jerks on power trips, but that doesn't mean that the groups who used them correctly and successfully should have to give them up - any more than ritual should be eliminated because some chapters made hazing a part of it.

It is sad that such things get banned because a few bad apples ruin it--again, we're back to if you give an inch, someone will take a mile. And while it would be great to tell XX chapter that they can no longer do a certain activity because they abused the privlege, I think we unfortunately default to just banning it all together because it would get pretty difficult to keep up with which chapter could do what.

To this day, I still remember some of the random facts I had to memorize about sisters during my associating period-- I am not scarred or anything by it, but I guess I just wish they would have taken the time to get to know more about me...and more than just things like having a pair of socks to match every outfit or the first and middle names of each sibling!!

We keep track of chapters' grades, the number of pledges they took, and their activities so we can give out awards. We keep track of chapters that are on social probation for this or that. Why would it be so hard to keep track of interviews - yes or no?

Sorry for the massive bump, but I was searching for something and realized I wanted to respond to this.

Yea definitely----a thread devoted to how much of a pussy fraternity Alpha Chi Rho really is.

Quit you bitching.

Everyone had to do terrible/stupid stuff while pledging, so don't act like ur fraternity is hot shit.

Seriously lol.