Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1612053)

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.

Originally Posted by macallan25 (Post 1612429)

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.

Originally Posted by ladygreek (Post 1612157)

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1612053)

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.

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 1612057)

Pledgeship is training for active brotherhood or sisterhood.

Originally Posted by macallan25 (Post 1612429)

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.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek (Post 1612479)

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1612494)

Perhaps it's not so "black and white" after all?

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek (Post 1612485)

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.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek (Post 1612504)

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

Originally Posted by jon1856 (Post 1612484)

not based on law per se just common sense:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1612647)

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:

[/font][/size][/font]
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.

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek (Post 1612754)

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?

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS (Post 1612650)

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