Hazing creates a sense of unity
 

There have been members here who have expressed their opinions that the hazing in their chapters brought their chapters and their pledge classes together.

It is said that hazing keeps pledge classes together (a higher ratio of pledges become initiates). Is this usually the case? Was this your experience?

It is said that hazing teaches respect. If you were hazed, was this your experience? If not, did you learn respect in some other way?

If you participated in any group that hazed, what benefits did you see? What disadvantages?

I was hazed and it did not make me respect the actives or my fellow new members--in fact, a majority of my class resented the way the actives treated us, dividing the entire organization, even after we were initiated.

Maybe it is different for men. I have come to believe that there are ways to accomplish unity and respect without fear or other less positive tactics. Genuine respect is earned--it cannot be created artifically. True unity comes about from mutual respect and learning about one another.

I wasn't hazed, but I know of other groups that have hazed both on my campus and on other ones. For the most part, I've seen hazing bring those groups together. However, I've also seen it the other way around. One group that comes to mind has lost a considerable amount of pledges due to hazing.

I guess it all comes down to the personality of the group. One group took it very seriously, and another group, while they did it, didn't care if you didn't want to do whatever.

That's absolutely correct. While hazing may be fun (to some), and may bring people togehter, I do think it causes more damage than good.

An Excellent Point!

We as a Chapter of LXA recently been rebuilding as some may know from other Posts.

We have and were the first to decide that Hazing was not allowed. This was at A General Assembly that was decided By The Brothers who were Delegates.



As I mentioned above, the Re-Building Of My Chapter and The Recruitment hinged on this fact.

During Recruitment, We accepted some New Associates who were "Pledges" of other GLOs on campus. They left those GLOs for Hazing and came to us.

I have ment many of these Young Men and they are outstanding and I am Proud to say, They Will Become Brothers of LXA Ap. 8th.

Hazing today is Passe' and should be.

If We Associate a Member, then We should feel and treat them as We would want to be treated.


I am sorry, but if anyone feels that way of Hazing, I would never want to be a Member of Your Organization.

I'll start off by letting everyone know that my chapter in NO way hazes. I don't know of any sororities that do haze, but I know men that have been hazed (not necessarily at UK) and I speak from what I know about them.

A positive that I see coming out from hazing is that it really separates out those who really want to be there from those who are in it for the wrong reasons. The things that they went through were worth it for the ones that wanted to be in the fraternity, and gave them something to laugh about later on.

Do you think that hazing is becoming frowned upon more because it's culturally obsolute or because it's too expensive in terms of insurance, lawsuits, etc. for our respective organizations to allow it to continue?

It doesn't seem like many organizations placed a very high priority on hazing when it was at its zenith 20+ years ago. I don't mean to be cynical, but could it be that the only reason we're even talking about this has nothing to do with the human tragedy, the danger, etc. and everything to do with the financial survival or our respective institutions?

As I Posted above and In answer to Your further Questions, it is a combonation of Both!

Who wants to Be Harrassed/Hazed. and who wants Isurance to go Up?


One Word=Idiots is all I have to say!
:( :(

As I am from the same local and pledge class as Heather, I just wanted to add that the hazing also did not bring us any closer together as new members or with the actives. In some instances there was almost a hostility towards some of us by the actives about some things - or all of us with regards to the school tradition of other groups kidnapping the various pledge classes. Some of the hazing was still within the school's regulations ('pledging hours' if you will).

Hopefully things on campus have changed in the past 12 years - especially since there is now a college panhellenic.

Sarah

That is cynical and I find it almost disturbing that anyone would argue that we only care about treating other people with dignity because of the liability or financial concerns.

I'm curious--Isn't one instance of someone getting hurt, or humiliated, or killed, enough to take action without regard to legal ramifications? Liability is not my major concern with hazing--making everyone feel welcome in my organization and treating people with dignity is. I would hope others feel the same way.

Well, I'm sure it would be by today's standards. Do you think we made it through the 60's without killing any pledges?

I doubt it.

We made it through those days, yet anti-hazing policies didn't start really popping up until sometime in the 80's (maybe late 70's).

Anti-hazing laws didn't come about until much later (someone correct me if I'm factually mistaken).

