T-shirt club
 

Alpha Chi Rho stood for on of the last real Authentic Pledge process for frats in the oneonta area, when all you people talk about hazing being a sad thing and making you all look bad, your obiviously part of another T-shirt club. Alpha Chi Rho's national motto is " Be Men ", with that, one would assume that pledging wasnt going to be easy. I pledged to EARN my letters, not to just have them given to me. Whats really sad is how redicoulus most frats are these days, Traditionally pledging is supposed to be hard, learning how to unite and work as one with your pledge brothers to overcome near impossible tasks and obsticals, looking deep inside yourself to find the strength to do one more push-up, or one more sit up, pushing yourself and realizing that the body is capable of doing 9 times what the mind THINKS it can, discovering what your truley capable of.... thats what its all about...



Be Men.

This post deserves its own thread.

Members of t-shirt clubs... discuss.

I am a believer that hazing does little to enhance brotherhood. I have been a member of a number of membership organizations, none of which hazed me. I am very certain that my brothers in Delta Upsilon or the Boy Scouts or the Order of the Arrow are bound much tighter than any physical rope could hold us. If you believe that my fraternity is a "t-shirt club", I would say that we are a damn proud "t-shirt club" which has been around since 1834 and been non-hazing since the founding!

Men don't need to be hazed to "Be Men", my fraternity's motto is "Building Better Men" and we can do that without hazing. Personally, I see hazing as a lazy attempt at "true" brotherhood.

Dikaia,
DUKyleXY

You can do that, and most of what you mentioned above, without hazing. The problem is, groups that haze want to take the easy route. They want to humiliate instead of uplift. They want to physically or mentally abuse in the name of team building--when there are so many other ways to accomplish the same task, probably better. Hazing is easy...choosing not to, and being dedicated to true brother/sisterhood and human dignity, is a greater challenge.

I've mentioned several times that I was hazed, and it did nothing to bring us together. It scared my class mates to the point we were attacking the littlest thing instead working together in an uplifting manner. I don't talk to most of those women today so no life long bond was created.

To me, being a man doesn't mean demeaning or treating others poorly. Educating new members should be about challenging each other so that they become BETTER men. So that they learn how to run a business. So that they learn how to deal with people from all backgrounds. So that they learn how to be a brother. It should not be about proving yourself capable of thousands of push-ups or reciting information or playing mind games.

*Off my soapbox*

On the other hand, it's easy to ban anything that might remotely be seen as character-building - on the premise that it might be perceived as hazing. What happened to honor? Honor among brothers, or sisters, I might add, means they'll stop true hazing.

My house used to reveal big sisters by having all the pledges find a string with their name on it as they got to the house. They followed that string for up to an hour, all through the house, finding clues and gifts along the way. It finally ended up tied to their big in the chapter room. Somebody felt that might lead to hazing...and the tradition was shut down.

Prohibiting behaviors outright is the coward's way out.

I agree--that's a fun way to find your big, but why an hour or more? Is that really necessary?? This is why things like this get banned--because if you give an inch, many groups and people will take a mile.

Unfortunately not all chapters have involved advisors to go through the subtle nuances of things--so some things, that I call 'unhealthy traditions' (which may not be hazing...yet) get banned. If we could police ourselves, others wouldn't be doing it for us.

I will respectfully disagree. I believe If we WOULD police ourselves, instead of expecting others to do it for us, we'd be in much better shape. When we started expecting others to do it is when we started becoming sheeple instead of leaders.

When your talking about humiliating and / or treating others poorly you have not understood what i was trying to get across. Sure physical activity and workouts aren't the easiest and most convient thing to do, But thats exactly the point. There are times in life that are going to be very hard and seemingly impossible. while pledging and having to do lots of workouts there is always and brother there helping you, verbaly motivating you to no matter what just keep going, telling you that you CAN do it. Helping you realize how great of an accomplishment you can really make.pledging for me put me through the best and worst times of my life in a short span of time. That time spent with pledge brothers is alot of the point. Seeing eachother and being there for eachother at the hard times, and being there with eachother for the great times..... its like the extreme ups- and downs of growing up all condenced into an 8 week period...... i am the last brother in a frat due to a de-pledge going and ratting on us...... but still to this day there isnt any other way i would of done it... EARNED my letters

