We never had that issue with AIM profiles, sisters didn't care what was up there, as long as it was positive. For some reason, it was all about those stitched block letters :rolleyes: But I can tell you, it felt so good to wear them finally the day of initiation and know that everyone who saw me in them knew I was a sister and not just a NM. :D

While that may be your personal definition of hazing, that's not the one used by HQs. Did you wear your sorority colors every day? Since you would have been proud to do so even though it wasn't a requirement?

Due to your phrasing, I'm guessing no. Why? Because you weren't required.

BTW, stop please with the "your chapter and you" thing. Think about (Inter)Natonal HQs... not chapters.

Whether you're 'proud of it' or not, it's still hazing.

Yes and no. Yes, sisters are to wear letters; it encourages interest. As far as NMs, if they didn't want to wear letters we wouldn't make them; nor would we require them not to. We would ask them to, but if they didn't, it's not a big deal. It depends on how things are run.

Regardless of what you 'feel', it's hazing. Sorry that your definition doesn't match the law.


I would be careful about how you are representing ZTA in this thread. You're advocating hazing, you know. And as all GCers know, it's easy to find out who someone is. I'd just be more careful.

Do you mean to tell me that nothing you had in your new member period would constitute hazing by "the law?" I find that hard to believe.

The bold emphasis is mine... but that's all that stood out to me from this post. I saw the change in terminology during my college years - I was a pledge, when I left, the new girls were NMs. Even having been called a pledge, I don't think any initiated sister (in my chapter - gotta get that disclaimer in there) would have called us "JUST" a pledge (or NM).

That's part of the attitude that drives the hazing argument - you're basically saying that NMs are lesser people than initiated sisters.

Yes, I really do mean that. I cannot think of ONE THING that would be considered hazing.

How can a feeling of pride be hazing? She's not saying anyone made her do anything. Plus, you have no idea who the other groups were or what their policies are, so you have a lot of balls trying to say that something they required their pledges to do is hazing. Before you make that accusation, check the nationall policies. Not everyone's are the same (to wit: A E Phi not being allowed to wear their letters as pledges).

True. What I was referring to [in case you misunderstood] is being forced to wear sorority colors all the time.

We were encouraged to wear buttons, shirts we had been given, etc. as much as possible and no new member minded because we were so excited to be a part of Zeta. Now I KNOW that's not hazing! I'm sure most, if not all, GLOs do that. Participating in traditions such as waiting to wear letters, IMO, facilitates that sisterhood bond, and a pledge class bond. Not all traditions should be followed, true (circling fat type of hazing, for example) but I really feel this one is harmless!

Did you have meetings with NMs only? That's hazing, by the definition.

Did you ever feel stressed during your NM period? That's hazing, by the definition.

Did you wear different shirts on bid day than the actives were wearing, thus setting you apart as pledges? That's hazing, by the definition.

Hazing is defined as ANYTHING that sets the NMs apart from the active sisters. If you want to take it to the absurd level I did, there's absolutely no way to have any kind of NM program without hazing.

And as far as the colors, she said she would have been proud to wear them every day, whether she was told to or not. The word "force" is nowhere in her post. We were "told" that Friday was the day to wear letters on our campus because it was a campus tradition - no one was ever FORCED to - if someone had a dressy presentation or something that day it wasn't like anyone would get on her case for wearing letters!!

SthrnZta, you are getting jumped on here and it's ridiculous. Sororities and fraternities are not McDonald's - every chapter is not homogenous. (And hell, I think even McDonald's has a McLobster roll or something in Maine, so even THEY aren't homogenous.)

Thank you 33, I really appreciate someone finally agreeing with me and helping me prove my point! :D I said earlier that I know there will be those who disagree with me on this particular issue, but I just feel so strongly that you can't call something like that hazing and I'm glad you put such great examples up - great post! Our different traditions set us apart and that's what makes us different and great!

No, busy but not overstressed, and no.

Did you have to wear a different pin than the initiated sisters? That would set you apart (if you had badge attire day) and wouldn't that be hazing...???

Sorry, but neither does yours -- at least not any law I've ever heard of, and I am familiar with the hazing laws of at least some states. I've not run across any hazing law that would cover requiring new members/pledges/whatever to wear their pins or colors. Without more (such as the possible punishment for breaking this rule), I can't even see how it would meet the criteria of the NPC definition:

Hazing is defined as any action or situation with or without consent which recklessly, intentionally or unintentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student, or creates risk of injury, or causes discomfort, embarrassment, harassment or ridicule or which willfully destroys or removes public or private property for the purpose of initiation or admission into or affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership in a chapter or colony of an NPC member fraternity.

No endangerment of physical or mental health, no risk of injury, not reasonably (at least, not without other factors) a cause of "discomfort, embarrassment, harassment or ridicule."

By itself, it just ain't hazing.

Point taken.