Hazing dilemma...
 

With my own organization, there have recently been several major chapters closed down due to hazing violations, posting stupidity on Myspace, etc. The most recent (of which I'm aware) being our chapter at Washington State University (a 97 year old chapter which was probably one of the top fraternity chapters of any group anywhere in the northwest) and MTSU which would have given anyone a run for their money.

It seems many of our (I)HQs are faced with a dilemma -- shut down many of your top chapters to try to stamp out hazing OR pretend it doesn't happen, make a show of being concerned here and there, but otherwise just avoid the problem and hope nothing horrible happens.

Both approaches clearly have their advantages and disadvantages. If you ignore the problem, you're essentially betting that a chapter which in many cases will have a rich 100+ year old history without incident which tends to show that whatever they do, though it may violate risk reduction policies promulgated by the national body, is very unlikely to cause an actual injury. Advantages include financial growth/security, protecting alumni investments made in the chapter home, preserving the condition of the property, preserving the reputation on campus. They have to weigh those factors with the possibility that something might go wrong which would be catastrophic for the entire national organization (though the chances are not really great that'll happen).

Assuming that half the chapters of your organization hazed, would you a) shut those chapters down hoping to recolonize, or b) leave those chapters alone and only deal with outstanding cases, or c) do nothing.

I think you wouldn't just start shutting them down... I would look first at the chapter operations and education opportunities. Hold workshops on membership, review pledging processes, attempt to define hazing a little better and policies to deal with hazing on a national level. The key is getting buy-in on these practices on the local level.

Traveling Chapter Consultants are a great way for chapters to report back to their nationals and to work with nationals to correct practices that may not be in accord with national policy.

I also think it is very important to look at the campus culture and get the IFC and Panhellenic groups to work together on co-educational workshops and policies to make it a Greek-wide effort.

Lastly, communication is so important -- between members, officers, advisers and nationals. The chapter should be able to handle problem areas and members without nationals intervening. Strong leaders and strong values are important-- so cutting down on hazing really comes down to recruiting and retaining strong members with a positive self-image and a true interest in following the ideals of the organization-- ideals that have more to do with fraternity, leadership, scholarship and service... and nothing at all to do with reciting the pledgebook while half-naked and shivering in a cold, dark, and dank basement while being presided over by a manical pledgemaster drunk on power. We've all seen that Law & Order episode...

Chapters should be given the tools and opportunities to fight back and overcome a hazing culture, and to recognize the dangers of such a culture before being shown the door. Hazing is wrong, but just shutting a chapter down without giving the men and women a chance to redeem themselves is also wrong.

EXCELLENT post!:)

If an International has a policy set, it should be followed to the letter.

If it is not and wants to stay in the old day scenerio then the law must be set down as per the IHQ.

Visitations and explanations should be explained in no uncertain words.

If they continue, then there is one recourse!

They either will follow the tenents or if something happens with harm, either the IHQ should take action or the school will!

If they are kicked off of campus, it may be harder for them to even come back!

If they do not for some years, it will be even harder and how may can lose out?

Leave the chapters alone and deal with outstanding/more serious happenings. To me, this is what it seems like goes on at most big schools/chapters in the South. Maybe i'm forgetting if it has happened, but it just doesn't seem like big powerful chapters are going to get shut down over anything that is not pretty damn serious.


......and Tom.....I don't know of a single chapter that follows every single guideline and regulation set forth by their Nationals. That is a little bit of a stretch to say that they should all be followed to the letter of the law.

This gets into the whole "letter of the law" vs letter of the real law. Most of us would not agree with state law/university definitions of hazing. Often, requiring a pledge pin could be illegal. Sending pledges to a "greek 101" type anti-hazing meeting many schools require could be illegal:)

I think that our position, pragmatically, is to employ a "stupidity meter", so to speak. Public pledge humiliation, for instance, is probably treated more seriously that private activities. Is that right? I'm reminded of the line from Animal House, "they can't do that to our pledges, .........."

I think the key is to get members to think about each activity they involve pledges in and what it is supposed to achieve, and try to design activites that accomplish the same goals in as low-risk a way as possible. But often "pride goeth before the fall" If everything else is going well, chapters are often reluctant to address pledge program issues.

[QUOTE=macallan25;1454471]Leave the chapters alone and deal with outstanding/more serious happenings. To me, this is what it seems like goes on at most big schools/chapters in the South. Maybe i'm forgetting if it has happened, but it just doesn't seem like big powerful chapters are going to get shut down over anything that is not pretty damn serious.

