Eating off the floor, as in, they're not good enough to sit down at a table and eat like real men? They have to eat around a toilet?

I don't care how clean it is, I wouldn't eat off the floor for anyone. I'm an adult that commands respect, and will give it freely, unless some jerk makes me do something that compromises my dignity, at which time, they get no love.

Defend it all you want, it's still wrong, illegal, and completely pointless.

1) Its not wrong
2) Its not illegal

They can leave anytime they want.

Also, this entire thing about "what, like they're not good enough to eat off a table?" Do you guys think before you type? I told you what the point is, its not like they eat there for every meal. We've never had a pledge say "I'm too dignified for this," in fact they almost always think its funny. They're scared, but then when realizing the point, know that they've done a good enough job to where its perfectly safe for them to eat off it. You can't be "dignified" and join my fraternity. If we say, hey take out that trash, and you go "no, that degrades me," I'll show you where the door is.

1. It IS illegal. 44 states have anti-hazing laws. In fact, of the six that don't, the only one that I would count as "southern" even is New Mexico, and that's definitely not part of the "Old South" as we know it.

Hazing is any act that endangers the physical welfare of a member, initiated or not initiated. It is also any act that includes shaming or humiliation of a member. Forcing one to eat off the floor, I think that would fall under the shame aspect. I'm quoting Pennsylvania law here, but I've seen the laws for many of our Southern friends, and they're very, VERY similar.

"The term shall include, but not be limited to, any brutality of a physical nature, such as whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the elements, forced consumption of any food, liquor, drug or other substance, or any other forced physical activity which could adversely affect the physical health and safety of the individual, and shall include any activity which would subject the individual to extreme mental stress, such as sleep deprivation, forced exclusion from social contact, forced conduct which could result in extreme embarrassment, or any other forced activity which could adversely affect the mental health or dignity of the individual, or any willful destruction or removal of public or private property."

Emphasis mine.

Taking out the trash is CHORES. Everyone does chores. Eating off the floor is a completely different ball of yarn.

Fraternity members, including those that are not yet initiated, should have a sense of personal dignity. In fact, it's those with dignity that we should be recruiting. The greek system itself is supposed to heighten a personal sense of dignity, not tear it down.

ETA: It's easy to find anti-hazing laws. They're all posted at http://www.stophazing.org/laws.html .
The six states that do not have anti-hazing laws are Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming.

Slight hijack, but what are the other five states that don't have anti-hazing laws?

Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming.

Like I said, not forced imprisonment or anything, they can leave anytime they want. We aren't holding guns to their heads. You'd have a hard time proving that the option of eating off a clean and basically sterilized floor is adversely effecting mental health. If somebody is that fragile, I certainly don't want them in my fraternity. I think its sad that the government is so concerned over what PEOPLE CHOOSE TO DO TO THEMSELVES. What a pathetic society we live in where peoples self esteem must be held above all else. No wonder people don't start acting like adults until later in life. They are not given any responsibility, nor do they have to take any. They are coddled and made to feel included even when they are not. Frankly, I don't want a fraternity full of boys who get offended at the slightest thing or are constantly on the verge of an emotional breakdown. Thankfully there are places where it is still ok to be a man.

4. any activity that intimidates or threatens the student with
ostracism that subjects the student to extreme mental stress,
shame, or humiliation, or that adversely effects the student
from entering or remaining registered in an educational
institution, or that may reasonably be expected to cause a
student to leave the organization or the institution rather
than submit to acts described in this subsection;

That's TEXAS law.

Telling someone that if they don't eat off the floor they'll be shown the door? Yup, hazing. Yup, illegal.

Fight me all you want on this, my point is that IT IS ILLEGAL TO FORCE SOMEONE TO EAT OFF THE FLOOR. No matter how clean it is. It could be a floor cleaned by an act of God. It could be a hospital floor. It's still illegal.

