True, but, your situations all appear to have been "voluntary" on your part, i.e., you weren't "compelled" as a condition of continued membership to do all the nice things you did - it's when it crosses the line that even innocent "errands" etc....can be construed out of context into hazing.

Hazing occurs when the line between brotherly love gets blurred with unbrotherly stupidity....

But that's my point. If it is "black and white" someone could say "oh, 33 did this and she is a pledge, therefore she must have been forced and it must have been hazing." That's the problem. It's gotten to the point in sororities that sisters are afraid to be alone with pledges because something could get misinterpreted.

My point precisely.

None of this falls under what hazing actually is. It's not grey, but people make it grey, by posting opinions like the one you quoted. It's black and white, because it involves a group's request (or the request of individuals within that group that the person in a subservient position perceives to be important) that a potential new member take some action in order to be held in esteem by the group and/or to gain entrance into an organization. I think request defined as hazing can be explicit, or implicit, either way it's hazing and it's wrong. The problem is people who haze and expect those who are hazed to behave in a certain way fail to consider the fact that some pnms could be chronic worriers who could be distressed by verbal abuse, or that some come to the fraternity/sorority with a bad past, have thought about quitting school, are addicted to alcohol/drugs or perhaps have considered suicide. Even strong and healthy people have limits to which they can be pushed. Add to the fact that many hazing traditions are inherently negligent, and sad consequences such as wrongful deaths become all too likely, especially when binge drinking is involved.

macallan25, I totally disagree with you. Members who haze justify actions that are outside the range of normal human behavior. People who join by allowing themselves to be hazed, crave relationships and acceptance, not primarily because they respond to the organizations particular ideology. Some people allow themselves to be hazed because they find themselves in an unfamiliar surrounding their 1st year in college away from family and childhood friends, so they then seek a feeling of belonging. To these people, enduring hazing rather it's physical and/or mental, beats the pain of loneliness. I'm not saying joining a fraternity or a sorority is wrong, I would be a hypocrite if I said that. But I don't think anyone should have to risk their health in any way, shape, or form.

Also macallan25, because my opinions are different from yours doesn't make them dumb! I don't agree with 99.9% of your posts in many threads that you've posted in, but I don't call them dumb or stupid. Your opinions on OJ are the only posts I've ever agreed with. If you think my opinions are dumb, then you don't have to respond to them.

If someone doesn't have the mental fortitude to deal with the small amount of stress induced by hazing, I probably don't want them in my chapter.

Membership in the organization is not free, you're going to have to work for it. Some people hear about 'hazing' and realize they may not want to be a part of the group that badly anymore. Things like serving dinner, cleaning the house, study hours, are just paying your dues. You have to contribute before you can join.

It would seem then that the only way not to haze (per your definition which is something you apparently just made up) is to not have new members.

My collegiate chapter shows up to football games in shirt and tie -- sometimes coat and tie. Do you think that new members, pledges, feel maybe just a tiny bit of peer pressure to also show up in shirt and tie? Do you think they might be asked to change clothes if they didn't? Yes and yes.

That's hazing to you? It is under your definition. That said, I've never heard of anyone in the history of the world being charged with hazing for activity such as that.

My collegiate chapter emphasizes social graces, good manners and etiquette. We teach our new members how to act, how to treat women with respect, etc. When they're at formal, do you think new members feel like they're under a bit of a microscope when it comes to how they treat their dates? Do you think they will be corrected if they do something wrong? Might that correction (done in a polite, nice way) create some "mental discomfort"? Yes, yes and yes.

So now, according to your newly minted definition, and perhaps my own organization's insanely vague definition, teaching etiquette and expecting members and new members alike to exhibit good manners is hazing.

In order to be initiated, our new members are required to reach a certain GPA. The GPA they are required to reach is different from that which is required to remain a member. Is requiring that new members get good grades hazing? Again, you'd be the only person in the history of the world to think that, so choose your answer carefully.

So basically, everything is hazing and everything any Greek group does has to be geared to coddle the weakest member.