The question becomes what is "serious". (Inter)nationals ARE cutting loose chapters over rules violations. Phi Delt has closed down a fair number of chapters and several others have gone local over the dry house issue. Kappa Sig shut down Ole Miss and others over dry house. If they'll do it over dry house, they'll certainly do it over hazing. Your own (you are an SAE?) Duke Chapter is now an AD Chapter because of nationals threat to shut down what was a big, old chapter at the top of it's game. Sigma Nu at Vandy over hazing. The list goes on. That's ok, AD will pick up the pieces:) Our realistic policies are attracting more ex-national chapter locals into the fold.

Heck, we don't have a problem suspending an old chapter. We have suspended Alpha Chapter on more than one occasion.

Word. Same goes for my org.

I agree with adpiucf that it doesn't have to be quite that black and white. Education and extra support can go a long way in turning an otherwise strong chapter around with regards to hazing attitudes. Some of that depends too on how serious the infractions are though and how widespread and ingrained the problematic behaviors are. Just saying "Don't do that anymore" also isn't enough though. You have to actually teach them how to do it differently because they really don't know. Sometimes you can find ways to turn a tradition gone wrong back into something positive with a few changes so the basic idea is the same but the way it is implemented is more safe. It's also more difficult if the general campus culture encourages it. I have definitely heard "But the other chapters are WORSE" as a defense and that doesn't cut it.

I think it should be left up more to each individual chapter. I don't think some 50 year old man from 1000 miles away should decide what I can and can not do, and I'm not just talking about hazing or anything like that. I'm talking about dry houses, too. Why should a 21 yr old not be able to drink a beer at his house if he wants to? I don't break a lot of rules, but some of the rules made by Nationals are stupid.

Then why'd you join your fraternity in the first place?

Why not join a local/take your chapter local?

Trust me Kevin, if it was this easy, it would be done quite often at schools like mine.

Ahh! There's the question:)

Yeah, just look at the wildly successful "Nu Society" of Vanderbilt.

I know ;).

I would make them sit through many, many boring meetings.
That's something noone likes, and it's a clear causal relationship: "If we hit people with bats, we have to do sensitivity training again."
Really bad cases are one thing, but to just get people to be a bit more civilised? Long, boring meetings.

I've had significant contact with them and they seem to be doing fairly well.

I don't think that has anything remotely close to do with reasons for joining a fraternity. I joined SAE at Texas because my father and grandfather pledged SAE, I liked the guys, it has a great house, and has a strong reputation on campus. Taking into account the rules and regulations made up by a bunch of guys in Illinois didn't really figure into my equation.

I disagree with a ton of new things that are IHQ has proposed........it doesn't mean that my reasoning for joining my particular fraternity should be questioned.

[QUOTE=tallgreekalum;1454547]Yeah, I realize they ARE shutting down chapters.....but keep in mind the type of chapters I was talking about. When they start shutting down chapters like SAE at Alabama or Phi Delt at Ole Miss.......then get back to me. There are plenty of chapters that I think most would agree are....above the law....so to speak.

[quote=macallan25;1454922]
Man, I used to agree with you.... I seriously thought that Sigma Nu at the following were way above the law & untouchable: Kansas, Arkansas, Arizona State, Washington State, LSU, Colorado State, Vanderbilt, and WAY back in the day - Texas.

However, our nationals has shown that they don't care how strong you are; you are subject to all the same regulations as even the smallest and newest chapter.

Ep Ep was never shut down... at least not that I know of.

I'm almost positive they were. For at least a year because of a monster fight or something. I'll look for the article and PM it to you.

[edit] removing Okie State as I don't see where nationals ever closed them down.

The "Nu Society" might be doing well. But not well enough to keep Sigma Nu from coming back. I mean this with all due respect to the society, but Sigma Nu is, and will be, bigger (on so many levels) at Vanderbilt than the society can ever hope to be. Their history, their tradition, their alumni etc.

As such, the "Nu Society" is a good example of why I don't feel many SEC (and or other Southern) chapters will withdraw from their fraternity. Especially when they are viewed as being a prominent fraternity on campus.

Frankly, the powerful, wealthy, and influential alumni are still Sigma Nus. Vandy Sigma Nus. The alumni have a long history and are respected for being Nus on the Vandy campus. As such, I would guess many of them have had a part in bringing their chapter back to Vanderbilt. So for example, when Homecoming comes around, Sigma Nu alumni will go to the Sigma Nu house to hang out and party. When a Vandy Sigma Nu alumnus is asked to open his check book to help *his chapter*, the name is going to be the Vandy Sigma Nu chapter and not some society that he doesn't have any ties with at all.

And the actives and alumni of other SEC and Southern chapters (of any fraternity) know and understand this as well. If not, we would have seen a heck of a lot of SEC and/or Southern chapters leaving years back. Not just a random few.

