NPC Hazing deaths?
 

I can personally remember news stories about hazing deaths in the NIC, NPHC fraternities and NPHC sororities, but I can't remember *any* NPC hazing deaths, even from my memory (which could be wrong) of the appendix in Nuwer's Broken Pledges, and he has a fairly good list.

Can anyone point me to anything for any NPC sorority? (note, as mentioned in another thread, the stereotype for the NPC is psychological hazing, so I'll take accusations of hazing causing suicide).

Oh, there are a few cases out there, though, I don't think the groups would appreciate a rehashing of the cases on this site. The deaths, IIRC, were alcohol related. Luckily, the cases are few and far between.

I don't know the details of this story but: Courtney's Legacy

She was a Chi O and died in 1990

That doesn't sound like hazing but an accident after someone spiked her drink at a party.

Yeah, just scanning through quick search results.

Having read the page, I don't see anything that can be considered hazing by the Chi O and in fact Phi Delt Fraternity lost its charter over the incident, not Chi O. The only other things on the sorority hazing page are an interview from the NPC chair 10 years ago and a link to their forums (which are much messier than greekchat)

Randy

Agreed, few and far between. In fact I'd be surprised if the entire NPC had more than 2 per decade (on the outside). Which given the lifetime of the NPC, means that there would be NPC sororities with none.

You are right, simply due to changes in drinking patterns, I imagine that alcohol related deaths could be more significant than they were 40 years ago. Though my guess is that hazing deaths due to alcohol overdoses was not the number one reason for the changes in Alcohol policy for the NPC.

Randy

From a thread you started in 2001:Here

An article posted indicates that there have only been 2 sorority deaths since the mid 1800s. This appears to be before the 2001 or 2002 AKA incident.

As for suicides, well, using the term for recruitment confounds my results so you're on your own.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather not rehash any cases here. Perhaps one should do his own research instead of using sorority members to do it for him, hmmm?

Ouch.

I'm more concerned with the intent behind such a thread.

Is the intent to see quien es mas macho when it comes to hazing?
Is the intent a follow-up to that other hazing thread and to convince aspirants that it isn't so bad, afterall, come join us?
Or, is this just a reminder and refresher course on the past?

I for one would prefer credit in whatever papers he's publishing with the information he's trolling on GC for. And by credit I mean monetary compensation.

Is he doing a wikipedia entry?

That's just about the only "article" that GC would be an acceptable source for, IMO.

I found it interesting that a very very similar thread was started by him 9 years ago.

And by interesting I mean suspicious.

Made me think a point was attempting to be made, or yes a paper was being written.

OP does a lot of digging around in other people's backyards.

He has changed other organizations' Wiki pages.

He's also working on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...and_Sororities

My suspicions have been raised for quite a while. My gut is usually never wrong.

Um. Isn't there some rule that says you are allowed to bring up the same topic on GC every decade or so? :o :( :o

Didn't say you weren't.

Maybe not, but there also aren't any rules about expressing that your trolling really pisses me off, either.

In regards to suspicions, yes, I am on the Fraternities and Sororities Project, right now I am currently involved with fighting off a jackass who is trying to add specific inappropriate things to the Kappa Sigma Page.

If you want to take a look at my Wikipedia pages, checking out the pages I created and continue to expand on Notable Alpha Phi Omega Brothers, Alpha Phi Omega chapters for both the US and the Philippines and for the Alpha Phi Omega Conventions would be a place to start. (I'm on Alpha Phi Omega's National History Committee).

And with the possible exception of the issue when someone claiming to be (correctly but unverifiably) a Gamma Sigma Sigma board member went through and made unreferenced changes to the Gamma Sigma Sigma page to reflect the change in tone from the schools that founded to the organizations that founded, I don't think any of the changes on Wikipedia that I've made have been controversial in a way that members of GLOs would be on the other side...

If I try this question here on GC every nine years, that paper must have a lot of dust on it...

Of the possible reasons listed for why I asked, Dr Phil's

Is the intent a follow-up to that other hazing thread and to convince aspirants that it isn't so bad, afterall, come join us?

is probably closest.

I knew that and it's very, extremely, and unfortunately unfortunate.

I wish that I *had* remembered the posting that I made in 2001, because the information in the quote from Hank Nuwer would have fulfilled my curiosity on that topic.

If curiosity killed the cat, I'd better check my whiskers. :)

I said it was probably closest, but I wouldn't say that it is actually the reason that I asked. Yes, the spark was the question over on the other thread, but the reason is that I asked myself whether or not I had heard of such a thing and couldn't remember, I thought there might be others who did.

Why are you in other groups' pages/business?

Do you monitor every Greek Wiki page to see what is changed and who does it?

You challenged a Gamma Sigma Sigma member - who you said wasn't readily identifiable, because you aren't a member - who updated something on their Wiki page.

As for Kappa Sigma, shouldn't you leave any issues to their members?

What point are you trying to make regarding hazing deaths in sororities? Are you going to speak at convocation for Sorority Recruitment? Write articles on Wikipedia saying that "fraternities and sororities aren't "so bad"? To which audience will you spread your "expertise" (which is not experience-based, rather, a collection of information fed to you)?

