Sigma Chi may make branding an expellable offense.
 

Parent of university student complains about branding ritual



08:32 PM CDT on Friday, July 9, 2004
By MIRA OBERMAN / The Dallas Morning News
COMMERCE, Texas – A burly football player crouched by the barbecue grill, two other boys holding him so he wouldn't flinch. A fraternity brother remembers some girls saying, "Don't do it," but nobody paid much attention.
A hot branding iron, with the Greek letters sigma chi on the business end, was held against the middle of the football player's right shoulder blade for a second or two. The smell of burnt flesh lingered a bit longer.
It's a scene that has been played out many times at Texas A&M University-Commerce, according to some professors and fraternity members. It was the second brand Chad Oliver had received, and many of the current members of Sigma Chi and some of the alumni also have brands.
Nobody had ever really complained, until Chad Oliver's father gave him a hug on Memorial Day weekend and Chad said "ouch."
Stephen Oliver's outrage sparked investigations by the fraternity's head office and the administration at A&M-Commerce.
"It's not normal human behavior," Stephen Oliver said, the anger still palpable in his voice weeks after he discovered the mark on his 19-year-old son's back. "This is a cattle brand."
Mr. Oliver said he was upset when his son got a brand on his left upper biceps, but he didn't complain at the time because he believed it to be self-inflicted. It bothered him more, he said, to think that his son's fraternity brothers believe it's OK to burn the flesh of their friends.
He blames the fraternity's leadership.
"They've generated an environment where something that I consider abhorrent is acceptable," he said. "I'd like this type of behavior to be acknowledged as sick."
The initial reaction from Sigma Chi's national office was cautious.
"Our understanding was that, in this situation, this was not a forced activity," said Brian Burbrink, assistant director of chapter development for Sigma Chi.
Mr. Burbrink said it is unlikely that the fraternity will take disciplinary action against the Zeta Eta chapter, but Sigma Chi will probably offer some "guidance as to perhaps alternative displays of pride for our organization."
As news of the controversy spread, though, the fraternity decided to take a harder line. Sigma Chi's regional chapter supervisor, Tom Stephens, said the fraternity would consider making branding an expellable offense.
Chad Oliver said he doesn't regret his decision to get the brand, even if it angered his father and embarrassed his fraternity.
"I decided to do it, and I wanted to," was about all he was willing to tell a reporter at a meeting organized by his alumni adviser. "I just felt like doing it, I guess."
Branding has a long history on college campuses, said Dr. Richard McKaig, executive director of the Center for the Study of the College Fraternity at Indiana University.
It's been a tradition among some historically black fraternities for decades and has also played a role in hazing rituals at many historically white fraternities, most famously during President Bush's tenure at Yale's Delta Kappa Epsilon. The practice became less common in the 1980s, when a number of high-profile cases led to anti-hazing legislation, and is now rare among historically white fraternities, Dr. McKaig said.
Though national organizations have tried to stamp out branding along with binge drinking and the hazing of new pledges, they have been unable to eliminate many of the "informal rituals" that develop at local chapters, Dr. McKaig said. Branding, or more commonly, tattooing, fraternity letters onto their bodies is often still considered by many to be the ultimate expression of a lifetime loyalty to the fraternity.
"It's a combination of fitting in and bonding in a way that's clearly irreversible," he explained. "Loyalty to the group is a highly cherished characteristic for this age group."
Although the university is taking the branding incident seriously, the administration can do little if coercion did not play a role in Chad Oliver's decision to get branded, said Dr. Keith McFarland, president of A&M-Commerce.
"Sometimes young people do things we don't want them to do," he said.
Sigma Chi Zeta Eta members and the chapter's regional supervisor insist that the fraternity does nothing to pressure students to brand themselves. They note that the current chapter president doesn't have a brand.
"I don't see why it's gotten blown out of proportion," said David Long, a fraternity member who has a Sigma Chi tattoo on his chest. "It's always been something we've done to set us apart from other fraternities."
Mr. Long said he was going to get a brand when he pledged with Sigma Chi but changed his mind after he saw that the fraternity brother doing the branding did a poor job on his friends.
The 22-year-old senior watched Chad Oliver get branded in May and said everyone was just having a good time.
"He said he wanted one. His other good buddy did, too, so three or four people did it," Mr. Long said. "I did one of the guys. I just heated [the branding iron] up until it's bright red.
"Somebody holds the guy, and he closes his eyes. It takes about one-and-a-half seconds – it's that quick. You just put it on and take it right off."
"I'm sure some people would look at it like it's a little bit out there," said Joel Dungan, 22, who graduated this spring and has Sigma Chi branded on his left biceps. "For me, it's just I'm a member of something I'm really proud of and I wanted something that would reflect that."
That choice may not be available to new members if Sigma Chi adopts the proposed policy making branding an expellable offense.
"It just doesn't look good," Mr. Stephens said.

