Is this really hazing??
 

A few of my brothers and I proposed making pledge handbooks mandatory. What I mean by this is that each pledge must interview 15 other pledges, 5 members, and 3 directors. If the pledge does not complete this book, they are automatically unable to join.

Also, I was told that scavenger hunts are hazing as well. How true is this?

Could anyone tell me where I might find out the answers to these questions. Thanks.


m. bates

According to most people it is, I think that kinda stuff is ridiculasly easy and that it is ludicris to consider them hazing

is there any proof of such actions being deemed hazing? or is it more heresay?

Scavenger hunts fall under hazing if only pledges are required to do them. Other than that, scavenger hunts often end up with people stealing items in order to win. Things have gotten out of hand.

For example, at my husband's fraternity, as a semi-joke one year, one item was "live nude girl." So one team went to a bar and paid a woman $50 to quickly strip at the house so they could get the 50 bonus points (most items were 5 or 10 points). I think that they discontinued the scavenger hunt after that, since they didn't want to end up in a, shall we say, compromising position.

As for pledge books, if it takes an hour to track down everyone for interviews and do the interviews, that's 23 hours worth of stuff that they have to do in addition to learning the fraternal history, STUDYING, eating, etc. Sometimes people are hard to get a hold of. My husband's fraternity used to do this (I don't think they do anymore), and it took a lot of time to track down some people. They had to get every member's interview.

Again, if it's something the entire fraternity does, that's one thing. But shouldn't your member be accepted because he's cool, passes the fraternal knowledge exam, has the grades, and wants to better himself, and not because he needs to take another 20 hours in six weeks to track people down to fill in their birthdays and majors?

Spend your 20 hours throwing some barbeques and game nights instead-- get to know each other because you want to. :)

Interviews
 

One of the biggest problems with interviews is NOT the actual interview itself. If you have even one member who has a slight hazing mindset, that member may try to make the new member "earn" the interview by doing something and THAT becomes hazing. It's a set up for the new member. Additionally, if one member doesn't have the most positive feelings for a particular new member, he/she could refuse to grant an interview or make themselves unavailable on purpose. Also, we always had one or two "invisible" members who we just never saw and couldn't reach if we wanted to.

I know the goal of interviews is usually innocent.. to get the new members to know the members better. Isn't this best accomplished by just hanging out together? Having icebreakers? Do you really get to know someone by asking them a list of set questions like "What's your major?" "What's your home town?", etc? Why not have a retreat where you play a game like "Find someone who was a Scout?" "Find someone who is from ____?". Or, have each member write down something "unique" about themselves and have a contest to see who can guess who belongs to which unique fact? Who knows, you might get to know your own brothers a little bit better too!

I try to analogize this to the first week on a new job. People generally welcome you, make a point to introduce themselves, invite you to lunch, show you the ropes, etc. They don't wait for you to come and introduce yourself around. We should be welcoming new members and help them get to know us, not making it a chore for them to get to know the members.

Dee

It's all well and good to say that interviews can be replaced by icebreakers and group events and such. The problem is that not everyone is comfortable in a huge group and if there are pledges or sisters who are on the shy side, it will be hard for them to get to know other people. Interviews provide you with a chance to get to know EVERY sister, regardless of whether she's campus queen or the quietest girl in the room - it impresses upon the pledge that EVERY MEMBER IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT.

If there are people being bitchy about giving interviews or during them, the pledge mom should be immediately notified and those people disciplined. Setting down ground rules (i.e. you have to schedule interviews, you can't make the pledge go to a weird location to get your interview, can't go more than 15 minutes) help keep the situation from getting uncomfortable.

I would like to take all the idiots who screwed up interviews for the rest of us and slam them against a wall. Sorry to be so vehement, but this is a subject I really feel strongly about, and I believe getting rid of something so productive for a small number of a-holes is one of if not THE WORST decisions the NPC groups have made.

I'm with 33girl on this one (we ASAs have to hang together). We had sisters use signatures to punish pledges that they didn't like, and, because we didn't allow hazing but the rules were not particularly stringent, sisters got away with it. It was "girly" and borderline - they didn't require the pledges to do pushups or drink alcohol - but they were evasive and rude. Our pledge trainer should have had the power to step in and say "in that case, you don't need their signature" She did that with a few off-campus sisters who were simply unavailable most of the time, but if someone were giving you a hard time verbally, too bad for you.