(ETA: I'm in NO WAY promoting hazing, I'm simply trying to spark a decent discussion).

I took a young man to the ER after his skull was cracked open on a car doorjamb during his Hell Week in 1985. He had been triple blind folded, driven in a car for hours on end while being forced to do shots every few minutes. When he was told to get out of the car, he was slow and uncoordinated because he was so drunk, so an active brother yanked him out of the car by the rope around his neck (which held a pillow case on) roughly. The next morning, when he woke up, his roommate came and got me because he was bleeding out of his ear. He never regained full hearing. It caused a huge rift in his fraternity because he was treated so badly by some of the brothers. He went through with his initiation (I don't think I would have), but he never ended up feeling comfortable there and pretty much stopped being active after his big brother graduated, about a year after he was initiated. I don't think that situation created any unity.

Same fraternity, the next semester. Instead of blind folding the guys, they made them do shots in a line up and threw food at them if they didn't answer questions correctly. One of them was hit in the eye with a piece of egg shell which pierced his eye. He was permanently blinded in that eye. He chose not to initiate. This incident also caused a huge rift among the brothers. Was this man not dedicated because he didn't want to be part of a fraternity that permanently injured him?

While it is true that people who experience a trauma together often feel united (as I feel especially close to the co-workers who watched 9-11 unfolding with me), that is not the only way to build unity, nor is it the best way.

I could never respect someone who treated me poorly. As an earlier poster said, respect is earned by giving respect, not by intimidating someone into respecting you. That is fear, not respect. It is bullying. It builds resentment and it makes people want to hurt someone else as they have been hurt.

Pretty sure you're wrong here since a quick google search showed that Illinois has had anti-hazing laws since 1901. I'm sure other states had laws before the 70's and 80's.

Now--maybe we are more aware of the laws because of risk management training or because of liability. Maybe there is more enforcement. I find that sad, because we should be just as concerned with treating each other like we would want to be treated.

I am sure there will be lots of "decent" discussion tomorrow when people return from the weekend, and this thread will get lots of reponse from people who are going to try to justify hazing.

I think it depends on the type of hazing that is taking place. Having pledges drink or eat excessively or throwing food at pledges is flat out dumb. Any type of hazing that can injure someone should not be tolerated. I will say that when I went through basic military training I went through what you guys would consider heavy "hazing". Did it bring us closer as a group? Yes it did. Did it teach us to stick together and help each other? Of course. I hated every minute of it while I was going through but now when I talk to guys that were with me we laugh about the shit we had to do. I truely feel a comraderie with those guys that I feel will last a lifetime. Others might disagree, but this is how I feel.

When people say they think hazing creates unity, there not talking about getting the crap beat out of them, or doing disgusting things probably. However, many forms of hazing do build unity, and most people I know were glad they went through it. For example, hell weeks, scavenger hunts, a great deal of work to do in limited time, etc. All these things cause the pledge class to work together in order to achieve a common goal. I don't resent the brothers who made us do it, it created a sense of unity, knowing that we were able to work together to overcome an obstacle.

Are many people killed during basic training?

I agree with shinerbock in that hazing isnt bad provided it has a purpose. If it is there to weed out the kids that dont want to be there and to make the pledges work towards a common goal, then yes it is good. There are many people on here who when they think hazing, they think people getting beat near death and all sorts of ridiculous things. Hazing with a purpose is beneficial in my opinion.

People do get killed during basic. But not that many.

I had to think about that a little.

Certainly the military is in the hazing business, but the hazers (DI's, etc) may be a little more mature than the average fraternity man (or sorority woman). They all have several years of military training themselves which probably creates some amount of that maturity. Additionally, while sometimes calling for "creativity" on the part of the DI, the military has the training down to a science and many years of "experience." The people doing the hazing are, for the most part, highly disciplined -- not the case in an organization of 18-22 year old college students away from home for the first time.

Changing gears, of course I was hazed during the pledge process. In those days, everyone was.

Over the years, I've been an advisor and division officer, and I can see absolutely no indication that physical hazing and mental distress somehow creates "closer" relationships or better pledge classes.

