Is this sort of hazing normal?
 

I am starting my freshman year in a month and I am going to rush. My brother is the only person in my family to ever consider going Greek so he is the only one that can really tell me anything about it. He rushed in the fall of his sophomore year. He said that his fraternity technically hazed by making pledges DD once or twice a week late at night, making them drive actives to class if it was rainy, making the pledges make breakfast, buy them cigarettes/dip, bartend for their parties, clean the house after parties, etc. nothing too serious. But a few weeks before he was initiated he was woken up at like 4 in the morning in his dorm by some actives, he asked what was going on, and they said they were going to take them into a field and beat the heck out of them, he thought it was a joke and asked one of his friends he met freshman year that was in that fraternity if they were serious and he said yes that it was a tradition and that he went through it and so has everyone else in the chapter. He said that he wasn't going to let them do that so he voluntarily dropped. I am all for hazing but that goes to far. I support making pledges do stuff for the actives and do things that help build brotherhood and bonding in the pledge class and with the actives. But this went to far, I am not for physically brutalizing pledges or working them so hard with pledge duties that they almost flunk out. Is this lighter hazing normal? And also is the extreme hazing that they tried to make my brother go through normal at all? Thanks for any replies.

It depends on where you are. Hazing is mostly illegal and always forbidden by the national organization.

I can imagine something like that happening. I've heard of traditions at other chapters of my org that have rites of passage (nowhere as intense as a chapter beating of course). Something like singing the Barbie Song aloud in the cafeteria. Not too serious.

I don't know about forced DD, but if people are under 21, they aren't allowed to drink anyways. I don't think anyone would hold it against you if you say someone under 21 cannot drink and has to be your DD. If they are over 21, then it can be hazing.

As Kevin says, every organization (and every college, I would think) prohibits hazing, as do most if not all state laws. That said, the definitions of what constitutes hazing can vary.

As far as things like waking pledges up to take them out to a field and beat them (was your brother already living in the house as a pledge?), I tend to be a little suspicious. Your brother didn't experience it, but just went by what he was told. I'm older and I remember well that some groups would tell pledges they were going to do something like that, but when they'd actually get to wherever they were going, something more like a party happened. The hazing (and yes, it was hazing) was in the fear and anticipation, not in the actual event.

What I'm saying is that one has to be careful to separate rumor from fact.

The issue with the DDs isn't that under 21s shouldn't be drinking. What if the completely sober DD's contact lens pops out, he can't see and drives the car into a tree? If the fraternity had a written-down DD program, that can be seen as the fraternity assuming responsibility.

And yes I agree this sucks and it's far better to have DDs, but this is the legalese.

Jazing: when they forced him to DD it was like a six or seven hour shift from like 9-4 and before other fraternities got in trouble because that could cause sleep deprivation or something so at his school it was technically hazing

MysticCat: No he did not live in the house his pledge semester, he was in the dorms. From what I understood they came to all the dorms and apartments the pledges were living at and picked them up. Are you advising that if I am in a similar situation that I should go with them and if it turns out to be what they said just leave?

Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that you're relying on third-hand information. You don't know what was actually going on.

Please note that I said simply instilling the fear is hazing. I did not say it's okay, just that I know it has happened.

Hazing is without a doubt a problem. But so are rumors and stories about hazing. They may be true and they may not be. They may be exaggerated. Unless you're personally involved, sometimes you really don't know what the truth about it is.

UN, why not just look at other groups which are unequivocal in their anti-hazing stance? You're not a legacy; hopefully, this isn't the only game in town, so why not explore your options?

Here's a pretty textbook definition of hazing which I found on a blog on the NIC website (which is a national association of mainstream fraternities): "Any action taken or situation created, intentionally, whether on or off fraternity premises, to produce or that causes mental or physical discomfort, embarrassment, harassment, or ridicule.”

Applying that definition, what your brother experienced most certainly was hazing.

Then again, take the Oklahoma statutory definition:

. . . and then it's a little more of a gray area (although I'd still consider what you described to be hazing within the definition of the Oklahoma statute).

The point is this--it doesn't/shouldn't matter whether or not what happened violates any internal policy, school rule or state statute when you're deciding what house is for you. What is and is not hazing is sometimes tough to decide, and you being a college freshman aren't going to have to make that call. Ask whether that sort of conduct violates your moral code. If it does, look at other groups. It should be that simple.

+1; very strongly agree.

One of the most important facets of Greek Life is shared values, and it's imperative that the organization you join has the same values.

For several activities, the difference between hazing and not hazing likes solely within the context. Here's a couple examples from my chapter:

1.) Pledges performing a extremely intense early-morning workout that causes them to think they're going to die. Without consent and as a surprise, it's definitely hazing. However, in our case, we just have a few brothers that do CrossFit and joined in.

2.) Cleaning the house. It's hazing if brothers make an unreasonable amount of mess and then make the pledges clean it in an unreasonable way. It's not hazing when everyone is required to do their fair share of responsibly maintaining the house, brothers included.