Another reason I don't see a concern on SEC campuses would be with the actives. Again as an example, I'd love to see some "Nu Society" guys go to the Sigma Nu house at Ole Miss, at Kentucky or at Bama and say "Hey, we are here for the football game tomorrow. We *use to be* Sigma Nu, but we aren't anymore. Can y'all put us up for the night?" My point is that when a chapter removes itself from the general fraternity, they no longer receive the benefits. Like being a part of a brotherhood that extends beyond the campus, and throughout the rest of the South and into the rest of the county. And the instant respect that can go with that.

And for what it is worth, the same may be said with the "Phi Society" and Phi Delta Theta at Virginia.

Well said. I did read something after they recolonized where the Vandy Sigma Nu chapter would NOT be rushing any of those Nu Society members back. They said they would be treated much like any other Fraternity on the campus. Seperate.

No matter what GLO some are going to go aganist IHQ Rules and when the do, they should be chastised!

Oh, my Chapter has a lot of Monied Alumni! They will not be closed!

Wrong! If they act like dill wads, they make not only their own GLO look bad, they make all look bad by association!:mad:

None of us want to beleive it can happen, but it does!:eek:

I am the Oldest Alimni of my Chapter, but, there are more who are more stearner than I am! They are some of the Younger Brothers!:)

Make your Chapter look like fools and all of us, who does that help?:mad:

wow,
I have to agree with the Earpism on this one.

I initially felt sympathy for the Nu Society until I talked to their "Commander" and he basically crapped all over Sigma Nu and said he had no intention of disbanding and rushing Sigma Nu ever...

ouch.

A tricky question Kevin.

At some level, IHQs have to set a tone. Not only for legal reasons but because any person who associates with any organization in life must adhere to certain standards that preserve the integrity of that organization.

The question is, where do you draw the line?

Of course IHQ has to publish and adhere to the legal requirements for alcohol possession and consumption. That is a no-brainer.

But should there be dry houses? I don't think so. At some point in life, every man has to learn to make his own decisions and suffer the consequences if a bad decision has bad ramifications.

If an underage active member of a fraternity drinks in the house and assaults a female guest- he puts himself in the same position as anyone else who does the same in any setting. Whether he gets in trouble will depend on whether the incident is reported and pursued. At this point it becomes a matter for the legal system- and the fraternity chapter and IHQ would be wise to disassociate someone found guilty just as an on-campus dorm or employer would do in the same situation.

But when you get into the issue of having a dry house to prevent that kind of thing from happening, suddenly you are babysitting- and in the process you are telling every member that you do not trust them. And the more research I do, the more history shows that babysitting accomplishes little if anything.

People have to start growing up at some point. Ideally it should start well before college, but college is certainly no time to revert back to parenting.

The very real fact is that people under 21 drink. Period. And if society really wanted to end that- a way could be found. But we don't- we seek merely to curb it and at least promote a strong sense of discretion about it. Whatever individual people tell you, this is the collective message of society.

Hazing is no different in my view.

Some GLOs have attempted to eliminate it completely- and they are having about as much luck as the GLOs trying to go dry.

An IHQ must have and enforce a hazing policy that reflects the law- but to go further is just creating a nightmare for everyone.

I will not name names (it is not my GLO) but I am personally aware of (meaning I am reporting the facts) a situation where a very strong GLO at a major school was completely shut down because of a political conflict.

Simply put, the chapter did engage in some hazing activities which were not illegal in the state of Texas, but were in violation of IHQ policy. The chapter also had a very clean record- no deaths, injuries or reported incidents.

Two members had a bitter battle for presidency of the chapter that was about personal interests and the general direction of the chapter, and the loser was so upset that he turned his chapter in to IHQ for hazing.

None of the pledges were ever interviewed, and to my knowledge there were few- if any- actives who were in support of such a move.

IHQ came crashing in with a live-in advisor who turned the place upside down.

So, over a 4 week period almost the entire chapter quit. 80% of the guys just left- and they moved out of the house too leaving the alumni who bought it holding the bag for upkeep and property taxes.

So the alumni sold the house. And that chapter has NEVER recovered. They are still around- but they have never come close to what they had before.

And it is all because IHQ set up a mindset of control and fear- and then allowed one disgruntled person to make personal use of that to the ruination of the chapter and a financial disaster for alumni (and how smart is it to alienate a group of alumni who have the money and dedication to pay for a $1 million+ house?)

What a waste. What a complete waste.

But that is what happens when you get beyond your basic legal responsibilities to manage an organization to help young men mature.

What you create is a situation where the guys hide what they do- and then someday someone will come along who will reveal what is going on for personal reasons and then it all comes crashing down.

Advisors and IHQs don't have time to be there every second. Most violations come to light because they are reported- not because they are discovered. That is a key point since it speaks to impracticability of such an approach and also to the fact that enforcement will be reactive and cannot take into account the reasons for a chapter being turned in.

This does not create a better brotherhood. It instead creates mistrust and secretive behavior. My own GLO has a chapter with this very issue- and they are constantly being hammered even though they are about the most saintly and sin-free bunch of guys you can imagine.