OMG, It seems stupidity reigns!:(

I am afraid, if it was my son, He would never know pain like I would put out!:mad:

WOW, lets hear more disparaging words about Greeks:eek:

Just what we need:mad:

Monkey See, Monkey Do?

Expulsion? Interesting idea
 

The notion of making branding an expulsion offense is interesting, but if you boot the guy, guess what he'll display for the rest of his life? That's right, the letters of the house that expelled him.

I don't think they should make branding an expellable offense.

I don't think it should be an offense at all.

In fact, I can think of some ways this could be a regulated activity.

I personally wouldn't do it, but I have heard about sisters in the Divine 9 that have been branded and I dated a guy that had his letters branded onto his left bicep it felt weird, but hey it was want he wanted to do to show loyalty to his org.

I don't see it as hazing since he had the CHOICE to either do it or not do it , his membership in the org was not contingent on his choice.

However dumb/painful you and I think it is, it is their choice and I don't think that a it warrants explusion for having it done.

Those who want to, will do it and those that don't want to do it won't.

It's as simple as that

If a person willingly gets branded, or brands themselves, there is nothing wrong with that. It is basically a different form of a tattoo.

If EX makes this an expellable action, then they are overstepping their boundaries.

Dads need to keep their cake-holes shut, when their legally adult son willingly brands himself. This dad needs a shot to the nutz for bringing all this media attention to this harmless act.

I'm not sure your first point is true. Organizations can choose not to allow smokers...and other things. If Sigma Chi decides that "branded" people are an embarassement or whatever, isn't that their decision?

Second, as a father of a college age son, I might caution you about your cake hole as well. IF the family is supporting the son financially (I don't know if that's the case here), I think they have at least some say in how he acts. If a student has reached his/her majority and is totally supporting her/himself, I think there is an argument that they are pretty much free to do whatever they want. However, it is my impression that "most" students get at least some (and often substantial) support from parents.

If that's the case, I think the parent has the right to expect some level of cooperation. The other side of the coin is for the parents to discontinue that aid.

I mean, fair is fair -- if you expect help from your parents, you should meet them halfway.

Re: Expulsion? Interesting idea
 

isn't it ironic, don't you think, a little tooooo ironic, yeah I really do think.

This dad needs to realize his son is a grownup and blame HIM for what he considers a bad choice, maybe by cutting off his allowance, because the son doesn't sound like he bears any ill will to the fraternity - he wanted to do it. Then again, to do that dad would have to admit that he @#*%ed up in his childrearing.

Delt,

I understand and respect your views on this topic - however, I disagree with them.

I do not have any children, maybe I will feel differently when I do, but if my son were to go get Beta tattoos, such as his father did, I'd probably pay for them. If he were to get a Beta brand, I'd be there to hold his hand.

Whether or not the parents are funding this kids college, they still have to let him grow up and make his own decisions.

If my parents funded my college (which they didn't) and they were to hold that money over my head, I'd have told them to get bent.

We've discussed this topic ad nauseum.

