Sigma Chi branding
 

This came from the "Letters to the Editor" section in Sunday's Dallas Morning News. On my campus, the Sigma Chi chapter was highly regarded so I was very surpised to see something like this. What can you say to this father after this?

"My son branded

My son comes home for Memorial Day vacation with a new brand, like they brand cattle. The brand is from his secret society Sigma Chi at Texas A&M Commerce. Is this sadistic degrading behavior still being a part of university life, or is it a function of the new house being funded by Dallas alumni and old members of the fraternity? All withstanding, I consider the branding of children a sick and depraved activity about which the police and university appear to have no control.

Recommendation: Send your child to Texas A&M Commerce. He will come home with an appropriate lifelong disfigurement – a brand – then you will know how to recognize him.

Stephen Oliver,

extremely distraught father,

Dallas "

Unless the brandee himself steps forward and complains, it seems to be a matter of personal choice and not necessarily a hazing issue. College students do things their parents wouldn't approve of all the time.

Branding was very common on my campus as an undergraduate (and I just graduated 2 years ago!). We had Sigma Chi, but I don't remember if any of them had brands...but I know of 4 fraternities that absolutely would brand their members. One of them branded their little sisters too. There were one or two more fraternities where I had seen individual members create a homemade brand and brand themselves kind of...but it didn't really catch on w/ the rest of the members.

For most of the brothers (well, I can only say this for 2 of the orgs...only 'cause I witnessed this w/ my own eyes), branding took place "late night" - at 4 am when everyone was drunk and the party was dwindling down to only the hard core people. Then the brand would come out and the smell of burnt flesh would fill the house. Ick!

2 of the other GLOs on my campus I never witnessed the branding, but I did see the boys walking around campus w/ the big puffy brands on their arms or legs. It was so disgusting right after it had been done...it was all red and scabby and they'd pick at it....double ick!

I don't see much of a difference b/w branding and getting your letters tattooed on you somewhere...but I know that w/ branding, sometimes it fades and will eventually just disappear (unless you keep branding yourself in the same spot...which is what a lot of the boys would do).

The thing about the branding of the little sisters..well, you can imagine (and it did happen) if a girl dates a brother, gets a brand, then they break up and she starts dating someone else...and here she has this brand of XYZ in an unmentionable spot...and boyfriend in ABC doesn't particularly like that....

Ditto.

Unless the son is complaining, pops should keep his pie-hole shut.

Get The Point! Sorry, but NO on this!:mad:

Oh, just because so and so did it it is okay! :(

Does it make it right. NO!:mad:

Things like this get all of us in trouble!:( :confused:

I am surprised at One Poster who did say what He said!:rolleyes:

Agree. My parents would be irate if I came home with a brand, or a piercing, or a tattoo, but as long as I wanted it, the only person they can be angry with is me.

It doesn't say whether he was forced or did it on his own free-will...

Keep in mind, though, that something may be still considered hazing regardless of whether the person hazed gave consent or not.

I think it sounds pretty painful.. Ouch.

What a low rent way to prove loyalty to your org., sigh only in Texas. I am a life long Texan born in Baylor Hospital in Dallas I have seen a lot of stupidity dealing with hazingthat seems very Texas, including cattle prods,trips to ranches for hazing and branding, my chapter branded 18 pledges with a brand fozen in Dry Ice on the last day of hell week, we ended this "tradition" when we cut hazing in 1988. I always regretted getting branded it hurt for several days, and I felt less self esteem because I had let other humans do this to me because "I wanted to belong".
I think charters should be pulled if this was an organized group initiated activity.
I have a seven year old son whom I love very much, I would be absolutely furious if he mutilated himself to prove his "loyalty"to a GLO . Matter of fact I'm not sure I'm going to let my son pledge,as much as I beleve in the ideals behind fraternal living. I agree with the dad!
All the younger GC"s you'll have kids one day.

No...it happens everywhere.

All you can do is make sure your son understands that this sort of thing is not necessary--do some research, and research for yourself what kind of reputations the groups at his chosen school have. I would feel OK about letting my son pledge at a school where the Greek system has a good relationship w/the administration.

