Your definition of hazing...
 

Since all this talk about hazing and stuff, I'd like to know how greeks AND non-greeks define hazing in their own individual definitions. Speak on it.

Imperial1

Interestingless question.

Has been dicussed may times.

Just talked to someone from LSU, SX put on two year suspension.

That is the Kiss of Death for a Fraternity!

Anyone with class does not call us Frats.

News Media are Idiots, fight with them every Chance I get!

Actually, no response needed!:rolleyes:

I don't know...although there may be one legal definition, I think people have their own ideas on what they think crosses the line.

Also...I don't know if I'd say that news media are "idiots." As a former member of the media, not everyone in the industry is worthy of scorn.

Stand corrected, NOT ALL NEWS MEDIA PEOPLE are IDIOTS!

TV Peeps read what is put in front of them when on air. Print media do have a tendency to screw up, be biased about many things.

Seen and read it to many times.:(

If I was not in a GLO, I would think that hazing would be defined by having options removed from you.

I would have assumed that if you submit to something, that it was not hazing.

I know different now, but I still have my own opinions about it all.

I think Imperial is asking for our own personal opinions, rather than a legal definition. I'm going to give it a shot...

Any activity that causes mental, physical discomfort or harm (including embarassment or being demeaned) which is perceived as required for membership and/or an attitude/treatment toward/of certain members (usually new members) that they are lesser people simply because they are newer members of the organization (termed loosely to include sports teams, etc), including having to "earn" membership by activities as described above, particularly when there is an inter/national organization that details membership requirements and such activities being done locally are not included in those membership requirements. (i.e. a standardized exam given in a prescribed manner isn't hazing, but if a group makes up new rules pertaining to that exam, it could be construed as hazing). Activities which are perceived as required or expected for membership which are in direct opposition to the organization's purpose/creed/vision/goals.

Wow, that's tough to define!

Dee

You are correct.

Imperial1

Seems to me that a big part of the problem is that there isn't one legal definition. There may be hundreds. And they're, for the most part, remarkably vague.

That's the truth man.

I've heard individuals say how some REAL bad stuff isn't hazing just because they don't hit their pledges.

But they do have late night hole digging sessions, they make them sit for extended periods on their "bows and toes" (elbows and toes) which results in bleeding, etc... But to them, this was not hazing:confused:

My youngest brother, a member of another GLO on my campus will freely admit that he was hazed of course. And he derives pleasure as an alum of his chapter in going back to haze their pledges -- what a way to promote alum involvement!

Here's how I look at it:

When considering if something is hazing...think, "would I do this to a friend or family member to make them closer to me?" It's a good way to think about it.

Anytime pledges/new members are degraded, made to do extra things that don't serve a good purpose, etc, it's hazing to me.

If it makes pledges/new members nervous, afraid, annoyed, etc etc then it's hazing.

Pledging should be a positive thing. It shouldn't be something you struggle through to "earn your letters."

Although I *personally* do not think it is hazing to not allow pledges to wear letters until initiation. Then again, this is a national policy for us so it's okay for other orgs to have differing opinions. :)

O that is definitely forbidden in my org. Pledges shouldn't wear the letters if they don't know the meaning of them nor have they been given rites of passage to do so.

Imperial1

Way in the past when I was a pledge, we could wear and/or display Delt letters -- but not the Crest because we did not yet understand it's secrets.

Well alrighty then! :eek:

Imperial1

Basically I look at hazing as something that I would not want done to any of my younger brothers or sister... motto I lived by in the military, and a motto I carried over to the Fraternity.

I think it can be said, that if not all Greek Orgaizations but most have taken a jaundiced eye at Hazing. Ergo, the Risk Management proclimations and higher Insurance costs per chapter which raises Chapter dues.

In many regards, have gone totally overboard. With Grades being upper most in College, We cannot have a forced study time for New Associates:(

One should remember, that Abuse, physical or mental can be very dangerous. Each individual is different on what can be handled.

If an individual is good enough to recruit, then why not treat them as Possible New Members who will some day be a Brother or Sister.

As ktsnake stated, His Brother, a member of another Greek Organization feels since He was Hazed then it is okay to keep doing. Passing the torch so to speak!:(

Since when did violence promote Brother/Sisterhood?:confused:

It is in many orgs. Out of curiosity, is this your org's national policy? I ask because I was curious which all organizations DO have this. SAI does for certain; I believe APO does? And I wondered about NPHC and other cultural orgs because I know they frown upon it like SAI does and I was wondering if this is also a national policy. :)

I think just about every nphc org does not allow pledges/MIP'ers to wear the letters. They aren't Kappas/Alphas/Zetas/Omegas/Deltas/Iotas/AKAs/Sigmas/SGRho's until they have crossed and finished their MIP process.

Imperial1

Alpha Phi Omega
 

Rules on pledges wearing letters are determinted by the individual chapters, but generally discouraged. Petitioning Group (what we call Colonies) members are allowed to wear letters if there is something on the letters stating that is for a Petitioning Group.