Having pleges get signatures in pairs, or having two or three sisters meet with two or three pledges at once tends to make people who are prone to play games behave themselves.

But I agree that - as long as the pledge mom can step in if anyone gets demanding - it's an idea that is really important.

It forces people who may not have hit it off at rush to talk, which is key to the health of the sisterhood. If things don't get smoothed over early on, they are just going to emerge as power plays during chapter business meetings, etc. And being forced to approach the girls who were quieter or more aloof frequently found you friends and interests in common that you might never have expected.

Re: Is this really hazing??
 

The intention of the interviews is to get to know the other members (don't understand why you have them interview 3x as many pledges as members. most groups want the pledges to mainly met the active members). Our National Org has the concept of 'meeting the brothers' as one of our National Pledgeing Standard. The issue of hazing MIGHT come up depending on how you handle it. Many chapters in my fraternity give their pledges worksheets on gathering information and meeting the Brothers. In my chapter is was (note 'was') a process of meeting the Brother, who would ask a simple question to earn their signature. Our intent (which is how it was always handled) was to ask simple questions like 'who is our Founder', 'what is our jewel', etc. We had to stop this when one potential pledge complained to our National Office because he thought he'd be asked questions like 'what is the third word in the second paragraph on page 13 of your pledge manul' or the like.

So, do interviews or requiring them to met the members is not hazing. How you handle it might be.

As to scavenger hunts. My org and others DO view it has hazing. Our Membership Policy & Risk Management Policy lists it as a hazing activity, so its out. Check with YOUR organizations policies to see if its banned. As noted, a scavenger hunt can be hazing depending on how its done, hence its banning.

Hope this helps. I really recommend you check your own organizations policies, as they may have defined what is ok and not ok.

If your GLO is a member of FIPG, then scavenger hunts are definitely prohibited - because of the liability issues.

As for signatures, I concur with much of what has alread been posted - they are hazing waiting to happen. I do have another questions regarding signatures - if they are meant to help the NM's get to know the initiated brothers/sisters, how are the initiated brothers/sisters supposed to get to know the same facts about the NM's? (This is important for rush as well as general brotherhood/sisterhood.) When you look at it this way, it becomes hazing. If it is something that the NM's are required to do that the initiated brothers/sisters are not, by definition it is hazing.

Your last comment is good. I've heard its stated as "never ask a pledge/NM to do something you woundn't ask a brother/sister to do". What you expect of your members, either stated as your active requirements or implied, should be echoed in your pledge requirements.

However, there is the *implied* requirement that initiated brothers/sisters should meet and get to know the pledges/nm. The process of interviews/signatures is a way of achieving that and creating some structure to the process. As I stated, in my Fraternity, getting to know the active, associate, and advisory members is one of our National Pledging Standards and having a pledge requirement to do so is acceptable. So for us, its not a implied requirements, but a stated one. But we leave it to each chapter to define this, within the confines our our NPS, Membership Policy, and Risk Management Policy. So, meeting members is NOT hazing. What might happen in that process COULD be hazing.

Never heard of FIPG. Heard of NIC, NPC, NPHC, and PFA, but never FIPG.

Hope this helps.

Nfuhlmer,

We did institute a requirement that the sisters also had to interview the pledges.

Signatures are something totally different than interviews.

FIPG is the Fraternal Insurance Purchasing Group. It is the largest provider of insurance to national fraternities and sororities. It's sort of an insurance cooperative, and it sets risk management policies for all of its member groups. On many campuses, FIPG becomes de facto risk management policy for all GLO's.

I don't see why, if you really want to use interviews, you couldn't incorporate them into your new member education under a controlled situation. Instead of doing icebreakers (which IMO are more embarassing than interviews and should be considered hazing! LOL), you could set up a situation where, after each meeting, or on a new member retreat, or whatnot, five of your new members and five actives each pair up and then they interview each other -- then every ten minutes they switch. If you did five girls at a time after each new member meeting, you could meet all the girls in most chapters (and I think that chapters that are much over 50 or 60 actives should definitely NOT require interviews!). If it was optional ("but highly encouraged"), I don't see how this could be construed as hazing anymore than icebreakers are. In a situation like this it really IS just an icebreaker.

Although if your GLO's policy forbid that, don't take my word on it!

sugar and spice,

that sounds like a great idea. And I definitely feel you on the icebreakers.