However, I do feel strongly that the definition of hazing needs to be honed. Some laws and rules are so broad as to be ridiculous -- but it is my opinion that the reason for these far ranging rules is that when allowed some level of hazing, some chapters and members don't know when to stop and things get terribly out of hand.

I can fully understand how people think hazing is dangerous, it sometimes can be. However, I don't see how there is a debate over whether times of hardship bring people together. I mean, any difficult situation you are in with other people usually breeds relationships. It may not make you best friends, but you are close. Also, in order to have the "brotherhood" so many on this board speak of, I think it is important to know you can trust your fellow members, especially those within your pledge class. Such difficulty will also show who the pledges that lack motivation and performance are, and it better helps you to make membership decisions. This would help fraternities like those on my campus, who do not automatically decide to initiate each pledge that accepts a bid.

I wasn't beaten...I wasn't forced to drink excessively...I didn't have to circle my fat or anything like that--but I was hazed. It was the subtle kind that many are arguing creates unity--and I again will restate that my class was not close with each other or the active members because of those activities. The people that were close were those who spent time with one another, sharing their lives and working through real issues together. The whole period just led to people being manipulative, rather than accepting, and it cuase problems down the road with lack of trust and people leaving the organization.

It was several months AFTER my new member period that I began to feel a part of the group, and even then it has not extended into a lifetime bond with those people. I am much more connected to other sisters from around the country as a result of my volunteering than I am to any sister from my chapter.

Did all the sisters from your class and chapter initiate into D Phi E when your local colonized or did some of them stay local? I ask simply because I think that may have contributed to the lack of a bond just as much as any hazing you may have experienced.

Its also important to note the differences between guys and girls. Loyalty is completely different in fraternities and sororities.

I dont know if i agree with that. I've seen atleast in the BGLO's the same love and loyalty i have for my bruhs i've seen in sororities on my campus.

I don't even know what a BGLO is. However, I think its quite different. For example, at least where I'm from, most guys going through rush will state that they feel pledgeship is incomplete without some sort of hazing. I don't think girls have nearly as much of a need to feel that they earned it. However, from what i've seen on this board, rushees in other parts of the country may not feel that need either. I think down here, where a lot of these guys fathers and grandfathers went through it, it is a rite of passage and a testing of will. Back to love/loyalty, those are completely different things. Girls are much more likely to love and care for their sisters than guys are in fraternities. However, I think guys are much more likely to go to bat for each other, more likely to be honest and tell a fraternity brother to their face what the problem is. There are plenty of guys in my fraternity I wouldnt choose to hang out with all the time, but if they were in trouble, I'd be there without hesitation. Also, please don't tell me this is a sexist comment, because everyone knows it to be true.

BGLO... Black Greek Life Organization... and i can understand your post but paper is paper where i'm from whether you be male or female. I really do feel their is a huge difference in rushing versus pledging and the feelings of the people toward those who put them thru it afterwards. I wouldnt call your statement sexiest because the way you present it supports your point, i guess the difference i see is cultural. Hazing is hazing no matter what but i do feel that it is gender blind to the fact that if you encounter a hardship and that other person is there to help you thru it... your gonna have that bond with them. Social silence is another thing that helps people develop that love for one another... i dont know if yall do that but i know it made me grow close to the only people i could talk to. It also helped me learn to just be somewhere without having to draw attention to myself or be the loudest person in the room.

I initiated into DPhiE after I graduated--several years later, so I spent almost my entire collegiate experience as a member of the local sorority. So when I speak of the lack of bonds or unity, it is definitely from that lens.

Everyone from my class who was still active at the time I graduated initiated into DPhiE (other than one person who transferred). At that time, I can tell you that we had eliminated all hazing from our programs, and I believe we were stronger, more cohesive (although certainly not perfect) as a result.

Just my two cents.

I think you kind of missed my point, which is that a colonization of an existing local (or a local thinking about going national) 99% of the time has things going on and differences happening that have nothing to do with hazing. So holding up your experience as a "hazing didn't create unity" example isn't quite the same as someone from an already established chapter. Not to say you're wrong, just to point out that the group you were in may have had another "layer" of things happening that others may have not.