The exact same activity, depending on the context, is the difference between hazing and bonding.

Adding in brothers does not make this type of thing ok. You cannot make someone do any type of gym hours or forced physical endurance exercise in any way. You can encourage it, but there are limits. At where I go if they find out about gym hours there are penalties (this includes brother gym hours).

-

This is so well said. I wish every national group was capable of seeing this type of nuance, instead of just banning things right and left to cover their asses.

Misunderstanding fixed.

Ultimately it is up to excelblue's chapter's school and GLO to determine whether what they do is hazing. Some schools and GLOs stopped caring whether a chapter was thinking they were hazing or bonding years ago because they got tired of trying to determine whether chapter members' intentions were what they claimed. Some schools and GLOs also determined that the outcome for the prospective members and the notion of "stopping this before it gets out of hand" mattered more than what the chapter claims they intended. If a chapter can share its practices with the school and GLO, all is fine as long as they don't get out of hand. If a chapter has to keep things secret from the school and GLO, that sometimes means they know that their "bonding" event tolls the line and could very well be seen as hazing.

This is an unofficial event therefore what would happen if the "pledges" did not join in?

While I agree to some extent, it is probably not the exact same activity if there is a different context. There are tons of events that chapters considered bonding activities but the activities were deemed hazing by Greek Life Offices and GLO NHQs. Chapters, members, and prospective members have gotten in trouble for their bonding events that members and prospective members enjoyed participating in. There are some happy "pledges" who are excited to do what they do although what they are doing is technically hazing. That includes forms of mental and physical hazing that some "pledges" actually enjoy participating in. Pretending that context is the ultimate determinant between hazing and bonding attaches an inaccurate description to hazing.

Both those events are official and are openly discussed with campus and nationals.

Also, I just realized that I worded (1) a bit weirdly: in our case, pledges were told there's going to be a couple hours of intense physical activity in advance. I'm just saying that if it had been some surprise without consent, it'd be hazing.

The idea is that the intent of the event is to build bonding by having the pledges (and participating brothers) support each other and push their limits. We make sure they're well-hydrated and stop the activity if anyone looks like they're actually being pushed too far for their own safety.

The main issues are really about risk management and perception. Despite being well-intentioned, someone could still get hurt. Also, if a random person sees us doing this (often wearing letters), chances are, they'll assume it's hazing.

Now that you've clarified, yes this is hazing. Just because you warn someone that they'll be hazed, doesn't make it no longer hazing.

Then I guess things are fine as long as the dialogue remains open and things are carefully handled.

Unfortunately, there are individuals and chapters who have gotten in trouble for doing things that the school and local/regional/national body were fully informed about. Things can change and schools and local/regional/national body change their minds about something they previously approved of. That includes schools and local/regional/national bodies having selective memory and acting as though they never approved of something.

This is not the formula used to determine whether something is hazing.

"Pledge" consent does not mean it is not hazing and "pledges" have minimal power through which they can truly control the outcome. There are a lot of bonding activities that are technically hazing and that includes bonding activities that can cause mental and physical harm. Giving "pledges" water and stopping if they are pushed too far does not make it nonhazing. Schools and GLOs are not buying this logic that members try to use.

You all need to rethink this and be careful with whom you share this information until you rethink this.

This, but add state law to the mix. What some groups consider hazing, others do not. What matters is what your GLO, your campus and your state law think.

If your campus and HQ are cool with it, I'm not going to argue.

But I do think it bears repeating that under most definitions of hazing I am familiar with, consent is not a defense -- if an activity is otherwise considered hazing, then it's hazing regardless of whether the pledge consents or not. I'm just guessing, but my guess is that your campus and HQ are okay with what you're doing not because the pledges consent but because you have structured it in a way that, to use the definition Kevin gave earlier, your are not "recklessly or intentionally endanger[ing] the mental health or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation."

This is where it gets sketchy and excelblue's chapter, school, and GLO need to be careful. If something happens, his chapter may be thrown under the bus. His chapter needs to protect its neck.

So you and your brothers are trained medical professionals who can immediately ascertain that a pledge has been "pushed too far" and can provide emergency treatment?

Agreed. I misread it earlier as "brothers worked out and some pledges joined them", like morning P90X time or something.

Really, what would this activity hope to accomplish?

Preventing the pledges from becoming a bunch of fatasses. Some fraternities take this VERY seriously.

Yeah. So under the Oklahoma statute, if blue's chapter is forcing pledges to do extreme calisthenics, that's going to be at least reckless unless they take some real CYA steps like requiring all new pledges to get physicals prior to the extreme physical activity. Even then, it'd be really iffy to the point where I'd definitely veto the activity.

Forced calisthenics are a particularly risky activity. Imagine you have a member with an undiscovered heart condition and they have a full-on cardiac arrest in the middle of your activity.

These things aren't forbidden (mostly) because of some high-minded moral code. These things are forbidden because your national and local leaders don't want to be sued into oblivion for allowing members to negligently harm other members.

Yep.