If you're looking at interviews as a way to get to know your new members why not set up time with actives and new members where they just hang out. Instead of making the NM's run around trying to get a hold of actives, set up half an hour periods or and hour periods or so, maybe on a weekend, and just hang out with the NM. Have a few actives meet with a few NM's one weekend. Play some pool, have dinner together, whatever. Just have a casual meeting. If all you want is to get to know new members wouldn't it be best to meet them in a relaxed setting rather than meeting them under all this pressure to get signatures? You'll never really get to know them that way.
If you're asking new members to interview actives then it's only really the new members getting to know the actives and the actives still don't really know the new members.
I don't know if I made any sense. I think what I'm trying to say is why not have a Brother's night. We have Sister's nights where new members and Actives get together and do something fun. It gives everyone a chance to get to know each other in a relaxed and fun environment.

When I was active, the New Member Educator asked each initiated pledge class, or some combination of them, to come up with an activity to do with the new class. With her approval, of course.

We did things like movie night, complete with nail painting and junk food, Sunday morning cartoons (in PJs with PB&J and milk!), fun, small group activities to not intimidate the new girls, but intimate enough to get to know people. Everyone loved it!!

Allison

I believe the proper terminology used for our sorority is "quests of any kind". This includes seeking/getting interviews, scavenger hunts, etc....

I don't believe that the idea stated by Buttonz would be considered hazing at all..It's rather sweet actually...But, I don't want to state anything as fact...I'm still memorizing all International Rules and Regulations!

We (and I think many other chapters) do just that.

The only time that our pledges should feel they need to 'run around' trying to get signatures would be to meet the associates of our chapter who rarely show up to events. We tell our pledges that the BEST way to meet the members and get their signatures is by coming to meetings & events. That's what I did when I was a pledge. Doing fellowship events (ie social events) with the actives and pledges are the best way for all to get to know one another, and most groups do this (I would hope). My chapter has been doing very successfull "Big/Little" events that really help the pledges get to know their Bigs and the other members.

Also, we encourage pledges to wear their pin and carry their pledge book with them at all times (within reason) because you never know if you might meet an associate or alumni member, and this would be a chance to meet them and get a signature. This helps them realize that our organization is more then just our chapter.

is it really hazing?
 

while i think the premise of the pledge book/signature idea is sound, i have to agree that under npc rules (and i realize this is a fraternity, not a sorority) it would be considered hazing. npc looks at hazing as anything that the new members are required to do that the initiated members are not-so if the new members were told to be at the house at 5 pm, were divided up into small groups and driven out to a local park where they were treated to hot dogs and marshmallows, that could be considered hazing. it doesn't matter that it would be fun or that it would make them feel special, its the fact that it was required and the same thing wasn't done with the initiated members. any activity that distinguises the new members from the initiated can be considered hazing. unfortunately, it's another of those situations where innocent intentions are lumped with the worst intentions and it is all considered on the same level, therefore is all considered hazing. your best bet is to clear your idea with your national office.

According to Nationals, this would be considered hazing to some extent. There are ways to get around this problem tho....as long as these "interviews" take place OFF campus as well as the other activites for "new members" stay away from campus then Nationals are less likly to get involved. It would end up being messy if the campus found out and labled the activites as "hazing." Also inform the "new members" that the events planned are not being forced upon them but would be looked down on if not completed. Bottom line: DO NOT involve the campus and make it seem like it is an option.

Well, on one hand, it looks like a tidy way to get around this....but let's call it what it is...just a creative way to tell yourself that something that isn't okay IS okay. Bottom line is, If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck....then, friends,...it's a DUCK!

And that is exactly what any prosecuting attorney or newspaper reporter who gets ahold of your hazing gone-bad situation will say to anyone who will listen, including a jury.

So, while you aren't likely to get fried for things like signatures, it is just one of those things that separates your members and sets up the culture that new members are somehow LESS valued and less entitled to brother/sisterhood and have to EARN their way in after they have already been chosen by you.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

How can something that allows sisters and nms to get together on a one to one basis "separate" the members? If anything, group activities 24/7 make the division between "the sisters" and "the pledges" even more pronounced since there's no one on one contact and you only see someone as a facet of a group instead of an individual. That's one reason we got rid of this sort of program.

and pleeeeeease, stick a fork in the duck reference, it's done.