For the record, I think it can be hazing, and often is a situation where there is peer pressure involved. What this kid described is definitely a situation where peer pressure was involved. Perhaps a form of self-hazing.

Again, it totally depends on the group's definition of hazing. If that's what Sigma Chi wants to call hazing, that's up to them.

That's fair. I think you will.

No parent or "child" is perfect. Our three look back now at some of the things they did when they were younger and just shake their heads.

Trying to put myself in this father's place, I see a young adult making a lifetime decision that he may really regret later and be able to do nothing about it. As a stupid possibility (but the only one I can think of at the moment), what if this young man wants to become a career lifeguard and employers don't allow brands or tattoos? (OK, I admitted it was stupid)

I wish I could undo some of the things I did against my parent's wishes. You only learn that with time and hard knocks.

Okay, you know what bothers me most about situations like this. Is that the parents are the ones doing all of the complaining. Last time I checked these were men and women. Technically adults. While I understand that many of these parents are paying for their childs education, why are they so involved in their personla business?
I presonally think that branding is stupid. While I do like and have 4 tattoos of my own, they are completely different from branding, and they were done by professionals.
But, if these gorwn men and women want to get a brand then let them. They have to learn from their mistakes. Why are these parents coddling them so much?

I don't know about the branding being an expellable offense...that's up to others to decide if they so choose.

My fear would be in the safety of the branding. I mean, just like any tattoo or what not, I would have thought these kids went to a reputable establishment, but to have one brother doing it for them...it just can't be safe. Scary even...

Just wait until the flesh of your loins does something like this and then write us back!:eek:

Why net make it an expullsion provision.:confused:

As Shadokat expressed, what if something goes wrong and a kid dies?

Can it, yes.

What if said kid for some reasons is no longer a member of said Org.?

What if I tatood my ex wifes name on my body. EX-Wife, not being very cool later. What would new girl friend say?

Last I heard, human bodies werent cattle but had a thinking mind, well sometimes!:rolleyes:

If one notices, cattle are getting ears pierced with tags of said owner! Is that a hint?

Oh no, not pierced ears either!;)

All due respect Tom, but this kid has every right to do this to himself. Your, Mine, Delt's and everone elses opions don't really matter - not even his Dad's.

Well, ZZ that is your right.

But, some of us know what the ramifications can be if something happens to the Almost Adult of age College Kids! Legally, yes morally, and true Adults, NO!

Now, where is your brand?

The parents are complaining because little innocent Johnnie NEVER would do such a thing on his own. Not their little angel! And heavens no, he doesn't binge drink, have sex, cheat on tests, curse or lie.

Parents want someone else to blame for their kids stupidity. being that the kids are in college, that's the time for some stupidity and body maiming.

If there's more evidence that it was forced upon him, then i'd be in favor of just say no. But it seems like a conscious choice.

Sigma Chi is just trying to cover their ass, and their insurance company's probably breathing down their neck.

While some may feel that if they're paying for their kid's expenses they ought to have a say in how he runs his body and his life, if the kid's 18 there's really nothing legal that can be done. It's great in theory, on some level I agree, but there's nothing to enforce that.

Be mad at your kid for making a bad choice.

Actually, you're generally sorry for your kid making a bad choice. Mad is only the immediate reaction.

Now, let's talk about the parent's Catch 22. So, we legally have no rights in telling "little Jonny (unisex)" what to do, but can still be named in a lawsuit if his/her chapter does something dumb -- or he/she her/himself get wasted and maim someone in a hazing incident or car accident.

Or, how about the university and In Loco Parentis? How is it that they can be sued if an over 18 student (or number thereof) are charged in a hazing incident?

I can keep my kids on my insurance until they're 21 or married as long as they live at home. I can claim them as an income tax deduction as a "dependent" if I pay their full support.

I think there really may be some gray area here. My suspicion is that those years between 18 and 21 are not so neatly wrapped up in the word "adult."