The thing is - Greek membership IS NOT EASY. Has it occurred to you that if someone's a chronic worrier that sitting through hours of membership selection as a sister isn't exactly going to be the best thing for her? Should someone who can't handle being around alcohol at all really join a fraternity who doesn't overindulge but does offer alcohol at their parties? Someone who's suicidal should work that out with a psychiatrist or a counselor at the student center - NOT expect a group of 18-22 year olds to help him/her through it just because he/she is a pledge. 18-22 year olds shouldn't be doing that.

Pledgeship is training for active brotherhood or sisterhood. If you find out during pledgeship that it's not for you, you can quit. Greek life is not for everyone, and it's time we stopped pretending it is.

The voluntary versus involuntary isn't a strong argument so the grey area isn't because of that.

99% of the hazing is technically voluntary, ranging from technically allowing someone to paddle you to allowing yourself to be "forced" to drink gallons of water or alcohol.

Even the alleged milder forms of hazing like scavenger hunts are voluntary but we all know that people do these things because they think they should. People who refuse to go through these things will be treated accordingly--and in most chapters that means that their experience will be made into a nightmare.

So voluntarily being hazed, enjoying some of the experiences, and thinking that what you went through is a reasonable rite of passage doesn't change anything. You were still hazed, based on many definitions, and what you experienced can always be taken to an extreme if placed in the wrong hands. That applies to the hazing of 50 years ago and the hazing of today.

The REAL grey area is that we know that some people are responsible and don't take power to the extreme so they aren't hoping to truly physically or mentally damage people (I acknowledge that "truly" is subjective). However, as I said before, the hazing laws exist because "some people" isn't enough insurance and people seeking membership have different physical and mental tolerance levels that aren't always considered. One pledge could do 300 pushups with ease and another not only can't but can end up in cardiac arrest because of it. Harmless or a "fluke" outcome of a hazing incident that justifies why hazing is illegal?

Eh--that's always our response but we know that much of the stuff isn't really training in that sense. Some of it is a rite of passage for the sake of a rite of passage and often a power differential effect. That works until it is taken too far.

Real training for active membership includes giving "pledges" assignments like program ideas and implementations. Teaching "pledges" how to interact with their future brothers and sisters--since they won't be running errands forever. But lo and behold that type of training can still be hazing if it is outside of the national organization's intake guidelines and the aspirants can't say "no" and still be treated the same as someone who says "yes."

And that right there is a big part of the problem. Folx have made pledging and hazing synonymous. Pledging is for bonding, hazing is for destruction. Pledging is commiting oneself to the ideals of the organization. Hazing is belittling the ideals of an organization, etc.

And I agree, it is far from being a black or white issue. There are many grey areas.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Per cheerfulgreek's definition of hazing there really is no point of having pledge classes......because you'll probably be hazing them all the time and not even know your doing it because, evidently, everything is hazing: studying, learning about the fraternity, learning how to dress and act like a gentleman, etc. etc. etc.

...and for the record CG, I never said you were dumb or that your post was dumb. I said that the idea that a pledge shouldn't have any say or comments on the conduct of his actives in an alleged hazing incident is dumb.

Just today I was at a job interview. Both of the interviewers were women.
Both of them commented on how it was rare to find and see a man stand up when a woman walked into a room.

True, my parents taught me that. However my Fraternity reinforced it.
And I was taught it , not hazed.

Yeah this is another grey area that I forgot about in my post. :p

What is pledging versus hazing differs. What is considered a bonding activity differs.

Making what up?! How in the hell can I make up an opinion?!

I said hazers justify actions that are outside the range of human behavior. I hardly would classify what you posted, hazing.

Everyone is coming up with all sorts of definitions and POVs.
Perhaps one should take some time to read the following definitions-not based on law per se just common sense:
http://www.stophazing.org/mythsandfacts.html
http://www.hazing.cornell.edu/myths.html
http://www.stophazing.org/definition.html
http://www.insidehazing.com/definitions.php

This is correct.

Pledgeship is doing what's required to gain full membership in an organization, but it is NOT meant for potential new members to exert themselves by doing exercises, allowing themselves to be manhandled, paddled, beaten, encouraged to drink alcohol or to drink or eat concoctions, ect ect.

macallan, I wouldn't consider this hazing. Of course pledge classes have to be held in order to learn about the organization and to prepare for sisterhood/brotherhood, but when it interferes with academic work, or when binge drinking starts, or when someone is beaten, paddled or made to do anything where his/her health is effected in a negative way, then that's when we have a hazing problem on our hands.