Ah, the sweet irony of belonging to a fraternity which had to disband because of the glue that apparently held it together - hazing. It just goes to show - if you build your GLO on a creed to which you and your brothers/sisters aspire, you build it on something solid and lasting. If you build it on merely overcoming artifical "obstacles" and Survivior-type challenges, you don't build anything which will last.
I "earn" my letters everyday by the way I live my life. My sisters have bonded with me through real-life ups and downs - not through an artifical construct that demeans or degrades. What is important to my GLO is not the ability to do push-ups until you vomit - but in developing as women of character who impact our communities, both collegiate and otherwise, through our contributions to them.
Referring to other GLOs as "t-shirt clubs" just goes to show that you don't get it. I'm happy to hear that your GLO is no more, as it was apparently the type that gives the rest of us a bad name.

See you missed my point--making people do physical activity IS the most convenient and easiest thing to do--it requires no thought on the part of the new member educators to think of these things. As far as being "motivated" by brothers--that can happen when you're doing a sanctioned ropes course, learning something new you've never tried (ballroom dancing, cooking, rockwall climbing), planning a fundraiser or studying together. No need to do hours upon hours of exercise to prove the point. As far as I am concerned, no one should feel loyalty to someone who once treated them like crap. That's not how to "earn" the loyalty of new members.

As far as policing ourselves--that was my point--we aren't doing it so people do it for us. We don't expect them to--we don't even want them to--but campuses have had to in order to protect themselves from liability and lawsuits. If all Greek chapter members followed policies, the laws of our states and lived by the organization's values--then the outside community and campus administration would not feel a need to call us on it and police our programs.

I, too, earn my letters by living my life according to the values of my organization. And as far as new members go, I don't believe that we should bid anyone who does not already represent our values in some way. If you feel the need to break people and rebuild them, then you aren't picking the right men/women to be new members of your organization.

To the OP--you group was shut down because of hazing, and yet you're still here advocating for it! Amazing. Aren't you sad that your group's legacy is that you broke the law? Aren't you sad that men at your university now have one less option to get involved? If you're so loyal to your organization and brothers, wouldn't it have been worth following policies and laws in order to save the chapter??

It sounds to me like the OP's org created the "worst" times so that it could artificially bond them in some way.

If you want your pledges to work out, why not invite them to the gym along with you?

I'm not really clear how one extra pushup = a "real" man. :confused:

When I was a NM, actives and other NMs would go to the gym together for fun and fitness... we didn't work out because that was how we were supposed to "earn" our letters.

LPI said it best:

cowboy55 - it's seeming more and more to me you're only welcome on GC if you subscribe to the "we-don't-rush-we-recruit; pledge-is-a-demeaning-term; build-up-your-feelgood; six-weeks-is-time-enough" school of greek membership.

I'm with you. You don't abase, but you don't coddle either. The Greek system seems to me to have become more and more follow the herd and less and less earning your way and learning to lead.

Unfortunately, some people aren't educated enough to recognize the difference between challenging and hazing. Perhaps the flock told them otherwise. Or they're too timid to take a chance based on principles.

At least there are two of us in this world.

With all due respect, the ones following the "herd" are those who claim that we should continue to do the same things that we have "always" done - including hazing. Those who wish to cling to the idea that somehow "earning" your letters through surviving a gauntlet of physical and emotional abuse will produce leaders. Those who constantly whine about how things were so much better in the good ol' days, and would gladly expose their GLO to libility issues if it meant that they could revisit the days of yore.
How about this - progressive thinking that produces REAL leaders capable of doing more than simply heaping abuse on the newbies. Programming that emphasizes real-world skills that will produce well-rounded members who are capable of building bonds through something other than shared pain and suffering. The educated ones are those who recognize the realities of college today, and are unwilling to sacrifice the future to those who would cling to the worst aspects of the past. Are things perfect now? No. But they won't be changed by those who can only criticize - it is the members who continue to contribute and refine new member (or pledge, if that makes you happy) programs and who chose to involve themselves in the growth of their GLO.