We did not pursue national affiliation until almost a year after I initiated, and we did not colonize until two years after I initiated. I am not sure that going national had anything to do with the lack of unity, as it really was not something the founders had ever really planned on doing--I really do, sincerely, attribute it to the way my class, which was the alpha class of this organization, was treated. To get back to the initiatl question--we were hazed, and we were not unified nor did we TRULY respect one another.

Actually, the colonization did not happen for a couple of years AFTER our pledge period - and it was actually the founding sisters doing the hazing (and who actually 'advertised' they had a hazing-free pledge program!). Hazing was VERY common on campus from what I could tell and remember even among the well established locals and nationals (both fraternities and sororities). Having been a chapter adviser for a NPC sorority on a Big 10 campus, the opportunity for hazing was always there - the only difference was the chapter had an international organization to be accountable to and a university that actually enforced the laws about hazing. The school that Heather and I attended was strict about alcohol but not at all about hazing. THAT is the difference.

The only reason, I'm assuming since I have long since left that school, that hazing would no longer be tolerated is because of the influence of the international organizations. HOWEVER when we had to do the activities it was under the guise of becoming a united group and getting to know the actives and our fellow pledges.

You've said exactly what I expected. I can completely see how hazing, of this sort, would serve to bring people together. Even well-moderated hazing on the college level could potentially do so.

BUT,

I fully agree with this statement.

PRECISELY! And, then you could get into the difference between pledging and hazing. I honestly believe that some level of strain is beneficial. If a group were to develop a "pledge program" that is overseen by their inter/national hq (however that would happen, I don't know), I can see how it would be a good thing.

Of course, I absolutely DO NOT believe that physically assaulting pledges should ever be tolerated when the pledgers are undergraduates. And I also believe that all elements of the "pledge program" should have a very clearly defined purpose. If it's just to see a pledge squirm, you'd have a hard time convincing me of its worth.

To everyone who keeps equating the military with collegiate organizations...it's not the same thing. It's not a fair comparison.

I beg to differ in regards to the topics of hazing or pledging. In fact when I think about it, they are a lot alike.

Hey PiKA2001,

This is what I mean:



Not the same thing and why collegiate hazing is so much more dangerous.

I was hazed when I pledged a local sorority. I was not physically harmed, or forced to drink, but I still consider it hazing because I was humiliated, talked down to, and the actives carrying it out were being rude and just plain mean about it. The most disturbing thing seemed to be that they enjoyed it. My pledge class was small, and they all seemed to be able to shrug it off and pretend that nothing had happend, but I couldn't. I de-pledged and I don't regret it. I couldn't even look at those girls, let alone call them my sisters.I certainly didn't feel closer to my pledge class, and I definatly didn't want to be friends with the actives after that incident.

If you want to call someone your sister/brother, why do you want to treat them like that?

To add yet another facet to this whole discussion.... think of all the activities that our orgs can no longer do for fear of them being deemed hazing....

Like telling ghost stories?

Like what?

I think that it's a sorry state of affairs when you want to do something as simple as strip a pledge, pour chocolate sauce on her and stake her out on a red ant hill until she can recite the greek alphabet backward, and panhel gets all up in arms and starts yipping about "hazing".

But that's just me.

Agreed. And don't even get me started on the goat ban.

I don't think anyone's suggesting something like that KR -- and that you can even come up with that stuff is a little scary.

Most of the hazing that I've seen (although, my chapter never engaged in a bit of it) was people being yelled at, forced calisthenics, difficult tasks to do in a short amount of time.

Heck, some of the stuff I've heard about has actually sounded pretty cool. On the other hand, I've heard of some pretty dangerous (stupid) things that some chapters have engaged in.

I'm sure most of y'all are pretty familiar with your respective organizations' policies on hazing. Do you think they go too far? I mean, I can see trading swats, bows and toes, etc. as unacceptable, but line ups and some tasks that would pass for hazing under most of our policies get me to question them a little bit. How far do they need to go?

I'd like to note here that the college-aged boys I know are remarkably capable of getting themselves into trouble, sans fraternity or sports team.

And I say "boys" because I don't know of any 19 year old girls who made a potato gun and took turns firing it at an angle at a railway train.

Being 19 and bored is not a very good combination.