Your interest comes across as much more than casual. And that's why it bugs me.

To be fair on the first part, being a member of an org isn't required to edit the wiki. An editing war is less about who knows more about the topic and more about who knows more about the appropriate tone/format for an article. It's not about personal knowledge although that can help.

The rest, well, it is off putting for reasons i can't quite put my finger on.

The only other book I would suggest is "Pledged" but, that seemed more about sensationalism. That is weird, though. It is true. We don't normally hear too much about NPC hazing deaths yet, someone came on here the other day afraid to look at sorority life.

"Pledged" was a work of fiction, right?

But, that doesn't stop the NPC ball from rolling. :)

I know that, but it's the collection of the OP's questions, intrusions and activities that makes me wonder.

*shrug*

Apparently, some of it wasn't. I don't really know and I don't really care, I am just trying to give examples of what the OP could look at. I never said it stopped the NPC ball from rolling.

On wikipedia, no one owns specific pages. A Kappa Sigma brother has just as much right to change the page on Delta Sigma Theta as they do the page on London Bridge or Nitrogen. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_of_articles .

And as for challenging the changes on "Gamma Sigma Sigma", the only info that I had was that the person's username was "GSSmarketing", someone completely unrelated to GSS could have taken that username and the changes were unreferenced. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources and without referenced sources, everyone is a potential Wikipedia Perp.




In fact, one of the tenets of Wikipedia is to avoid Conflict of Interest, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI . In that regard, on controversial topics, members of groups are discouraged from making edits to the pages of their own groups... As a member of a GLO *other* than Kappa Sigma, I'm actually viewed as a relative neutral on the issue.

And monitoring every Greek Letter Organization page neither interests me nor do I have the time for.

If you have issues with the rules on Wikipedia, that's one issue, if you have issues with whether or not my actions on Wikipedia fulfill them, that's another. Just let me know.



In terms of point or audience, If I had gotten a PM saying "According to Hank Nuwer, the only two were UVW sorority in 1952 and XYZ sorority in 1983." I would have considered the question completely answered and not thought anything less of either UVW or XYZ sororities.

Within the last two years, one of the threads that I started was "What do you call your National Officers", or something like that. These two threads both come from personal curiosity and in each case, I would be willing to answer to the best of my abilities the same question about my own fraternity.

I like to think most of it is.

I actually own a copy of Pledged that I found at a Yard Sale, I think I paid 25 cents for it, and frankly I overpaid given the sensationalism. I haven't actually made it all the way through. Ick.

Dumb > right

I agree with you on that.

I'm still trying to figure out which is most accurate, "Pledged", "Peggy Sanday's Fraternity Gang Rape" or the graffiti in the Men's room near campus, and frankly I'm leaning toward the Graffiti.

OTOH, there are some books on the Subject that I think are definitely worth while. Start with Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities for the dry facts, Add Lawrence Ross's Divine Nine or Black Greek 101 for the NPHCs and some of the widely published specific history books like the one for Delta Sigma Theta.

Hank Nuwer's writings, such as Broken Pledges, however accurate they are should *not* be the first information that a prosective member gets.

Well, if the Kappa Sigma brother has found a newspaper article in the Archives of the Baltimore Afro-American indicating that George Washington Carver was the keynote speaker at the 10th anniversary Delta Sigma Theta National Convention, that would be valid information to add, with the reference. As I said, let me know if your issue is with the rules at Wikipedia or with the way that I (follow/fail to follow) them.

Are you saying these books cover the topic of hazing?

My issue is with people having too much time and concern on their hands. That pertains to everyone and everything that it pertains to.

No, they don't, I was covering a wider area. If anyone has any books on hazing that meet or exceed Hank Nuwer's works, I'd love to know about them.

Yes, I was referring to In Search of Sisterhood.

I've read both Divine Nine and In Search of Sisterhood and for those it wasn't curiosity. Due to prior experience with being the chapter rep to the Alpha Phi Omega chapter at Howard, I'm at the point where one of my specialties in Alpha Phi Omega is the culture at the HBCUs and how culturally Alpha Phi Omega is different there due to the interactions with the NPHC. I wish I'd had both books when I was first rep to Howard, but neither had been published in 1992.

If you took everyone away from Wikipedia who had too much time on their hands, it wouldn't be much of a project. :) :)

Please.

And you do a lot of lane swerving, so what's the damn difference? He has just as much free time as you do, yet still manages to contribute to his fraternity (since his initiation as a collegian) and to the Greek community at large.

In other words, you've got a lot of shit to say -- shut up.

Please yourself. It's one thing to have hazing incidents posted in the Risk Management forum that are recent. It's a completely different thing to post in the forum ASKING for incidences of hazing deaths for a particular council.

If I did that (and asked for NPHC) you'd be the first to be all over me like flies on shit and you know it.

Do your own damned research instead of asking everyone else to do it for you.

FURTHERMORE, I could care less if naraht has enough time to write a book on hazing or what have you. He can do with his time what he wants to do. I just don't believe he actually wants to discuss hazing within the NPC at length, and I'm pretty sure there's some sort of alterior motive.