Would that there were only two of you in the world.

Following the laws of the state and the policies of a private membership organization and living according to the oath you took at initiation does not equal following the herd. It takes integrity and character, which are qualities of great leaders.

In no way have I ever, ever, condoned hazing - as it should be defined.

I have condoned, and celebrated, some activities that according to NPC definitions, could be defined as hazing. But since authorities at all levels have chosen to limit some activities of a character-building nature on the off chance they might offend, they've lost a great opportunity to teach the difference.

It's like banning the use of an additive because it may cause health concerns in some - rather than identifying the risk and allowing people to live with their own choices.

Oh, I totally agree that in some cases they have thrown out the baby with the bath water. The problem is trying to define things so there is no room for error. In some cases, it is a matter of following the law. In others, it is removing the chance for a mistake.
I helped my mil when she was a court reporter in a case involving a suit against a fraternity. It was obviously the fault of the member who chose to indulge in risky behavior, but the fraternity was still held accountable. National and International HQs can't be blamed for trying to limit their liabililty - we are talking MILLIONS of dollars in just one suit. It is a harsh reality, but a reality none the less.
Do I think it is ridiculous that you cannot require new members to interview actives, for example? Yes - but I do understand the slippery slope that concerns HQs. If the choice is going a little too far in defining hazing, or exposing the GLO to massive liability, I too must vote for the former.

To me, it sounds like the OP isn't talking about things like interviews or scavenger hunts... he is talking about things which would clearly fall under any definition of hazing, including activities which could lead to physical and mental abuse (push ups and mental abuse by actives trying to "motivate"). There is a difference for sure.

And sometimes its not what you do--its how long you make the new members do it, and what the consequences are if they refuse to do it or finish.

Since interviews were brought up--this is a great example of what I call an unhealthy tradition. It may not be hazing or dangerous in anyway, but it does create a "level" of sister versus active. Many unhealthy traditions, if modified, should not be considered hazing. So in the case of interviews, why not have the sister and new member meet for coffee one on one and interview each other? Accomplishes the same thing--the new member gets to know the active sister, but in a less hierarchical environment. And the active sister gets to know the new member better, too.

I don't understand. When you say "interview" actives, what do you mean?

We had to meet every active and learn something about her, then get her to sign our pledge book. We didn't have to DO anything to get that signature, just talk to her, perhaps discuss some aspect of our pledge training, get to know her a little. Of course, there were fewer than 20 actives, and we pledged for a full semester. I can't imagine having to have a 30-minute conversation with every sister in an 80-member house, not if you're going to keep the grades up and meet other obligations. But what's wrong with an interview?

Or does "interview" now have some connotation I'm not familiar with? Perhaps it isn't a real interview?

The interview I referenced is exactly what you described, and in some cases it is now considered "hazing" because it is an activity required of pledges that is not required of actives. I used it as an example of something I consider NOT to be hazing - in fact, something which serves a valuable purpose - but which is considered sometimes to be hazing and thus outlawed.
I assume that it was the past abuse of some - making pledges "earn" the interview by doing something like washing a car - that made this problematic. Still, this is an example of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".

You bring up exactly the point I mean -- defining something as hazing simply because someone else doesn't have to do it. We are not all equal, and the sooner a student realizes this, the better off he is. We have a right to be treated equally; that doesn't mean we have equal abilities, talents, capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, or wants. We shouldn't be making rules that say we are.

It's one of the (many) reasons I no longer support the greek system in universities. This is an instance where something is prohibited (not outlawed; there's nothing illegal about it) simply because it might, conceivably, get out of hand (though I honestly don't see how an interview can get out of hand). It teaches our students to take the safe way. The safe way is seldom the right way.

Nothing wrong with earning an interview. In real life, we do that all the time.

You're such an enigma to me, Tess!

You speak so poorly of the greek system here and on your blog, but yet you identify yourself with your GLO in your user name. You are clearly a proponent of individualism and yet you bemoan the loss of activities that tried to force "group think" on pledges. You clearly don't like laws (or the government) to tell you what to do, but you think older sisters should be able to tell newbies to do what they tell them to do because they tell them to do it.