ETA: I'd go so far as to say that it takes a real man to stop hazing. You can still be "manly men" while creating an environment that benifits all the individuals of that group. Hazing, in my eyes, is like children who have to make someone less than them so they can feel bigger about themselves.

Or you can get up and walk out. Not forced imprisonment. ANYTHING we do that may cause people to second guess, we always let them know they can leave. The fact that these laws exist are sickening. The fact that yall view them as some great and landmark victory is even more disgusting.

Wow you're just pulling all the stops out now. Are laws against killing, vandalizing, stealing, and beating the crap out of someone "sickening" now, too? Or are the people that support them "disgusting?" How do you feel about child molestation? Or molestation in general? Rape?

You notice, I'm pulling out stuff that has been done before as "initiation rites" to fraternities and sororities.

It's illegal for a reason. And those that support our laws? I agree, completely disgusting.

Oh congratulations. What a completely relevant post. You really made a great comparison, it wasn't extreme at all. Lets go back to what you posted earlier, in order to keep you from using completely unrelated examples...

4. any activity that intimidates or threatens the student with
ostracism that subjects the student to extreme mental stress,
shame, or humiliation, or that adversely effects the student
from entering or remaining registered in an educational
institution, or that may reasonably be expected to cause a
student to leave the organization or the institution rather
than submit to acts described in this subsection;

What I find disgusting, is that now you have a right not to be ostracized? You have a state law which protects you from shame and humiliation?

Oh you're right, feeling bad about yourself is the same as rape, or molestation, or being beaten. My bad.

"While alcohol use is common in many types of hazing, other examples of typical hazing practices include: personal servitude; sleep deprivation and restrictions on personal hygiene; yelling, swearing and insulting new members/rookies; being forced to wear embarrassing or humiliating attire in public; consumption of vile substances or smearing of such on one's skin; brandings; physical beatings; binge drinking and drinking games; sexual simulation and sexual assault."

Sexual simulation = Molestation
Sexual assault = Rape
Physical beatings = self explanatory
Humiliation = dur.

What do they all have in common? You guessed it! Good job! They're all forms of hazing.

You should brush up on your reading skills.

I am getting ALL of this information from personal experience and www.stophazing.org

Why should I read up? Who said anything about rape, or physical beatings? Just because some website says they are bad, does not mean they have any relevance. We don't beat, we certainly don't molest or rape. I imagine those things are fairly rare, and sure, lets have laws against them...SINCE WE ALREADY DO. Still has nothing to do with the point at hand.

You keep asking the significance of molestation, rape, beatings, vandalism, etc, when I've already pointed it out. The significance is that they fall under the same law as humiliation. Anti-hazing laws.

Have you ever seen someone that was arrested on many charges for the same action? Say, they beat their roommate up with a bowstaff used in martial arts, and they were charged with aggravated assault, possession of a deadly weapon, etc?

Same thing here. If a group forces their new members to spray paint something, anything really, on the side of a building, if they get caught, they'd be charged with vandalism and the group itself could be charged with hazing. For one act.

The relevance is that they are all forms of hazing, and they are all illegal. If you have a problem with those laws, write your state senator. I'm sure they'd LOVE to hear from you.

While you may or may not beat or molest your pledges, you'd be suprised at the number of chapters that do. That is the reason these laws are in place. It's not just fraternities, it's sororities, all either NPC, NPHC, NIC, or locals, it's military groups, it's university groups of upperclassmen against freshmen, it's sports teams.

There's hazing all over the place. My main point is that, no matter what kind of hazing you do, be it subtle, harassment, or violent, it should be up to the fine upstanding men and women who are members of the greek community to uphold our values and completely remove ourselves from being associated with groups that haze like sports teams, etc. The only way to do that is by stopping hazing.

If we say that we are so elite, why do we stoop to the level of groups that, on the whole, we see as "beneath us" in order to instill respect and pride in our new members? There are more constructive ways to reach this end.