1 of my younger brothers joined a fraternity at UT, right after a very high profile hazing incident occurred there in the late 80's/early 90's (I can't remember the year exactly, but know it happened after I pledged in 1988). I begged him not to pledge at UT because I figured everyone did what had been done to that young man, even though I was having the time of my life at another school in my sorority. We talked about hazing frankly, and he took it seriously, and asked alot of questions during rush--found a group that touted their (uncool) non-hazing policy as a selling point, and so he joined & had a great time (yes, I know groups can lie about this sort of thing, but this one didn't). After a while, I felt pretty confident that he would never allow himself to be hazed (nor was another brother who pledged the same fraternity at another school).

My 8 year old has been hearing about Greek life since birth. He has 3 uncles and a Dad who tell him about their great experiences, and they all swear they were not hazed, and talk to him about what it means to be hazed (even at 9). Frankly, I am more worried about my youngest brother who will go to college in Fall of 05 because he will probably be playing baseball....I really worry about what they will do to "initiate" him more than I would if he was planning to pledge.

Re: Sigma Chi branding
 

Ummm...children? When someone comes out and says, "They held me down and burn the mess out of me!" THEN it might be a problem. But when people are doing it as a tribute to their organization, what's the problem?

ETA: Of course, I'm a woman who thinks that brands, scars and tatoos are sexy.

Re: Re: Sigma Chi branding
 

Not to mention that the person is most likely 18 which makes him an ADULT.

But yah, there's not much of a difference between a tatoo and a branding.......

It does have dangers. A brand can get infected. Infections can lead to worse things. If an infection that leads to something bad is caused by a brand of a certain organization's letters, guess whose doors the tort lawyers are going to be knocking on?

It's simply poor risk management if the activity is sponsored in any way by the organization. Especially if it is part their pledge program, official or not.

I was able to sit in on one of my undergrad brothers giving a speach to the active chapter about risk management. He made some damned good points. Among them was that we as a chapter need to have a mentality of safety and "squaring away" (that's military lingo for watching your bro's back [he was in military school]) your brothers. These kids' first thoughts were probably not safety (just a crazy guess).

Don't you think peer pressure might have something to do with this.
Should organizations be proud that their members are stupid enough, even if "free will" is involved to stand for this.
I have a big problem with branding, and don't tell people aren't pushed into it I've seen it.

The late 80's incident at UT was when a Phi Psi pledge, Mark Seeburger died after being taken on a ride handcuffed to a metal bar in a van and being forced to drink until he passed out.
Phi Psi did't even close the chapter. Guess what Texas Alpha is one of PhiPsi's top chapters dating back to 1904 it now has 150 plus members.

Unless you have amazing healing powers most brands don't fade. At least not on any of the men I've seen them on. They weren't forced to get them, everyone in the chapter makes a decision as to whether or not they want them. It's not sponsored by the org and is usually not done in any capacity that is connected to an official fraternity function. Branding may not be your cup of tea but I wouldn't insult an aspect of SOME fraternity culture just because it doesn't line up with your personal values.

Not insulting it. Just observing how for NIC groups, this act probably does fall under the definition of hazing. From the NPHC groups' hazing policies that I've seen, this would probably fall under their definition as well. It doesn't have to be sponsored by the organization to be hazing. You're getting your letters burned into your flesh. I don't think most juries would have a problem finding the connection there.

I agree with many on this thread, that if he is an adult and did this on his own free will, who cares? It's his body, his choice, let him do it. If there were 10 of the chapter brothers doing it, at their own free will and they are all adults - yippe-kai-ayyy! Good for them.

Now, if it's forced on them, or a mandatory pledge event, or done when someone is passed out...etc., then they should be in trouble. But, with all the negative press about Greeks as it is, we should not be assuming that this was a hazing event.

If it was a part of the intake process, then yes it would be considered hazing. However, from my experience, as far as NPHC orgs are concerned, you can't get branded unless you are a member.

And like my Soror Msn4med1975 stated, it is a personal decision whether or not you want to get branded.