Randy

My fraternity, Lambda Chi Alpha, includes any activity that would make a distinction between an associate member and an initiated member an act of hazing.

I am a "mature" greek, and I take exception to that definition. I was not an associate member. I was a "pledge". I had no problem with that. I was required to wear my pledge pin and keep a pledge book with me at all times. The pledge book was a small loose-leaf notebook in which I was, during the course of my pledge semester, required to get a signature and personal information (local address & phone, permanent address, girlfriends name, pin #, etc.). I thought it was a great way to make sure that I met every member of our chapter before I was initiated. I was required to enter the house through the back door, unless I was accompanying a guest. We had pledge class meetings, pledge class officers, and every week we took a test on fraternity policy, history, etc. None of what I have just described is allowed today. It's all considered hazing.

I would be curious as to what some of you under-grads think of this. I feel that most of our young guys are missing out on something. I felt when I was initiated that I had earned my membership. I had paid not only literal dues, but had figureatively "paid my dues" as well. I never felt demeaned. I felt then, as I do now, that there were legitimate reasons for the things I was required to do. It seems like the experience that a lot of you have to day is like "fraternity light".

I am amazed at the number of young people who join GLOs and end up dropping their membership. I'm definitely old school, and I think you appreciate something more when you earn it. I wonder if that' s part of the reason that kids drop. They had their membership handed to them.

So am I just an old guy hopelessly out of touch with reality, or does my point make any sense?

i wish someone would. folks need to understand protocol.

I suppose the answer to your question depends on what went on during your entire pledge process.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter because the GLO's and the laws have spoken and must be obeyed if a chapter wants to keep its charter.

My pledge semester was one of my best in the fraternity. We were, and remain, the largest class (28) in our chapter's history. I think part of the reason it was so special to me was that we were working towards a common goal. Everything that we did, in my mind anyway, was about learning about our fraternity, learning about the men we were going to call brothers for the next four years. There was never anything demeaning asked of us or done to us. We received our charter on the same weekend my class was initiated, which I think is another reason that period of my life is so special to me.

:confused: Thanks for sharing.

Imperial1

On the whole I agree with most of your points... I personally believe that there should be a structured "indoctranation" into a GLO... but there is also a part of me to see how easily that can slip into hazing.

I too am appalled by the way some of the newer members take the concept of the Fraternity lightly, or expect to be handed their membership. However I am at a loss to correct a problem that I see as part & parcel of the current culture of the undergrad student today. There is a general disdain for structure or discipline, or even authority that is detremental to process of "indoctranating" new members, if not the image of the Fraternity as a whole. The only suggestion that I can come up with is to adopt a halfway point between the current attitude for anything that concerns or hints of hazing, and the attitudes of the past with respect to education and commitment to the chapter.

Actually, I don't believe it's written anywhere that members-in-training can't wear letters, although I've yet to see a chapter that allows it. I think it's just become our national culture to frown upon it.

i think some people on here were appalled by the concept of "earning" letters.

I think it's more a matter of earning of letters by who you are inherently, by your character, than by doing things that are humiliating or degrading. If we didn't think a woman met our standards for membership, we wouldn't offer her a bid. If we find out later that we were wrong, there are ways of reversing that decision, even after Initiation. We should continue to uphold the ideals of our Purpose. We have a set of ideals for which we strive, every day of our lives, always.

Dee

Hazing would be any activities that serve to purposely abuse, whether it's physical or mental, new members. Usually the consequences for the abused are a trip to the emergency room, psychologists office, or death.

Rarely if at all do the ends justify the means.

I'm sayin! I wouldn't want nobody just signing some papers and not learn about my org. That's WACK! And that just shows that they have no reason to be in a sisterhood to begin with if they don't know what that means or want to express that either.

Imperial1

To Sairose
 

Theta also does not allow new members to wear letters until after initiation. But it's not something in which new members are singled out; we're not supposed to let any un-initiated person wear our letters. Only sisters who know the meaning behind the letters are supposed to wear them. :)

First off, Gorilla Tom is not me.

Imperial brought this thread up from eons ago, why I dont have a clue:confused:

This Brother is one of my closet Brothers and speaks from His Heart.

What DEE said, if you do not think enough of them from the get go and treat them like second class people why did you recrute them in the first place.?

Strang, what is Your definition of EARNING LETTERS?

Remember, you wear Letters, you earn respect from being a person of High Regard and projecting such to others.

Is it common to hide your PNM light under a basket and show them like Human Studs when the come to light?

I am Proud to show our New Associates as someone We Selected to Join Us, Learn about Us and progress to the next step of Becoming a Member of Our Brotherhood.

Um, because that's what this forum is about right?


Imperial1

Oh, maybe yes, maybe no.

But trying to impune or show that you thought it was me!

As I said, it is not me.

But, trying to give the idea it was is uncalled for and giving a
:confused: So, was also for a person trying to explain His feelings?

How long ago was this post???

Sad for you. :(

Is this what a Site is for? Inuendos?

I didn't see his post as viewing his feelings. I saw his post as telling a story as to something that happened, not his views on the original question being asked in this thread.

Imperial1