You can't group all of this together. Just because it is listed in somebody's definition of hazing, under no circumstances means that roadtripping a kid or doing a lineup is the same as rape or beating. Military groups haze far worse than we would ever think of hazing. Their activities build strength and toughness, while ours are focused on building unity and responsibility.

We don't need to change the greek system. Plenty of great people went through the old system. For example, my father, the congressman I worked for last summer, President Bush, etc.

Nothing that we do conflicts with our creed or our fraternity ideals. Rather, it strengthens and instills them. We, as the greek system, hold ourselves to a higher standard. That requires that our members are more confident and more loyal than the average man on campus. Pledges do not usually come in with a great sense of responsibility or confidence. Thus, we use tasks and such to help prepare them for there role as a student and a leader both on campus and in the fraternity.

On a side note, I don't expect you to understand. Women often don't understand the male need to feel they have earned something. When I first got to school, we had a female head of Greek Life, and the concept was beyond her. However, I assure you it exists, at least down here. When I was pledge trainer we had to cut pledgeship short a couple of weeks, and upon being initiated and told what they were going to do their last few weeks, the new brothers felt cheated. As someone who was "hazed," I absolutely attest to its purpose. It was also quite enjoyable, and gave a great sense of accomplishment.

Zeta Beta Tau is a men's chapter that does not haze, nor does it pledge. www.zetabetatau.org

You can read their anti-hazing policy. They are ahead of the curve. There are also other fraternities (yes, for men, I'm not talking women's fraternities like mine here) that have either completely stopped hazing, such as Kyle's chapter of Sigma Nu, or are working to stop it.

Don't play the woman card with me. I was hazed too. It didn't foster unity, it didn't build me into a stronger woman, it made me literally hate the women that hazed the worst in my chapter. I'm not saying dislike, I'm saying hate, and for a reason.

Women haze sometimes just as badly as men, and sometimes in more disgusting ways. I'm too new to have had this done to me, but I know women that have had to wear feminine products around campus. With materials on them so as to make them look like they are not clean. You wanna talk humiliation?

Men and women can both be just as cruel to one another. Another form of "female" hazing is the feeding of the rumor mill. It can seriously adversely affect a new member.

I have no doubts that there are fraternities who don't have pledging or hazing. So what? I would have absolutely no desire to join an organization like that. Sigma Nu is one of the best fraternities on my campus, but they surely wouldnt be if they were an anti-hazing chapter as you mentioned

I'm fully aware females haze too, not my point. My point was that men feel the need to earn their way into an organization (at least down here, obviously not at places like Kyles chapter).

The instance of female hazing you mentioned sounds like the only point was to shame the new members. We don't do anything to shame people. Once again, everything has a purpose.

shiner, I would agree with you that it appears that guys and girls haze for different reasons and with different motivations. The big problem is when either goes too far and people get hurt/killed.

HQs, universities, and states have responded by shutting the whole system down (or trying to). There's got to be a better response than overreaction, but what will make members know how serious they are about "dangerous" hazing without preventing the "team-building" stuff?

yeah I'm not sure either. Perhaps fraternities should come with some sort of waiver. Not that you should be able to do anything to pledges, but seeing as they CHOOSE to pledge a fraternity, they should also have the responsibility of leaving if they decide they need to. If you're old enough to enter a group, you should also be old enough to leave on your own accord. I think a problem arises in that the national HQ's are pushing no hazing so hard, almost to the point of no pledgeship, and incoming students therefore have an expectation. Back in the day when hazing was more accepted, students knew what they were getting into. When we rush kids, we let them know that is isn't all hand holding, that it is tough. For the most part that has kept us from having any problem with students who thought it was gonna be a walkthrough.

That's an amazing statement.

You just accused a chapter of hazing, and said they couldn't be any good if they didn't. Do you know that for sure? How?

There's no way you can really know that, unless you've gone through the pledge process in Sigma Nu.

Simply because a chapter that doesn't haze is different from what you are familiar with, you're saying they can't be any good.

Unbelievable.

