Hazing types by group type.
 

I was reading the book "Black Greek Haze" when I realized how completely different hazing events are between the NIC Fraternities (Hist White) and the NPHC Fraternities (Hist Black). (Yes, I know that some of the NPHC fraternities have joined NIC as well, their traditions are still related to their fellow NPHC fraternities.)

IMO, Hazing in NIC fraternities more likely than not involves alcohol, if it doesn't involve alcohol, it involves doing something gross, where the brothers are probably at least a body length away.

OTOH, Hazing in NPHC fraternities more likely than not involves physical contact either directly or at short distance and is likely to be something causing physical damage to the body through the skin.

Extending this on, I *think* that NPC (Hist White Sororities) would be much more psychological, with one reason that it might be exposed being a suicide.

As for the NPHC sororities, I *really* don't know if they are closer to the NPHC fraternities or the NPC sororities. The death in the ocean in Los Angeles doesn't quite seem to fit into either category nicely.

My guess is that the NALFO fraternities and sororities would be closer to the NPHC fraternities and sororities.

Comments?

I think you are probably right about any hazing done in NPC groups likely being psychological. Hopefully very little of this is going on since we try to instill in our chapters an environment of love and respect for our new members. As for the suicide....I can't remember seeing any reports of suicides in NPC new member groups. I think more likely, hazing would be reported to the university by a parent, roommate or friend.

I guess I was probably reaching in that regard (the suicide)...

Seriously, does anyone have any examples of cases where NPC sorority members were prosecuted for Hazing and what form it took? (Or conversely where the reason that an NPC sorority was either tossed or had a significant number of sisters forced alumni)

Another aspect that really differs between the groups is the *likelihood* of hazing occuring...

You wouldn't know. You couldn't know. You shouldn't know.

And on that note:

Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. is a non-hazing organization.
Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. is a non-hazing organization.
Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc. is a non-hazing organization.
Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc is a non-hazing organization.

I think for NPC, it was very rare for hazing to cause physical harm. There were definitely some lawsuits in the past. All NPC organizations prohibit hazing in all forms, but you really can't know what a few members may do on their own. The events that have come to light recently have been harmless in a physical sense but hazing, nonetheless, by the standards of our organizations. My chapter was completely non-hazing. I know there are probably some AOII chapters out there that get away with minor things...I just hope that they'll realize that they are putting their entire chapter at risk by doing these stupid activities.

Uh Huh. These statements also apply to the Fraternities in the NPHC and just about every other Greek Letter Organization with any sort of entry process that isn't based directly on grades and classes taken. Whether there are any National Social GLOs that wouldn't make their statement about themselves is an exercise for the reader. :)

Though some times the rules from the national limit things that don't make any *legal* definition of hazing...

For example: A chapter has an event where the big/little pairs are given digital cameras and a list of things to take pictures of that are either on campus or within 3 blocks. Each team also includes a Catholic Priest/Nun, a reporter from the School Newspaper and a faculty member. Even if *nothing* happens that the Priest/Nun, reporter or faculty member objects to, some Nationals might consider that hazing...

(A Priest, a school newspaper reporter and a faculty member walk into a bar...)

What's the point of this? I wouldn't anticipate much coming out of this except . . .

http://www.joepaduda.com/464px-Train...nasse_1895.png

Exactly - all of the organizations (NIC, non-NIC, NPC, NPHC, etc.) are non-hazing orgs, so let's just leave it at that. There's really not a whole lot of point in getting into this thread.

I think some people are just fascinated by this topic and always will be no matter what the GLO's are doing to change things from the inside. Also for the record, Hazing has deep roots, not just in America but around the world and occurs in many different arenas. It didn't start with GLO's and it won't end with GLO's.

Also there should be no blury defnitions of hazing today according to the organizations. In most orgs (including mine), anything outside of an organization's official intake process is considered hazing according to that organization and is not encouraged or allowed. No other definitions are necessary.

I agree with you, rhoyaltempest. I'm not naive enough to think that things don't continue to go on, but I do believe that it's gotten a lot better in most chapters. I do not, however, have a problem with talking about hazing. We can't just say "It's illegal in my organization." It's hard to really know what is going on at all of our chapters. Hopefully, we have enough educational material in place, enough oversight and enough intelligent members in our chapters to keep hazing to a minimum.

But, if someone wants to know what's going on out there, there are enough threads in this forum about chapters that have been suspended or had their charters pulled because of hazing incidents. Between that, and a search through newspapers (both college and professional) across the country, people can get a good idea about the different types of hazing that are occurring.

I'm just not sure what purpose it serves to talk about perceived differences in the ways different chapters haze.

And it's fairly easy to get into the "Well I heard X group makes their pledges drink," or "I heard Y group paddles their pledges."

KSigkid, MysticCat, I don't see anything terribly wrong with this thread. I acknowledge that it's largely premised on stereotypes and unlikely to evolve into a productive discussion about anything. Nevertheless, the topic seems to be (or aspire to be) a discussion about what kind of hazing 'typically' occurs in different types of organizations. That's just fine, IMHO. If it gets nasty, I can simply lock things up.

Please keep in mind that I will not tolerate specific accusations made against any chapter or group unless supported by some sort of evidence.

Nor should you.

Exactly, which is why these types of topics (that have been had many times before) end in "she said/he said."