What's wrong with interviews? Just like was mentioned before, it's not necessarily the activity itself but the length to which it can be taken. You mentioned in your blog that you were in a chapter of about 20. Interviewing in that chapter would have been a snap. What about the women (and men) who pledge into chapters of 100-200? (I did and we did have to do -- AND MEMORIZE -- interviews of all 100+) There was nothing about that process that built my leadership qualities, that's just what I had to do to get through my FIVE MONTH pledge period. Trust me, I would happily have lived without it.

What did give me leadership qualities? Taking on offices and committee chairmanships and learning, at 19 and 20 years old, how to manage 90-110 of my peers and the organization that we all belonged to. Holding committee meetings, preparing agendas, writing and presenting reports, organizing philanthropies, writing letters to corporations to asking them to sponsor our fundraising efforts, building relationships with other fraternities and sororities as well as other campus groups... the list goes on and on. I remember being shocked when I was just a couple years out of school how much further "ahead" I felt than some of my peers in the working world. Some of these folks came out of college never having "run" anything and some didn't even know how to behave in a meeting, write a report to superior or work on a team.

Don't take your experience from 30 years ago in a small chapter and assume that only you somehow managed to have a worthwhile experience because you were called a pledge and had to wait to wear your letters or do phone or suite duty. I had to wait to wear my letters too but that period of waiting (and "earning" them as some people just love to call it, which I call hooey on), really added nothing to the sum total of what I got out of my greek experience. I still benefit from what I learned back then and have no doubt that the women of today are getting the same core benefits from their membership.

And for someone with such disdain for the greek system, you still seem very attached to it -- here you are on GC, you blog about it and your letters are part of your very name... maybe you'd have more positive feelings if you would let go of some of your antiquated (and I can say that because I'm not much younger than you) expectations of how things "should be" and understand that college students today face a MUCH different world than we did. And they didn't choose the changes in the system they're joining, the older adults (ala our age) made these changes because the reality of the legal system, risk management issues and getting and maintaining insurance is so different today.

I don't appreciate the psychoanalysis. It's one thing for you not to understand me. It's another to try to state my beliefs.

I said I no longer support the greek system in universities. They've become less than they should be.

Disappearing, keeping my mouth shut, not pointing out inconsistencies, not working to get people to think about what I see as hypocrisy, and playing rah-rah-cheerleader are not ways to make things happen. They're the way things have degenerated as they have. They're a (small) part of the problem - students who can't act as adults because they aren't permitted to. That translates into graduates (read: workers) who can't act as adults either.

I've never denied that I understand the differences between large houses and small, and between 30 years ago and now. I'm pointing out that the changes have not all been for the good, and that blanket rules are frequently ludicrous. What worked well for my chapter won't work for all. But I also refuse to believe that a six-week pledge period somehow gives you time to make a decision for life.

If you couldn't get to know all your sisters in five months, what makes you think someone can now in six weeks? If you had to memorize things about 100+ people just for the sake of memorization, you had a choice to make -- was it worth it to you? Obviously you thought so.

Where should the greek system be if not in a university setting? High schools? Corporations?

I really don't understand... :confused: Please elaborate and help me understand what you're suggesting.

Parents and American culture don't allow children to grow up and be young adults. Most American teenagers are catered too bailed out of their problems and excuses are constantly made for their screw ups. How can you expect them in one or two years to understand what going to far is. It is just unrealistic to think that they can make these types of decisions.

For clarification I was hazed I had to do interviews and scavenger hunts and be put into line-ups and sometimes it did get out of control. I couldn't imagine if God forbid someone was killed or something had happened to a potential new member. I earned my letters I say that with confidence and I wouldn't want to go back and have it any other way, but when me and my pledge sisters became older sisters we took steps to make our program positive. It's not my fault that hazing is illegal look at yourself and people of your generation who abused their power and crossed the line one to many times.

Disclaimer: I DO NOT AND NEVER HAVE FELT HAZING WAS THE BEST WAY TO DO ANYTHING. AND BY NO MEANS DO I AGREE WITH THE ACTIONS OF THOSE WHO TAKE PART IN IT.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that NA "obviously" thought it was "worth it" to do 120 interviews and memorize them. The post did state, and I quote: "Trust me, I would happily have lived without it." and "I had to wait to wear my letters too but that period of waiting (and "earning" them as some people just love to call it, which I call hooey on), really added nothing to the sum total of what I got out of my greek experience."