Hazing can be either an official or unofficial part of your intake process. Hazing can also be perpetrated on both members and pre-initiates. Hazing can also be consentual or non consentual. It just depends on your organization's definition. I'm not expecting anyone to change their behavior. I recognize the chances of anything going "wrong" with this are slim. But if you really care (I really am not concerned) you could call your group's HQ to see if it's permissible.

Personally, it's not something I'd be comfortable comfortable calling the head of my organization to tell them we were doing.

This is actually a pretty good point.

Pontificate all you want about adults choosing what they want done to their body, and being old enough to make their own decisions, etc.

At the end of the day, though, would you be comfortable telling your central office what you're doing. If not, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's some truth to this, considering the way he keeps referring to his 18 year old (probably closer to 19 year old) son as a child. Then again, if the son is blaming his actions on others, he's kind of right.

I don't think anyone here is disagreeing on what hazing is: official or unofficial, mental or physical, pledge or member. But, if this kid did it on his own (pledge or brother), with no pressure or force, then there is no issue here.

All it is, is a dad who disagrees with his sons choice. My parents couldn't belive that I got a few Beta tats on my body, but now they see it as a way I express my dedication to my fraternity. I don't regret it and neither do my parents, and its been 8 years.

If the state were to call a hazing suit against my chapter because I got letters painted on my body (or I branded myself for that matter), I'd go Waco on them in court, because that would be completely ludicris. I question hazing laws.....

Yeah...what if you DO brand yourself. Would a court be able to call it hazing?

I'd assume that the court would only really get involved if say a brother who consented to be branded along with a few of his pledge brothers developed an infection due to the brand and lost a limb (something extreme like that). He would certainly have a good case against his group. Please try to make the case that in a situation where your pledge class chooses to brand themselves that there's no peer pressure. I need a good laugh.

You may not regret it. It may have been purely consentual. The definition of hazing for most of our groups does not care abut either of those things.

If a group of pledges chose to brand themselves, resulting in infection and loss of limb, that is their own fault. The justice system would eat that up and the chapter/national HQ would be sued...blah blah blah. That is why its unfair - because these adults (in most cases) made a decision on their own (assuming no force or pressure), and have to live with the results.

Anyway, how many stupid things did you do when you were 18? I bet you can think of a few.

Sure it's unfair. I didn't say it was fair. I did say that this is an example of poor risk management -- which it is.

Personally, I could care less as well.....like I said, it's a personal choice. Either you want to get branded or you don't. I have never heard of pledges getting branded (not saying that it doesn't happen) but that is just from my personal experience. Especially in the NPHC orgs, seeing as you can't even wear letters until after you are initiated/crossed. So when I hear of branding the last thing I think of is hazing. Most of the people I know who are branded couldn't wait for it to get done. They were excited about it!

Just so we are on the same wave-lengths here, please explain to me how this is poor risk management. This may be poor personal risk management on ones part, but that is a choice they make. Chapter risk management plays zero part in this incident (again, assuming this was not a 'hazing' event forced upon them).

Crossing the street outside of a cross walk is also considered poor personal risk management.

In NPC and IFC orgs, pledged are considered "new members" of the organizations. In other orgs, the pledges are considered "aspirants" but do not become members until they are initiated.

I can't IMAGINE why a "new member" would want a brand or why an active would want to brand a "new member" who isn't fully part of the organization. To me, that's giving something sacred to someone who has not yet earned it.

I'm sure in orgs where pledges are "aspirants," a pledge who got a brand of his/her org would be dismissed from the Intake process for his/her lack of respect. Then that pledge would have to deal with the fact that he/she is not a member but has a lifetime mark!

If a bunch of pledge brothers and myself decide to go off and get branded after we are initiated -- and even if we do it on our own accord, and then something bad happens.. say a serious infection -- the group as a whole can be held liable.

Any time your letters are involved the actions reflect back on you. Whether or not this is official chapter programming is really beside the point. Check out your organization's risk reduction guidelines sometime. A lot has changed in the last 8 years.