Pointless.

And even news stories of hazing don't tell us whether certain chapters (aggregated into types of organizations) do more physical, mental, or alcohol-related hazing.

A chapter can get in trouble for paddling but that doesn't mean that there wasn't more yelling and insulting pledges than paddling pledges. The paddling is simply what left the visible mark and ended up getting reported. The same goes for a chapter that gets in trouble for alcohol-related hazing.

So are these observations of patterns based on something substantive and qualitative? Quantitative means very little.

Right. Hence my trainwreck prediction. ;)

Nothing wrong with the thread in terms of being appropriate for the forum and within terms of service. And sure, some people like to have discussions on hazing. I just don't see value in this discussion, which is, as you say, based largely on stereotypes.

OK, lets phrase it in the contrapositive then. Does anyone know of any referenced case where an NPC Sorority or NPHC Fraternity or Sorority was nailed for Hazing because of an Alcohol overdose.

Does anyone know of a referenced case where an NIC Fraternity (which isn't also in the NPHC) or an NPC sorority was nailed for hazing because of short distance physical abuse.

Any truly psychological cases of hazing for any of the Fraternities?

Also, I don't think that there is a hazing case that involves solely ONE type of activity.

And furthermore, if we're going to continue with this (ridiculous) line of discussion, you have to define "psychological hazing."

Isn't all hazing psychological on some level?

And isn't alchohol overdose "physical?" You can't really categorize hazing in this manner.


Exactly.

That still doesn't answer the more basic question for me -- what's the point of this discussion?

Quoted for naraht.

FWIW, I know what he is trying to accomplish.

But, these types of discussions tend to go the same way, whether they are held on message boards or in-person. You always wonder why people care (some people care because they like to ask such questions; others care because they want to prove that certain orgs have better pledge processes); and you wonder how they know what they claim to know in order to make these observations.

Those of us who have been members for years and been in diverse GLO settings have pretty much seen or heard "it all" from every type of org. But even what we've seen or heard is a small percentage of what is actually going on.

I, with the help of several other people, have been keeping track of all charter revocations (that we hear about) in a stickied thread in this forum. The information there, of course, is probably not comprehensive as we're just relying on individuals to report cases they hear about, but it might be a good place to start.

If you really want to start to develop a sense for this stuff, I invite you to go back into the older threads on this forum and start compiling data in the way we've been doing in the charter revocations thread. Again, you're not going to get anything publishable, but if you want to get a good sense of what has been going on, that'd be where to start.

If your school's library has access to Lexis Nexis, you might consider doing a news article search for "hazing" and maybe type in a string of 'or' searches for greek letters, e.g.. "hazing" & alpha beta gamma delta...." That'd be better.

Or you can continue to talk about it in theory, just be aware that without concrete data, the discussion is of very little value as you're just regurgitating stereotypes and apparently expecting us to confirm those stereotypes as fact. Ain't gonna happen.

If you want to pursue this research and discuss it here, that could be a great thread. In fact, if you can compile previous years' data in the same way we're doing 2009-2010, I'll stick it to the top of the forum (assuming you also allow some sort of link to each incident report so it can be verified).

As I said in my last post, (just above this one) I think, if the OP is willing to compile some data, this could actually turn out to be a pretty interesting conversation. Otherwise, as you said, it's arguably appropriate and within the terms of the TOS (and the additional rules I made up for this forum), so it's not something I'm inclined to do anything about at this time.

I'm with you -- I never thought there was any reason for you or any other mod to do anything about this thread. Like I said, I just think it much more likely that this thread will result in a train wreck than in a valuable discussion.

Black people are brutes, white men are drunks, and white girls are mean girls.

Houston, we have stereotype...

Though in some ways, this perhaps makes it clearer. (Though in my original, it was more like "Black men are brutes, black women haven't yet hit a stereotype")

I've worked my way through the appendices of "Broken Pledges" by Hank Nuwer and "Black Haze: Violence, Sacrifice and Manhood in Black Greek-Letter Fraternities". "Black Haze"'s appendix gives full credit to "Broken Pledges" for being where his list started and there is a lot of overlap between the two.

For Black Haze, there are *two* of the fourty-seven hazing incidents listedioned that relate to Alcohol. There are actually the same number where fraternities are suspended due to gang-like confrontations between two or more fraternities. Most of them are non-alcohol physical abuse.

OTOH, in Broken Pledges, which covers a much wider range, the NIC hazing incidents seem to split about 50% Alcohol related, 40% "Animal House" hazing (covered in Peanut butter, with annoyed sheep, etc.) and 10% non-alcohol related physical abuse.

I'm not really sure for either how to count injury/death due to overexersion (500 jumping jacks in 90 degree weather) though.


In Broken pledges, the number of incidents involving sororities is very small (there are as many incidents involving non-sorority women: Eating clubs, military, etc. as sororities) and there doesn't appear to be any theme other than they aren't non-alcohol physical abuse.

I know there are more up to date sources, but this is a place to start...

...and sarcasm. :rolleyes:

I thought this part was very interesting when I read Black Haze. It did mention that white males also utilized psychological methods in addition to the inclusion of alcohol. I suppose it chalks up to different histories and opinions on what prerequisites for membership are.

ETA: I would count overexertion as physical abuse.

Houston, I think your sarcasm satellite is non-functioning...