But I digress... that's for NA to clarify :)

NA -- good post :)

Questioners rarely enjoy being questioned.

Granted, but you're not proposing what could be re-integrated into TODAY's college climate in light of why current rules have been put in place; you're just complaining that things aren't how they used to be and why that's so wrong.

And your claim that you're just "pointing out inconsistencies" isn't quite reflective of the message you're sending --- you flat-out say in your blog that today's greek organizations aren't providing real leadership opportunities. And then you reduce it to questions of how asking greek members to vote for someone in a pageant or contest is considered leadership. That's just silly. And simplistic. And unfair to the community as a whole.

What about the women (and men) who are in huge chapters that also have a chapter house? Do you have any idea how many "real world" issues they have to deal with? Leases and laws and paying bills and maintenance ON TOP of all the internal organization stuff. Some of those chapters must have yearly budgets well over a million dollars. How can you demean the real experience those members are having by taking on that level of responsibility and leadership? And how can you overlook the need to protect the investment in that chapter, in that facility, in their relationship with the university and greek system, through real and effective risk management measures?

I've actually heard that it's more like 8 weeks normally, but tomato tomahto. And why is your opinion on this right more than someone else's? How long "should" it take and who gets to decide that? Did I know after 2 months of pledging that I for sure wanted to be in my sorority? Absolutely. Truth be told, I was sure sooner than that, but we still had to wait it out for the full 5 months. Your message seems to be that "intelligent" women shouldn't be "herded" and "forced" to make a lifelong decision after just 6 (or 8) weeks, but aren't you, on the flip-side questioning these women's intelligence and whether they're capable of making that decision for themselves? Who are you to tell them they're not ready to do so?

TexasPrincess already did a fine job of responding to this (and thanks, TP :)). And doing the interviews had nothing to do with my "getting to know" anybody, it just was what it was, something we had to do because we were pledges. Just because I knew one sister was from Shippensburg and another one was from Philly didn't really tell me squat about "who" they were.

ETA: I have no idea if I did the split-quote thing correctly through this, so if it's a garbled mess, I apologize...

A great reason to belong to a "t-shirt club" --> today, hazing is illegal.

Fraternities and sororities are non-profit organizations that must follow the law. A collegiate member is not above the law.

So to those of you who break the law today, bravo. You are "real" men and women, without a doubt. It must be very nice to scoff at the laws that the rest of us have to follow.

I agree with those who have cited the leadership challenges for being in a sorority today, and it does not just extend to large chapters. Just tonight I had to discuss the business/management sides of sorority membership with a chapter of 30 women. They are learning to make decisions about their organization based on the financial bottom line as well as trying to balance personal relationships and use interpersonal skills in dealing with one another. All important things for when they enter the workforce.

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but DGTess, it seems to be that you are against following the herd or being sheeple, yet you are advocating that things should be done the way they were in your day, therefore, adhering to tradition (following the herd) regardless of whether it works for today's students or organizations. This seems, to me, to be hypocritical. Maybe you can explain that further... I too am curious about your thoughts on the Greek system in universities. If not in university communities, then where?

Which is why I love our organization and women like you who GET IT. Makes me very proud that you are carrying on the legacy and not subscribing the herd mentality. You go girl!

JSL,
Denise

Interviews are NOT an unhealthy tradition. They're one of the best things that has been lost. Many groups had ALREADY instituted sisters interviewing pledges on their own. If there were chapters or sisters that said "you have to do x, y, and z before you get my interview" then those chapters/sisters should have been disciplined before throwing out the whole thing.

And when I was pledging, in addition to interviews, we had what we called "coke dates" - the sister treated me (the pledge) to lunch or dinner. Then she wrote a page long signature about how glad she was that I was going to be part of the sorority. How the eff is that "hierarchical"?