I know our risk management guidelines, and I am pretty sure that if a Beta gets killed in the streets of Jamaica while coming home from a rave, the parents of him cannot sue the General Fraternity, just because he is a Beta.

Thats the point I am making.

Branding isn't FORCED upon members either implicitly or explicitly. While someone mentioned a chapter that did their branding shortly after they crossed, MOST of the NPHC members I know with them got them months if not years later and had to request that someone do them. There wasn't a lineup and folks just HAD to do them. With the exception of the Alpha brand (and this just may have been in TN) they got ONE LETTER branded into their arm and if that's what they want to do so be it. It wasn't something they couldn't hide much in the same way you hide a tattoo. As most people that don't get brands don't get infections (anymore thanthose that get tattoos and get infections), a jury would be hard pressed to hold a chapter or organization responsible for something that in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM is connected to the pledging process for MOST chapters. They aren't viewed as associate members till they get branded, they are members flat out and if they choose to adorn their bodies after they are done more power to them. Again, not being truly familiar with the culture of branding in NPHC groups please just comment on NIC groups and what it would mean for them.

Under what legal theory?

Legal theory? Are you suggesting that it's too much of a stretch to say that if a group of members of XYZ go and do something and one gets hurt, XYZ might not be held accountable? We see this all the freakin' time in alcohol related injuries. I don't see how this would be much different.

That you know people and that is beside the point is one thing. This Sigma Chi branding appears to have been part of their organization's program. In some cases, I suppose it's just like a tatoo and the organization has no real involvement. In other cases (we don't know a whole lot about it at this point) the organization IS involved. In those cases, whether we're talking initiate or non-initiate, if a group of brothers or pre-initiates decides to have this done, and something goes wrong, it's a lot like what would happen if a group of brothers had a party at someone's house and one of them died of alcohol poisoning.

While we don't know everything that happened here, I don't believe my reasoning is much of a stretch at all.

And as I said before, I sure as hell wouldn't want to call my executive director and let him know our pledges were out branding eachother.

Actually your commenting on NPHC hazing/branding views WAS the point. Comment on what is relevant for you since you just brought it back there. For Sigma Chi and this particular chapter it MAY have been a requirement. It also may have been some random folks that wanted to do something. If it violates NIC rules or Sigma Chi's rules that's one thing. But as you do not know the culture of branding within the NPHC please don't lump it in with what these individuals do.

Well, I've only read the hazing policy for Kappa Alpha Psi. Maybe it's different for yours. However, their hazing policy was exactly the same as mine.

Therefore, the shoe seems to fit.

ETA: I really didn't comment on your "culture". But hazing was long part of the culture for NIC organizations. Because it became outmoded (and just not really compatible with the continuing survival of our organizations) it went away. Organizational cultures aren't always harmonious with our rules

The culture I was referring to had nothing to do with being a minority. Culture has MANY different components. Greek life is a culture in and of itself so is the reasoning behind and perpetuation of branding in the NPHC. If you are not part of the NPHC or at least friends with SEVERAL people that are you would be hard pressed to understand why anyone would continue something that is not sanctioned by our national governing bodies. Our pledges do not brand one another and as I stated, no one is forced to get one but if you are worried about your fraternity you are more than welcome to do so.

I would love to see where in your risk management policy that it states a grown adult Sigma Nu member/associate cannot make a decision on their own, to pierce/tattoo/brand themselves, and if they do, the Sigma Nu Fraternity is not held liable.

I think we're all missing the point here. There was a pissed off dad, who didn't like his adult sons decision to brand himself (or be branded for that matter). There is no indication that this was hazing or forced on his son, he was just pissed off and wanted Dallas to know about it.

I think what ktsnake is referring to here is what we like to call the "duck" rule. If it looks like a duck, and wallks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck, whether it really is or isn't. Just because 10 guys from a single fraternity go out and get branded, because they WANT to, and one of them gets seriously injured for whatever reason, that people won't look at it as a fraternity event, because 10 guys from the same fraternity were all there. No, it wasn't an event, but it will be PERCEIVED as one.