To be fair, some fraternities that preach "no hazing" turn around and haze. At least let your pledges know what they're getting into. I knew the pledges on campus who were trained to say "we don't haze" and I get why BUT if that's the line to the guys you're bidding, I say false advertising.

Have you ever had to pull fellow upperclassmen back from going to far?

That is a fair statement.

I wonder how it squares with their Ritual, Constitution/Bylaws and/or their founders values.

My guess is that those doing the hazing don't really care.

Yep. They also don't care about those who would hope to follow them since they're gambling with their charter.

Delt, its not that unbelievable. My point wasn't that Sigma Nu couldnt be a good fraternity without hazing (although I think hazing does help), but rather that they wouldnt be a good fraternity if they were one of the "Absolutely no hazing" chapters. There is a difference between fraternities who don't really haze much, and those who make it the focal point of their rush process. Now the following is a generalization, but I've also witnessed it to be true on several campuses...The fraternities who base their entire pledge program on no-hazing, generally attract the weakest candidates (here in the south). The guys we look for, as I've said before, are those who know something about fraternities and how we operate. Southern guys from good families usually know about rush and pledging and hazing, and therefore know that it isn't as bad as certain people and the media portray. Thus, they generally go to the top or middle tier fraternities, who usually do some sort of hazing. The kids who are attracted to the no-hazing fraternities are often unfamiliar with fraternities, from outside the south, and their family has no tradition of going greek. Thus, they are seeking more of a "greekchat," if you will, type of fraternity. They would rather be made brothers immediately, and have no desire to go through the journey that is pledging in the south. The no-hazing thing, in my experience, has often been used by struggling chapters to attract numbers. So what I'm saying is that among major southern universities, the chapters which loudly proclaim that they don't haze, are generally attracting people we don't want, and are generally having a tough time to start with.

So, what does that mean, then?

Meaning if they were one of those who loudly protested hazing, they probably wouldnt be the fraternity they are today. Now, if they suddenly just stopped hazing, but werent one of the outspoken chapters who focus on it, they would probably be pretty good for at least a while. I think at some point a complete ban on hazing (meaning what HQ considers hazing) would eventually weaken the quality of their membership. Also please note, I don't know what Sigma Nu does in pledgeship. I know that most fraternities on my campus do what those on here would call "hazing." I don't know of any fraternity who does the sort of hazing that leads to death, however. I am also aware of the fraternities on our campus who make no-hazing a selling point, and they generally are not considered to be good fraternities.

I'm not sure where in the process they are, but I hung out with a bunch of Auburn Sigma Nus at our national convention in '04. There were a lot of them there to support/lobby for a measure that would have lessened the number of men who would be qualified to be legacies. At any rate, I do get the feeling that they are a more traditional chapter in terms of intake. However, they were a Rock Chapter this year -- that means in the top 8 nationally (my chapter was an honorable mention after only existing for 4 years, but I digress).

To win the Rock Chapter award, they must have been participating in our national programming. I know for a fact that our Oklahoma State chapter has adopted the national programming, and they're top 8 as well.

At any rate, hazing has nothing to do with success. My chapter had the advantage of being able to start from scratch. In the 4 years since we got our charter, we're really on the cusp of being competitive on the same level as Oklahoma State or Auburn, and we don't haze at all. I know for a fact that one other organization hazes (my younger brother is a member), and I have strong suspicions as to the rest of the chapters on that campus. If Sigma Nu at my alma mater is able to be that different, and still get the best grades, be a dominant force in student government, compete strongly in greek week, and excel in intermurals without hazing, I tend to think that it can be done anywhere.

The South is a very traditional place, and Oklahoma tends to be a strange hybrid of northern/southern lifestyle. I think that you'd agree shinerbock that tradition is something that you can't just change overnight at southern schools. That said, I think that we have a definite movement away from hazing, and in the South, though that movement is lagging behind other places, we're still moving away.