About the "dumb" comment, I guess I misunderstood you. I'm sorry.

Really? Try looking at your own definition of hazing:

I described each of those scenarios to fit within your offered definition. Perhaps it's not so "black and white" after all?

o.k. Kevin, maybe it's not, but I think you have an understanding of what I classify as hazing.

But the list of 14 things you posted goes FAR beyond physical abuse.

As for stophazing.org, I'd take anything that media whore says with an exceedingly large grain of salt.

Yep. As quoted above, I understand perfectly.

Your hazing policy is just about as dangerously ambiguous and gray as what most schools and organizations have as their own hazing policies.

I like my state's definition of the word:


I think that Oklahoma's hazing policy (full statute at 21 O.S. 1190) is a lot more clear than what we find with most of our organizations.

You might find "endangers the mental health or physical health" part to be ambiguous, but note that the standard applied there is that the action has to be at least reckless. That essentially forecloses the study hall/etiquette/dressing up examples I provided above as being hazing, which I still think that following your definition and many of our organizations' definitions, those things could be hazing.

Aside from all that, what you really ought to pay attention to is that the state of Oklahoma's definition and your own are two different things. It follows that what you might call hazing, the state of Oklahoma would not. That is what essentially proves the point that the definition of hazing is not a "black and white" issue as you so hotly contend.

The situation here is this: What is or is not hazing ultimately depends on the definition employed by the group or individual making that determination. What is and is not hazing is not always readily identifiable.

What's the point of reinforcing the grey area of "common sense?"

o.k. but isn't what you posted in the smaller font similar to what I covered in my definition of hazing? How is my definition any different?

Because the endangerment has to be reckless or intentional.

I already covered that. Go reread my post.

Well, I do not know if you took the time to read all or even any of the links.
So for common sense:
All chapters operate under the following:
1) Their National laws, rules and regulations.
2) Their schools rules and regulations including anti-hazing and Student Code of Conduct.
3) Any and all local, State and National laws, rules and regulations.

And we all know that all of those are different every where.

So here are some links from a rather large Southern School covering most, if not all, of the above:
http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/eve...Memorandum.pdf
http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/eve...memorandum.php
http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/sjs/conduct.php
http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs.../app/appf.html
http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/gle...n-Summer05.pdf
http://www.stophazing.org/laws/tx_law.htm

Now there have been posters in many of the threads here in RM that have indicated that the hazing goes on at the "upper tier chapters" and no one cares. Well:

In accordance with

Penalty issued February 7, 2006 (Cancelled through

February 6, 2007; Suspended through February 6, 2008; Probation
through February 6, 2009).
• Lambda Phi Epsilon Penalty issued December 20, 2005 (Cancelled
through December 19, 2011; Suspended through December 19, 2012;
Probation through December 19, 2013).
• Sigma Phi Omega Penalty issued September 15, 2005 (Suspended
through December 31, 2005; Probation through December 31, 2006).
• alpha Kappa Delta Phi Penalty issued April 25, 2005 (Suspended
through April 25, 2006; Probation through April 26, 2007).
• Sigma Alpha Epsilon Extended probation.
• Kappa Alpha Order Penalty issued December 14, 2004 (Cancelled
through December 31, 2006; Suspended through December 31, 2007;
Probation through December 31, 2008).
• Pi Lambda Phi Penalty issued December 9, 2003 (Probation
through December 5, 2004).
• Sigma Chi Penalty issued April 26, 2004 (Cancelled through May
31, 2007; Suspended through May 31, 2008; Probation through
December 31, 2008).
• Sigma Alpha Mu Penalty issued December 7, 2001 (Suspended
through February 15, 2002; Probation through 2003). Penalty issued
December 2002 (Cancelled through December 31, 2004; Suspended
through December 31, 2005; Probation through December 7, 2007.
• Alpha Phi Alpha Penalty issued April 16, 2001 (Cancelled through

December 31, 2003; Probation through December 31, 2004).

My point (since your links were about nonlegal definitions and debunking myths):
There should be few hazing definitions and policies based on "common sense" because what is "common sense" to me isn't "common sense" to everyone. Everything should be based on the legal definition, wherever it comes from.

