Eh, nothing really happened to be completely honest. That website isn't much of a reliable source.

I believe my sorority has done an agressive campaign to stop hazing from stiff penalties to sanctions and to the way we bring in new members. We have zero tolerance for hazing and this is communicated through our sorority to undergraduates and graduates. I don't see the sense of continuing an outdated practice just for tradition's sake.

We don't continue them for "tradition's sake." We continue them because they work.

So you will continue to risk expulsion from campus and the university and possible lawsuits and felony charges in the name of tradition!

All while people like you will continuously throw out things like lawsuits and breaking the law.

The majority of banned hazing isn't beating pledges. It includes things like lineups, making them dress well, football practice, cleaning, activities which build brotherhood and teamwork...

Those things usually don't lead to lawsuits or felonies.

The topic I resonded to was hazing, I know the difference between hazing and pledging- do you?

You obviously don't know the difference according to most universities and national fraternities. All of the things I've listed are considered hazing at some if not all universities and by HQ.

Its pretty clear that you actually don't know the difference. Lineups, cleaning, dress codes, etc. are considered hazing now if I am not mistakened. I don't see someone filing a law suit or kicking chapters off campus for things like that.

oh wow.

even mandatory study hours at some universities is considered hazing

For the sake of repeating what some don't seem to grasp, the definition(s) of hazing usually weren't made by national organizations or their chapters, but rather by lawmakers and university administrators, often as a kneejerk reaction to some lawsuit over a more serious situation. They simply used a scattergun approach and declared everything they could think of as hazing.

Since insurance companies don't insure things that are "illegal," the organizations have to cover their -- uh, backsides in terms of liability.

It really isn't a matter of what I think, what you think or what they think -- when it's the law there's really no recourse.

I know a lot of national officers, division officers and advisors. None of them want to be a negative force for chapters and members, there just isn't any choice. They didn't pass the laws, but they absolutely have to obey them.

There are at least two dynamics here -- one corporate and one personal.

As an advisor or alumni officer, there's no way that I will/can overlook proscribed behavior. First, because the actions of one chapter can have a devistating on the organization as a whole, and second (even with insurance), I can't allow myself to become liable for the actions of a group of undergraduates that could have devistating effects on my family.

Hazing as defined by member education programs and hazing defined by the law is different.

Hazing by law: Denying food, water...exposure to heat/cold...physical abuse

Hazing by campus/HQ: The above, and also things like personal favors, cleaning, wearing a coat and tie to class...I don't see where those things are insurance liabilities or against the law.

If it were only that simple. Hazing, as defined by law, varries from state to state and sometimes smaller governmental units.

There is no one or single set of definitions, and therein lies a large part of the reason for such wide interpretations of what constitutes hazing.

Well you're absolutely right that it varies. However, I have yet to see state laws banning coat and tie.

One can form a definition for most anything be it pledging or hazing. However, I am referring to blatant forms of hazing resulting in criminal penalties, lawsuits, expulsion, revocation of chapters etc which contribute overall to a hazing environment and results in the abuse or death of potential initiates. That is what most national greek organizations are being faced with because those members are reluctant to break with their tired traditions which result in adverse consequences and putting the national organizations at risk.