I agree with you in part. But I think it will be a while before traditional southern chapters completely move away from "hazing"(never, I hope). Once again, when I say hazing, I mean making it a challenge for pledges to become members. This is not the CNN beating and force-drinking hazing. Sigma Nu at Auburn is a very good chapter, and I have heard from people (and I've seen this as well), that legacies may be hurting them. Don't get me wrong, legacies are most often a plus, but when you have tons of them coming through, you're bound to get some ones you'd rather not have. Do I think hazing creates good chapters? No. Do I think smart and purposeful hazing creates a quality and strong brotherhood? Yes. I do still think there is a correlation between strict anti-hazing chapters and being bottom tier, at least here in the south.

It's happening though -- or at least, it's being changed into something we might not be afraid to invite a High Council member to watch. Our Oklahoma State chapter, for example has made some pretty huge changes in the last few years. They're certainly top tier on that campus (and they'd probably be top tier anywhere else). I'm not sure to what extent they've changed, but they really have. Their alums rewarded them with 2.5 million in money for rennovations, so everything's working out nicely.

This is part of the problem with our aversion to hazing. We lump all of these activities together. While I may disagree with you in terms of the utility of things like lineups, and pledge challenges, I think we'd both agree that those types of things have no business being lumped together with what we see on CNN as you say. I think we can all agree that type of activity simply should not happen, and I think we'd all agree that whoever does participate in activities like that should be shut down.

Actually, I think we've changed up our legacy policy. Those guys were right. I understand why the legacy system is in place, but I really think it should be up to the chapter as to whether or not to implement it. Some chapters need help getting good guys, others need help keeping bad guys out. National policy's number one objective should be to stay out of the way of local chapters unless what they're doing is directly beneficial to the local chapters.

-- and if we want to continue that discussion, we can do it in Chapter Operations :)

Correlation does not equal causation though. Let's look at why most of those chapters are strict anti-hazing in the first place.

First, we can assume either one of two things -- both of which are bad in the South:

1) It's a new chapter; or
2) The chapter has been in trouble, is a recolonization, is on probation from their national, etc.

If we can agree that these types of chapters with a few exceptions are principally one of the above two types, I think we can see why they're at a disadvantage in the first place.

The new chapter doesn't have the advantage of tradition. In the South, I think this is a huge disadvantage. Guys are looking for established houses with active alumni networks. Given the choice between houses that have this and houses that don't, I think that it's obvious what type of group most would choose to belong to.

If the chapter has been in trouble, is a recolonization, etc. this is self-explanatory. Of course, it's not always the case. I don't have much insight, but our Arkansas chapter just recolonized. Their alums built them a multi-million dollar house with an excellent location while they were still a colony. I imagine that they're also a strong anti-hazing chapter since these guys probably have no exposure to anything but what our HQ has given them in terms of national programming, but I understand there are exceptions to every rule. It'll be interesting to see if we can repeat this feat in the South as we're recolonizing at Vandy this year.

On my campus at least, we havent seen much of the "getting into trouble" type. Fraternities that get in trouble and stay on campus, generally are more careful, but do revert to old practices. The "No-Hazing" type fraternities are generally one of the following, in my experience.

1) New on campus, like you said. Often they are fraternities which although big nationwide, are thought poorly of at the big southern schools. I won't name names, but you can ask me in PM if you actually wanna know. They generally have a tough time competing with the other fraternities, and thus use the no hazing policy to attract rushees. Unfortunately for them, the kids they attract generally couldnt go elsewhere, and so 5-10 years later, they're in the same position.

2) A fraternity that has been around for a while, but has a strict national policy or is a struggling fraternity. To clarify, most of the big fraternities on campus are paid no attention to by HQ. They often use them as examples for operations, but rarely pay attention to what else is going on, probably out of the desire to not know. Those chapters whose HQ do pay close attention, however, are often forced to implement such things, or risk losing money, insurance, etc. There are only a couple on campus like this that I can think of. The other type is a struggling fraternity who like a new fraternity, is looking to move up. Unfortunately, the practice of being a strict no hazing fraternity generally attracts the wrong people, and thus their efforts are self defeating.