The purpose of getting signatures/doing interviews has NOTHING to do with creating a separation between pledges & members. The purpose of such activities is to get the pledges & the membership to meet and get to know one another. To use the 'you don't ask the members to get signatures, so asking the pledges to is hazing' doesn't fly with me. You DO ask/expect the members to meet & get to know the pledges. You DO ask/expect the pledges to meet & get to know the members. Signatures/interviews is the WAY to get this done in a more formalized manner.

I have always been told that hazing isn't an event you do with the pledges and it's something you'd do as well. For example, my chapter volunteers at Race for the Cure. The whole chapter does it at the same time and the New Members go with us. This isn't considered hazing because we all do it together. If you don't do it together (other than the New Member meetings) it is considered hazing.

Interviews
 

We look at interviews as a great way for the Associates to get to know the brothers they may not see on a regular basis. There is no "do this for me and I'll give you an interview". Why? Because none of us went through that. The Associates are given an approved list of 25 questions, so they arent asking 'what is your favorite color?" and other useless queries.

At our chapter, all active brothers understand that an Associate will never be asked to do anything that the brother either hasnt done himself, or is not willing to do.

Our no hazing policy is strict, and hazing doesnt happen. If the Associates are given a task, there is always at least one brother with them during completion of said task. That way we can monitor behavior and maintain our chapter image as the campus leader.

So I say continue with the Interviews at your chapter. As long as the Education Program is well structured and has proper oversight by the executive board. It's not hazing in my eyes.

A task is hazing only when the motivation behind completion is the threat of force or disassociation.

My chapter does something similar, but it's slightly more structured. Each week at the chapter meeting, they have each sister and new member pick a name out of a hat, and then they have to do something with that sister during that week. They can go to lunch or dinner (everyone has to eat, anyway, what better time to get together?), or they can hang out and watch tv or a movie, or whatever else they feel like doing together. It's a great way for everyone to get to get together with people they might not normally hang out with, which makes the sisterhood stronger as a whole.

At my school it's common practice to do interviews and all the GLO's have them. I think they're a great way for NM's and actives to get to know each other because it gives them time to bond and I can speak for us that when NM's interview us, we usually ask them stuff about themselves in return to get to know them better. It'a actually a lot of fun. You get to learn things about other people that you might not have learned otherwise.

Try the Fraternal Insurance Purchasing Group at www.FIPG.com, you can find a list of activities deemed as hazing or has the potential to cause hazing as well as healthy alternatives.

Hope this helps:)

Ok.. I know that I am jumping into this convo rather late, but I still wanted to comment.

This is just my thoughts on the issue of interviews,etc.

Why I think they are a issue (I'm sure that your chapters might handle them fine.. not saying you don't) is because I think in that past they have gotten out of hand at some schools/chapters. Making the pledges have to do chores, tasks for the members or the such in order to complete the interview/get the signature. Sure in theory it sounds alright, but it just takes a few groups to take things out of hand with it. The same with scavenger hunts.. looking around the house for some clues might sound harmless, but when some groups take it the extreme...

I know that in groups where this works for you it sucks.. my chapter has def faced this before and while its frustrating.. they are only looking out for you..

I think the reason why interview would be considered hazing is because all it takes is one person to cross the line and take a simple task such as getting a signature into a chore from hell.

I don't think the task of signatures is a good idea. New members and actives should want to get to know each other, why do you have to force an activity on people?

A gathering of all the members in a relaxed enviromnet should be enough to get to know each other.
This is a 2 way street. Maybe actives should be required to get the signature of the new members as well. The burden shouldn't just be on one group.

Excellent, excellent point. It slays me that during recruitment we are so nice and so welcoming and then, after they join...some have the attitude of "okay now that you're in -- you are the one who needs to get to know me!"

You ask new members to get interviews and signatures. You expect that active members will take the opportunity to get to know the new members. If a new member doesn't get his/her interviews and signatures, they may not be initiated. If an active member decides not to bother getting to know the new members, the new members just won't really know him/her except through the interview. THIS is why it's hazing.

I did interviews as a new member, and while they are a good way to get to know people sometimes, there are much more positive ways.

Well, any chapter that requests pledges to get ALL signatures is doing it wrong. Certainly no chapter I know does this. In fact, the chapter I work with tries to make it fun and challenging by rewarding the pledge with the most signatures, challenges them to get signatures of people who rairly show up, etc. But if they get the signatures of a majority of members (easy to do just by coming to meetings/events), they've met the requirements.

