My husband is part of a nonhazing chapter of TKE. He has been out of school for 15 years and is still tight with his brothers. We had a dozen of his brothers at our wedding and we take vacations together 3 times a year. Trust me, this is a chapter that does things right, has awesome alumni communication and gets money from their alum when they need it. He actually gets a newsletter that is around 8 pages 2-3 times a year.
You don't need to haze to have a strong brotherhood or sisterhood.

i was talking about joining a football team....

my chapter doesnt haze anyways

Last I checked, fraternities did not have physical standards like the military does, nor should they not allow members with disabilities (your quote seems to indicate otherwise)...

If it's so important to you that you have to cut those that can't measure up, are your "brothers" "men" enough to advertise your hazing regimen? "Rush (GLO name here)! We'll beat the crap out of you!"

Hazing is wrong. Period. What seriously forces people to accept inhuman and degrading rituals in order to belong to an organization? I don't think the punishment for hazing is severe enough. Those who are caught hazing, get off way too easily unless they lose civil suits, and even then it's the parents who do the paying. The system of hazing still has not been changed. I think in order to change it, and put an end to it, stiffer penalties have to be imposed when someone dies or is injured. I think hazers need to be sent to minimum security prisons where they would have to take mandatory courses in some kind of behavior control.

The problem is that "hazing" is so vague. It's a joke. "Hazing" can be practiced without degrading anyone or putting them in any danger. All this has already been mentioned, but based on your post I'm not sure if you read it. It's not a black and white issue. "But it's illegal blah blah". To that I say, "do you drink? are you 21? do you ever speed?". To that you might say, "but hazing is more dangerous"...well not necessarily. We could go on forever with this issue. There is no definitive answer.

In the case of certain groups/systems, if these people need to be made into better individuals (through hazing methods per each org.) why are they getting bids in the first place? I wouldn't write a rec or bid a woman who didn't meet our standards, and what happens in the new member period and throughout membership should be polishing of qualities that already exist.

If I remember right, BigRedBeta said of men given bids by his chapter "we look for men who are Betas or hold Beta qualities, and may not know it" and I think that's an excellent way to find quality people and not deal with risk management or the university bringing sanctions.

I read some of it. I'm not sure if I repeated another post or not. I was just posting my opinion on the whole issue.
It's not a black and white issue?:confused: Uhmm, yes it is a black and white issue, and no it is not a joke. Hazing actually is an extraordinary activity, and when it happens too often, then it becomes perversely ordinary, and for those individuals who engage in it, grow desensitized to its inhumanity. We already know hazing can lead to death, and serious injury, as it has done every year since the 70s. It leads to death and serious injury when rituals bring out members innate propensity for violence. Also violent, aggressive members who act out toward pledges use them as scapegoats through which to vent their own frustrations. Now, binge drinking has become ritualistic in many universities. I think houses need to be more heavily supervised by responsible adults.

No, it's not that black and white. The problem is that we have about umpteen+ different definitions of hazing floating around out there. It's easy enough, for example, to say that hazing is illegal and think that has settled the argument, but each state has its own hazing laws. What may constitute hazing in one state does not constitute hazing in another state. Where I live, one must subject another student to physical injury for it to meet the legal definition of hazing. In other jurisdictions, subjecting someone to mental or emotional distress may meet the definition.

Then there are GLO definitions and institutional definitions, where sometimes the definition is loose enough to cover almost anything that differentiates between pledges/new members and actives. That's why you'll find pages of arguments on GC about whether it's hazing to require pledges to wear their pledge pins, with some people remaining adamant that it is, even though the policies of some GLOs expect pledges to wear their pledge pins almost all of the time.

I'm not defending hazing, not at all. But as long as people are using different, sometimes vastly different, definitions of hazing, its anything but black and white. It seems to me that all too often the arguments in these thread suffer from a lack of common understanding or agreement about what hazing actually encompasses.

And that's my point, as any such practices, by many definitions would not be considered hazing to begin with.

For example, most hazing statements contain prohibitory clauses against practices "which might cause mental discomfort."

-- study hall is hazing?
-- requiring people to attend meeting is hazing?
-- requiring people to pay attention in meeting and not goof off is hazing?

That sort of clause, I think (and it's in Sigma Nu's policy) is a nice catch all clause which makes it really difficult (impossible) to know whether a practice runs afoul of the policy or not.

I understand your point. And as others have noted, I too have an issue when hazing acts are not clearly defined. However, if something is illegal, well duh, it is illegal.

If you are under 21 and caught drinking, you can go to jail. If you are caught speeding, you can be fined. You may loose your license. You might even end up in jail. Even if you have not really put yourself or anyone else in harms way. As such, my point is that you (the general you) are taking a risk when you do something illegal. Even if it may not seem to be harmful. And this is the reason that illegal hazing acts fall under Risk Management.