All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with Sigma Chi potential move -- but the parent issue was brought up early-on and is worth touching upon.

as someone said before, although this may be a "choice" i'm quite sure there's an element of peer pressure involved. if he didn't do it, he may not have been fully accepted. who knows.

personally i think branding is gross. it reminds me of cattle and slavery. people branded their slaves because they were considered property. branding holds a deeper meaning--ownership.

What next? Expelling guys that get tattoos? Or if they dye their hair blue?

If you do it of your own free will it's bod-mod not hazing.

Someone down there needs to get a stick out of their ass and realize that.

Well said.

What it comes down to is the kids an adult, he can do what he chooses, no matter if his parents still cover him for insurance, pay his tuition or claim him on his taxes. All that is, is overbearing parents who like to impose their views and values onto their children - or have nothing better to bitch about.

I don't have a brand, I have Beta tattoos. My parents think they're cool. They love what Beta did for me and supported me all the way. Do they make the occasional 'cult' joke, yes, but they'll be the first ones to come to Beta golf outings and attend homecoming events with me and my wife.

Do I rule a Beta brand out? Nope. But I think a 'B' branded on my arm would look silly, unlike a Sigma, Omega, or a Psi which make people do a double-take.

All in all, he's an adult. People need to allow their children to grow up - stop trying to hinder them.

This has been discussed at length before. But I'll say it again. Hazing often creates situations where individuals will do things to be part of the group that they normally wouldn't do. Getting branded can potentially be one of those things. If I were accused of killing a candidate by making him drink an entire bottle of vodka, do you think an adequate defense would be that he actually swallowed the stuff and drank it on his own free will?

The line between what is and isn't hazing is very blurry, especially because of many of our HQ's somewhat ambiguous policies on the subject.

Branding should never be done by anyone other than a professional.
The risk managment issue in this is that it was done by members of the chapter and not by a professional.
If some of the guys were to go to professional this would be a non issue.
I have 4 tattoos. My parents were less than thrilled but they weren't about to sue the tattoo parlour over something I chose to do or the school for "not keeping a closer eye on me".
I made my choice and I will live with it. But I'm happy, I like my tattoos one of which is related to Pi Phi.

This debate brings back to my mind a line from an old song, "But I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now." Ah, if I were only as smart as I was way back when I was in college.

Frankly, while many don't necessarily want to admit it now, age does bring at least some wisdom. However, it also allows for some gray areas and, if you are really smart, the understanding that you might not really comprehend all the ramifications of certain situations.

The truth is that age 18 isn't the magic milestone it appears to be. You can't drink legally in the US until you're 21. You can't run for President until you're 35.

"The State" enforces mandatory seat belt laws for all ages. The same for drinking and driving. Does anyone want to make the argument that driving drunk is OK once you turn 18? How about hard drugs? Sometimes we have to be protected from ourselves.

In the final analysis, though, organizations (like Sigma Chi in this case) must decide for themselves what things are good for their own organization. Risk Management, whether something like branding is a real or imaginary problem, is high on that list.

As for the father complaining, would you object if he were complaining about the university raising its tuition? Or, if they weren't providing security services? Or, if the fraternity was demanding all of its members be branded?

What would you have said if this young man's brand had gotten infected and he ended up in the hospital -- or had to have the arm amputated?

The fact is that this father has every right to speak his mind -- just as you have every right to speak yours.

Oh, and by the way, parenting doesn't end when a "child" turns eighteen. Think about that the next time you need a parent to co-sign for a loan or an apartment.

Look, I'm not implying that college students shouldn't be moving toward independence. Nor am I saying that some of you aren't bright enough to be totally independent. But some of you aren't. Nor, frankly, are many adults.

It's just that you don't magically become all knowing at midnight of your 18th birthday. Sometimes it happens a week or two earlier or later...