JMHO.

I'm actually more familar with UVa and the break there had significant, maybe majority, alumni support. The situation is cloudier at Vandy, but the Nu is keeping a lot of alumni with them. AD had a similar thing happen when we had the coed split. We have some alumni who support both, and some who only support one or the other.

Kevin- as usual I managed to write an entire page without answering the original question.

I choose option D)- create a realistic hazing policy with the approach I discuss above and then enforce it strictly with no favoritism. Basically- make it have to be a very bad issue for there to be sanctions, and then impose them consistently.

One other little thing- when an IHQ gets all skittish and creates unrealistic policies and caves in to public and media pressure without due care, they are basically conceding that those who hate GLOs are right to think we should be gone.

"I'm sorry" is maybe the most overused phrase in modern times. An apology and punishment is warranted when it is deserved, but overused it becomes the key weapon for your idealogical enemy.

With todays fine line of hazing the IHQ for all of us are very sensative to any kind of event. The laws of States is making it even more difficlut to know what hazing is made up of.

GLOs are microcosisms of any group or peoples. Even with being adjudged adults by law doesn't make it so for some 18 year olds. While the young when leaving the nest of the parents, they wish to spread thier wings and in many cases error in their decissions.

Then at that point, the older active members are supposed to keep an eye on any and all situations, but sometimes, egos take control.

Knowing a few of the situations that have been mentioned egos can run high even within Alumni too. While this may not have anything to do with running the Active Chapter, it goes to having control of the House building. This too can harm a chapter with the in fighting and with holding of funds for rerbushing the property. This then can now include the city ordinances for fire supression systems and fire codes.

It therefore becomes a three pronged problem with the three factions: IHQ, Active Chapter, and Alumni to work together.

SN as an example at KU, Ks. was suspended after two hazing accidents and have now returned to campus.

To sum it up, never say never when it comes to a Chapter being de-chartered, it can happen whether anyone beleives it or not. The reasons can vary but when it happens, do not be surprised. Even Alums can get upset and back away from a major situation and hope that if the Chapter is de-chartered, they can come back and be even bigger and better.

EE-BO and Kevin have a good handle of the situation as they have been there and seen what can happen.

OTWjr????!!!!

Oh and btw, I was never beaten and am considered a "full" member of a BGLO.

[QUOTE=banditone;1455008]I'd rather not argue with you over this, but Arkansas Sigma Nu was never a top chapter... it was upper 2nd at best.

I think this is pretty funny because at a lot of the houses here....they still drink even if they are dry!

Basically, they just drink on certain occasions or when they have guests (parties). The whole things is that some places care about the enforcement of the rules while others do not. Big parties will probably aways remain dry, but the floor parties will not. Sorry to dissappoint guys.

The thing is that they need to be responsible. There are sororities that break the rules about it too, but they have more of a partying house and are not as many.

In the end, people just need to be responsible.

The military is not on the same level as a fraternity or sorority. I love my organization, take it seriously...but it's NOT the military. I am NOT carrying a machine gun in the name of my country. Therefore...I should NOT be treated as a soldier.

The reason that hazing has been treated so very, very harshly is because there are too many chapters these days in most organizations to keep up with every single ones' individual traditions and determine what is kosher and what isn't. It is easier and in the end more efficient to outlaw any type of hazing whatsoever.

Fraternities and sororities should NOT condone activities which result in physical or mental trauma to a new member. Sorry. That's not what we're here for. I think new member retreats are a great idea, even though without actives being required to go as well, that's hazing, so we can't do it. I think new member retreats where they must drink x shots in 30 minutes to "prove they love XYZ" is stupid. Personally were I hazed I would have left. I am not so DESPERATE to be a Greek that I will subject myself to humiliation or harm. And I would never be able to look UP to a sister who had hurt me. I wouldn't be able to call her a sister, even.

I am not worried about who "earns" the letters in the new member period. If they do not come to the new member meetings and do not come mingle with the sisters at non required events they will view the sorority as a burden because they won't be seeing the sisterhood we have to offer...they will only be thinking about the two more hours they could have gotten in at work. Since all they have to do to "earn" the letters during that period is come to the meeting once a week (after which they recieve presents), not being able to do so indicates little to no interest in the sorority. Then they will usually decide that being in a sorority is not for them after all, and they'll leave. And that's ok. New member period isn't just for education. It's also to make sure you are ready to cement the life time committment.

In answer to the OP...honestly, I don't know. I can't imagine how detrimental it would be to close down half the organization, but on the other hand, I can't imagine condoning hazing at all...if you give them an inch they'll take a mile. It's a very, very good question. I don't envy those that must make those decisions.

Amen Squirrel Girl! I could not have said it any better....