To be clear, I do not think that all so called hazing acts are illegal. But if a specific act has been defined as illegal by the State, or by the University, or by your HQ, or by your chapter, then it is simply illegal.

But that's the problem. Very few things ARE "specific" or "defined." And even if there is a list of things, too often that "anything else which might cause physical or mental discomfort" phrase gets thrown in, and anyone who wants to take a chapter down can try to do so.

As I've said, my all time favorite is the sorority pledge from my campus who pointed out that she was being hazed by having to go to the anti-hazing workshop (since it was mandatory for all pledges and initiated members did not have to attend). Silly, but honestly, if you want to walk that kind of walk, she was 100% right.

I love it. I hope she became panhellenic president!

You are so right. It is the activities that are kind of general and non specific that often are the issue. If we go back to the driving example, it may be legal to drive at 70 MPH on the interstate in one state. But as soon as you cross the state line, the legal limit may be 65 MPH. As such, the same activity is legal in one, and not the other. So if you want to be safe, you know that you should never drive above 65 regardless of the speed limit.

So if this could be applied to GLOs, then maybe all the national organizations can set down and say, 65 MPH is going to be the limit regardless of the state. That way, we will never be breaking the law. And all chapters of all groups will have the same policy.

As for the less defined or specific acts, again I think there has to be some sort of clear and unified definition. I know many of us have said that. As such, I feel we need to find and define the so called "65 MPH limit". And if a specific organization wants to go above and beyond that (drop the speed limit to 60 MPH to use that example) that would be ok as well.

The sooner there is a unified definition, the better for all chapters.

How is this not a black and white issue? Hazing is hazing, whether on or off campus premises, and it's designed to produce mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment or ridicule.

Student guidelines often maintain that hazing can take place with or without the consent of the pledges being hazed. Schools fail to press charges if pledges have consented to some aspects of hazing, and this is a major problem.

What I get upset about is that the public and the media view hazing as primarily a college fraternity and sorority problem. Really, it's also been a social problem in the United States on amateur and professional athletic teams, in high schools, spirit clubs, bands, the military, and even in some occupations and professions.

All schools can suspend or expel students who haze and they know they can, but juducial groups made up of faculty, staff, and students are reluctant to term an action "hazing", which prevents justice from happening. I totally disagree with you about it not being a black and white issue. People just don't want to term it as such.

Hazing is:

1. Serving members, running errands, performing so called favors

2. Any kind of intimidation, use of derogatory terms to refer to pledges, terrorize, use verbal abuse or create a hostile environment

3.Engaging in acts of degradation such as required nudity, partial stripping, rules forbidding bathing, and playing disrespectful games.

4. Engaging in rough rituals involving physical force, paddling, beatings, calisthenics, and sexually demeaning behavior

5. Singing explicit songs as well as performing sexist, racist, or anti semitic acts, including denying someone membership in a glo on the basis of religion, or skin color. Oh, and lets not forget ancestry. (what's in the past, is in the past!)

6. Employing deception and deceptive psychological mind games

7. Suffering from sleep deprivation.

8. Coerce or be coerced by others to consume any substance, drugs, alcohol, rather they are of legal drinking age or not.

9. Keeping pledge books that require alumni members or big sis/big brothers to sign them.

10. Participating in road trips and kidnapping pledges or any type of abandonment.

11. Requiring the use of peer pressure to get someone to undergo branding or tattooing. Any mutilation of the skin. Period.

12. Participating in dousing of initiates involving dangerous substances or chemicals, animal scents, urine/feces (human or animal) retrieving objects from toilets or anything that's unsanitary. Eating spoiled foods that are capable of transmitting diseases or bacterial infections.

13. Making someone eat/drink anything he/she does not want to eat/drink

14. Making pledges learn fraternity/sorority history that interferes with academics.

15. Requiring pledges to wear silly or unusual clothing

I don't think I left anything out. Hazing falls under these guidelines, so there shouldn't be a question of what hazing is or isn't. Yes, it is a black and white issue, and one of the biggest problems of hazing is after it's been eradicated at a particular school, it seems to always come back. Guys, really! We all know what hazing is. Every state and university knows what it is and what it involves. It's not a grey topic.

There are grey areas. I've heard of fraternities trading pledges with another chapter for "hell weekend." Who gets punished there?
What if the pledges do all of these things voluntarily?
Once again, my chapter does not ever haze, but I know of others GLOs that do and have talked about it to my friends in other fraternities. We do #14 but it doesn't interfere with academics, my pledge class had a higher GPA than the fraternity (which is above the all-male average as well).

In answer to your question: Both could be.
Questions like yours truly get answered when TPTB, either school, local town, and/or HO, get involved and start enforcing regs et al.
None of us here can truly answer questions of than nature.
Unless it has already happened to them directly.