I'm not saying the father doesn't have the right to be upset. Yeah I would be upset if my child came home with a brand that was given to them by their fraternity/sorority members. it's not so much the brand as it was the risk involved because it wasn't done by a professional. The parent doesn't have the right to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Did his son make a bad chocie, probably. IS it anyone elses fault. No. Unless he was hel down by his fraternity members and forced to take the brand (which it doesn't appear that that was the case) then it was the kids own fault and the father has no one else to get mad at but his son. There comes a time when you have to take responsibility for your own actions and legally that age is 18.
You can enter into contracts, die for your country, rent porn, get married. Obviously there are some things that you can't do at 18 and I agree that sometimes we need to be protected from ourselves, but does that mean we are going to make body modification illegal because some people might make bad choices? You can legally get a tattoo at 18 and certain types of body modification (at least here you must be 18 to get a tattoo), if later you regret it, it's no one's fault but your own.

HMM, In the meantime, an infection sets in.

The kid is taken to a hospital and found to have a rare problem and dies. It was related to branding so what then?

Do you really think that The Medical Profession is so good that they can save anyone out side of TV Drs of course.

Read some stats on people dieing in hospitals, it can and will happen and then we will all be sorry for the lose!:eek:

As the old saying goes, as long as you live under my roof and I pay for the bills, I will have every right to dictate the family poloicy!

Ta Da!

Tatoo Shops are regulated via State Regulations and Health Standards!

Another thing to take into consideration!;)

Yeah, there is the chance an infection can set in. But that the risk he took by choosing to let his brothers brand him instead of a professional. Still his fault.

Any sort of body modification should be done by a reputable professional.
If you choose to go the other way you have no one to blame but yourself.

SWELL, so that makes it alright!:rolleyes:

Great rehtoric and reasoning!:eek: :(

OHBOY, I must really be friggen dumb!:rolleyes:

Tom I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

This boy CHOSE (key word here) to do this. It wasn't forced upon him.

Yes, his father has every right to be angry, sad, whatever with his son. But not the fraternity and not the school.

Granted, He May Have Chosen!

But ramifications for risk managegment is something We as Greeks Pay For!

Good for you that you do not understand what I was saying, but, I am sure others do.

Is there Legal Ramifications that could come out of this, what do you think?

You Asked me, now I return the Compliment, what do you mean!

Do you think Your Soroity would condone this?

Why dont you email Your Hq and ask them!

When you get an answer, Please post it here!

Oh, This "BOY" is actually the key word on your post! Not "Chose".

the only legal remifications and risk managment issues I see here, is that there might have been a chance that he was forced into this.
Was this a chapter sanctioned event? Did every one do this? Doesn't sound like it. It sounds like this was a few of the guys thinking this would be a cool idea.
Now there are probably some regretsbut they don't want to take any responsibility for their own actions.
No, my sorority would never have branding as a sanctioned event, but if I went out one day and decided to get my letters branding on my body and later regret it I have no one to answer but myself.
Show me solid evidence that he was forced into doing this and I will side with you saying yes, there should be punishments. But I see no such evidence here.

If the guy truly did choose to get a brand, fine. I agree with others that posted before me- let the dad be pissed off at his son, but not the fraternity or school. Brands are essentially no different than tattoos and parents don't threaten to sue the GLO or school when their kid gets a tat.
There is a frat where I went to undergrad that a lot of members choose to get branded. Their brands are on their butts, so it's easy to tell when they got branded cause they bring cushions to class to sit on!:D It is not forced and not done on campus and as far as I know, the whole frat is not present, so I really don't see how a lawsuit could be brought against them or the school.
As far as an infection setting in, dying in the hospital, blah, blah, blah.... You could step on a rusty nail, get an infection and die. That's just life.
I'm not bashing anyone's opinion- I just think the dad is angry at the wrong people (frat and univ.) and should be taking this issue up with his son.

Tom,

Your old saying makes no sense. You can pay all the bills you want, build 500 roofs over your sons head, and if he goes and gets branded, you still can't do anything about it because he was 18. The only thing YOU can do is take away the luxurious life you are providing, nothing more.

Thats like saying "My kid is 18, I let him have a beer with me from time to time - if the cops were to give him an underage drinking fine, my rules would trump the cops, and the fine would not be issued".

Closed minded thinking.