Yes, there are other ways to get pledges & members to know each other, and those are used as well as signatures/interviews.

First on scavanger hunts:

While things that the groups have to get sometimes get out of hand, most national groups consider this has much a risk management issue as a hazing issue. What do I mean by this?

Say you have to drive to several locations - if in your haste to get to the next point/prize etc., you have an accident, hit someone etc., it could be a liability for the national organization. If you are on foot and in you haste cross the street and get creamed by a car, fall and break something/injure yourself etc., it could be a liability for the national organization.

We all know what a lawsuit happy society we have now. While you may not sue (if you are the one injured) what is to stop your insurance company from doing so to recoup what they paid out for damages. As the judge/jury etc. will look at it - what where you doing? why where you doing it? would you have been doing it if you weren't in XYZ group?



Interviews/Signatures etc.

Many views on this have been stated and while I agree that for the most part interviews and even sigantures are harmless, most of the national groups frown upon it. We all know the one or two (or three or four) jacka@@es in our group who think that hazing should be legal and are ticked because they can't do what they want. These are the few bad ables that mess everything up for everyone.

If you want to do interviews or signatures (although what you learn about a person with one questions to get a signature is beyond me) then don't make it mandatory to get a certain amount to be initated.

Make it easy for them to get the interviews done. Have sisterhood/brotherhood events where the main thing to do during the event is to get the interviews. I agree with whoever talked about having the initiated members do interviews as well. Getting to know each other should be just that - so the interviews shouldn't be a onesided thing.

Something the chapter I advise for does is have everyone make a pic/info page. The initiated members do it during workweek and so that is the first thing that the new members get. Remember in most cases they have twice as many names to learn as the initiated members. The new member educator then has the new members do the same thing so that the initiated members can have info about them.

Just my two-cents - also, I'm typing this during lunch so no comments on the spelling that I didn't catch!;)

Everyone has a different definition of "signatures" it seems. We had 2 kinds: something personal the sister wrote to us, or sigs we got from friends of sisters and/or other Greeks. We didn't have to "do" anything to get any of these, just ask. The purpose was to get the pledges out and about to meet other members of the Greek community and sisters' non-Greek friends. I've never heard of anyone not being initiated for not getting all their sigs.

In the original post it was said that if the new members didn't get the interviews they didn't get to "join". I assume this means be initiated.

As for signatures, the guy I dated in college had to have the signature of every member on his 5 ft. tall paddle before he could be initiated. And these were really just the persons signed name. Some would right their "words of widsom" in addition, but most didn't. Some of the guys made them "earn" the signatures, some would make themselves unavailable to the new members until just hours before initiation. If they didn't like the new member, they would refuse to sign it. I don't know if the new member educator could override the signature thing or not, I doubt it.

How ignorant to try to hide from giving a signature!:(

What is the sense of Recruiting a new member if you are going to pull crap like this?:confused:

If you thought enuff to recruit him/Her, then what are you ding. Making them sweat? Fantastic!:rolleyes:

Isnt the idea when one recruit some one to make them a member, which means that there will be more members down the road. That will mean that the Chapter will grow and be healthy, not wither away because of stupidity! :o

Well, this is why my chapter and others have a couple of clear policies regarding signatures.

1. we never require pledges to get EVERY signature. A majority is good enough.
2. we never allow for pledges to have to 'earn' a signature. That sort of behavior is considered by most groups to be hazing.

To get the pledges to make an effort to met the 'seldom around' members and the like, we make a fun challange of getting the most signatures. But in no way are they penalized or prevented from joining because they didn't get all or X number of signatures.

And yes, our pledgemaster would be having a talk with the chapter Brother who refused to give a signature, and I would hope any pledgemaster/pledge trainer would do the same.

Seldom / rarely around?
 

A couple of posts have mentioned encouraging pledges/new members to get signatures from members who are seldom around.

My question is: WHY should it be such a big deal to track down and get to know a pretty uninvolved member? I realize there may be some stellar members whose academic commitments, work demands, volunteer activities, and other pressures on their time limit their hanging-around time. But if there are members who are basically ghosts and don't associate with the chapter, I don't see any special value in prodding or requiring new members to get to know them.

Of course, I also think that getting signatures is fairly pointless and as others have said, a form of hazing.