True Story:
Years ago, I had a fraternity member say to me "you've never loved an organization or appreciated it until you've almost died for it." That stupid stuff makes complete sense to him and a lot of people. They would consider that pledging and not hazing and judge others' love for their organization based on that. Call them crazy but they call us crazy.

It's all a harmless difference of opinion until someone gets hurt and/or loses their charter.

Which is why I don't talk about "common sense" when it comes to hazing. ;)

Read the links I gave above from the Southern School. Some of them are just about common sense rules and laws.
I do believe that we are on the same page.
I lost my home chapter because of a combination of violations of hazing and student code violations. "Dumb, dumber, and dumbest".

Those 'penalties' really don't do anything. At the worst, the chapter just leaves IFC, but that doesn't really affect much. SAE couldn't have parties at the house for awhile but those were extreme circumstances, they're fine now.

I knew that Bows.;)
However it would seem as if TPTB on campus have given rather clear "notice" to all students.
And that is generally not done just to keep an Ad min busy for a day or two.
And it is TPTB, much more than IFC, that has control over matters. And leaving IFC is just the ez way to go.
And unfortunately that is something most students just to not care or wish to understand until it is too late.
And yes, I am speaking from experience.:(

Is there any realy common sense when it comes to hazing?:mad::rolleyes:

All I can say is wow... I was NOT expecting that, lol...

Okay, I selected the wrong function and merged all of the posts in that topic into one. Then I found the right function and moved them to the "Hazing Tradition" thread. Please go there to continue. Sorry for the confusion.

*This got mixed up into the other thread, but I intended to post it here*


I don't know where to post this, but here is just as good a place as anywhere else I guess.

My son is a Boy Scout and a rep from the Order of the Arrow came to talk at his Boy Scout meeting because it was time for elections for OA. There was a video that was played where they talked about what Order of the Arrow is and about the Ordeal that the kids go through in order to join. During the Ordeal, they must sleep alone outdoors, go a full day without talking while doing service and then there is an initiation type ceremony. They said in this video, very specifically "This is not hazing and we do not haze. This is not like a fraternity initiation with hazing..."

This bothered me on two levels because 1) Everything they do that weekend would be considered hazing by most NIC groups and 2) How dare they imply that all fraternity initiations involve hazing?

Anyway, just wanted to vent with that.

As an Arrorman, I'll quickly agree with your second point.

As to your first point, I think it points up how the current climate has led some groups to throw the baby out with the bathwater as to what constitutes hazing. I think I've said before here at GC that my ordeal weekend was one of the most memorable of my life. I do not consider anything that happened to me that weekend, including the sleeping alone under the stars, the meager meals, the silence or the work, to have been hazing.

I think they were trying to emphasize that it's all supervised and nobody would be harmed, but I was offended that they used a fraternity as the opposite example, especially SINCE those activities would be considered hazing by the fraternities. You know if a fraternity did that, they would get in trouble for hazing. I'm not worried about son going through the O of A ordeal weekend. He has to wait until fall anyway since he won't have his first class until the court of honor being held two weeks after the O of A weekend. It was just the irony of the statement.

I cannot see my son going that long without talking, but he has surprised me with Boy Scout stuff. He does all kinds of things for them that he won't do at home..lol. This weekend, they are camping at Fort Wayne and spending the weekend cleaning up the grounds. I can't get the kid to help me clean up our own yard!

I say, if you want to get hazed then that is your stupidity. If you believe that putting your hands on me is proof of sisterhood, then you are not the sister for me. After weeks of getting your behind whipped, the people over the lines wonder why their neos do not get along and they do not want to work together. It is your fault. I hope that one day, people will be smart and stop allowing other people to whip their behinds to be accepted.

"Hazing" has a completely different definition now than it had in past years. Of course anything physical is (and always has been) regarded as hazing but today hazing is anything outside of your organization's Membership Intake program (which is in compliance with the schools' anti-hazing policies and state laws). So much of what many members never regarded as hazing is in fact considered hazing today. In other words, pledging (which back in the day wasn't regarded as hazing) is hazing today. Many would like to see some form of the pledge process (minus what many consider to be "true" hazing) re-instated for various reasons.