Something to think about!

Subject: Doing time in AZ


Sheriff Joe Arpaio (in Arizona ) who created the "tent city jail":
>
> He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates
for them.
>
> He stopped smoking and porno magazines in the jails. Took away their
weights. Cut off all but "G" movies.
>
> He started chain gangs so the inmates could do free work on county
and city projects.
>
> Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for
discrimination.
>
> He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court
order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV
again only let in the Disney channel and the weather channel.
>
> When asked why the weather channel he replied, so they wil! l know
how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.
>
> He cut off coffee since it has zero nutritional value.
>
> When the inmates complained, he told them, "This isn't the
Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back."
>
> He bought Newt Gingrich lecture series on videotape that he pipes
into the jails.
>
> When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat,
he replied that a democratic lecture series might explain why a lot of
the inmates were in his jails in the first place.
>
>
>
> More on the Arizona Sheriff:
>
> With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116
degrees just set a new record), the Associated Press reports: About
2,000 inmates living in a barbed-wire-surrounded tent encampment at the
Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their
government-issued pink boxer shorts.
>
> ! On Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing boxers were either curled up
on their bunk beds or chatted in the tents, which reached 138 degrees
inside the week before.
>
> Many were also swathed in wet, pink towels as sweat collected on
their chests and dripped down to their pink socks.
>
> "It feels like we are in a furnace," said James Zanzot, an inmate who
has lived in the tents for 1 year. "It's inhumane."
>
> Joe Arpaio, the tough-guy sheriff who created the tent city and long
ago started making his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches,
is not one bit sympathetic He said Wednesday that he told all of the
inmates: "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents
too, and they have to wear full battle gear, but they didn't commit any
crimes, so shut your damned mouths!"
>
> Way to go, Sheriff! Maybe if all prisons were like this one there
would be a lot less crime and/or repeat offenders. Criminals should be
punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for their
parole, only to go out and commit another crime so they can get back in
to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things taxpayers can't afford to
have for themselves.
>


Well, while it doesnt seem to seem anything to say, if you do the crime, then you do the time!:)

Not sure thats relevant, but good post Tom. Glad to see there are people on this site who feel everybody in society does not have the right to be coddled and encouraged.

Thank You, but is this not true as We have been discussing?:)

Dont do the crime as it were, dont do the crime!

Stupid is as Stupid does?:o

Tom, i have no idea what this means.

The house isn't built yet. It's going to run them about 5.4 million dollars, since Don Tyson (SN alumn) gave them 1.7 mill. It is in a great location, HOWEVER it was not built while they were a colony. It is being built as we speak, and will be livable at the start of next year.

As shiner said, new row fraternities are often thought poorly of. Usually nationally if a fraternity is founded after 1900, it is not looked well upon, but there are exceptions (lambda chi, LSU...).

Thanks for the correction -- that's going to be a nice house. 5.4 million will get you a pretty nice place in Fayetville.

5.4 million dollars - !

My house is super old on campus - it was formerly the house for the Perishing Rifle Club or whatever, and it's only like $300,000 - TOPS. Of course, a house that holds nine for a group of 40 women works out well enough for all of us - none of the chapters on my campus have houses that are that huge!

Well I mean, when you build a house to handle 100 people, with 30-50 in house, it gets up there. Especially when you make it southern mansion style...https://www.omegafi.com/apps/homesit...s/nu_house.jpg

And I don't think that house was close to 5 million (of course property in Auburn is like 10 cents from the university)

I believe the Sigma Nu house was built to house a hundred, I think the article said that there would be 53 some suites, and at 2 people a suite, around 106 people. It's definitely not the biggest house on campus, but it'll be around that way. One of the smaller fraternities on campus was told that if it made 1 million in alumn donations, the university would give it 4 mill. Not bad.