And yes, THERE ARE LEVELS. Not everyone is the same in a sorority, and I think that pretending everyone is is why we've been getting such an influx on GC of "OMG, everyone in my sorority hates me - I haven't bonded with anyone - I want to quit." The poster then goes on to say she hasn't gone to any extra events, has blown off a lot of required things and barely knows the names of any of her sisters or pledgesisters. And she expects them to be her lifelong friends!! Honestly, if people in this age group are that socially backward, we need to reinstitute interviews and other pledging activities more than ever.

I agree with a lot of what Tess is saying. I would never tell the ASAs at Truman or Mankato or Penn State what I think is best for their chapter, and I don't think they should tell me what is best for mine either. Interviews and scavenger hunts in SOME chapters were used as hazing tools. I'm sure ritual was too. Did we get rid of it?

And I'm not saying "tradition for the sake of tradition." I'm not someone who was active in college and then never went back to the campus. I worked with my chapter long after our pledge program had been "diluted." There was a difference in the way the women treated each other and treated the sorority. And it was NOT a good difference. Other women I attended college with have said the same thing. It was almost as though the women were encouraged to be more businesslike and less sisterly. Maybe that works for a 200 member chapter, but I am not from one of those. As for your "one on one" coffee idea - we weren't even allowed to do that. No sister was to be alone with any pledge at any time. Everything was group, group, group, constantly. Now of course it's swung to the other end of the pendulum and everything is an "individual challenge" but that's another thread.

whittleschmeg - your post is so full of inconsistencies I don't know where to start - perhaps by telling us exactly what an "interview" entailed that made it so dangerous?

Sorry, but IMHO, "Coke dates" =/= "interviews" (in the traditional sense)

I'm just stating that an interview, which in our case had 3 parts - a coke date, an interview, and a signature - was far from a one-sided thing. It's not like we pledges had to show up, clean the house with a toothbrush and then MAYBE get the interview. It was definitely a mutual getting to know you process and you could choose your own questions. One of mine was favorite band - obviously if a sister and I like the same bands we're going to DISCUSS it not just have me say "oh. ok."

Not everyone is comfortable just going up to new people or having new people approach them in a free form style - interviews gave you a template and a reason to do so. I think as alums we tend to forget this - hell, at 18 some of those seniors were intimidating! I know there's people I might have avoided had I not been required to get interviews. Would I have gotten to know them eventually? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Until we radically change our style of rush and membership selection, how rushees and sorority members relate to one another - who likes who - is going to be the MAIN reason one girl joins ASA and another joins ZTA. To prevent those sort of "getting to know you" activities in pledgeship, or to dilute them into group activities where the quiet members never get to speak up, IMO completely defeats the purpose.

I want to pick up on the idea of "earning letters." I note that most if not everyone who has responded to Crowboy is female, while he, of course, is male. I can't speak for the female view of "earning" letters, but I think I can speak to a male perspective. In fact, I have done so before, in the thread Hazing Works!, so I'm just going to be a little lazy and copy myself from that thread:

American society as a whole is woefully bereft of rites of passages, particularly for boys: rites that mark the transition from boyhood to manhood. For many young men, fraternities (I am going to talk mainly about fraternities here; I'll try not to go too Robert Bly ;) ) and fraternity initiations provide such a rite. Indeed, the pledge manuals of many fraternities speak of initiation in terms of a rite of passage.

Globally, rites of passage in less "civilized" societies typically involve what might be termed testing, trial, or ordeal. That is, prior to actual initiation into manhood, the initiate must prove himself and his worth (to himself and to the men he wishes to join) by undergoing and passing one or more trials or tests. To be quite honest, I think there is something inbred in males wanting and needing to prove themselves in this way. Rituals (and here I am using the term broadly) that succeed for boys understand this and tap into this primal need. An example: initiation into the Order of the Arrow, a sort of camping brotherhood for Boy Scouts, is preceeded by a weekend-long "Ordeal" that involves no talking, manual labor (with others, which can be challenging with no talking), camping alone in the woods, meager meals, and the like. Upon completion, a boy feels like he has really accomplished something, proven himself and earned the right to be initiated.

Quite simply I think, where hazing "succeeds" (if that is the right word), it is when it taps into this primal desire to be tested and proved worthy, which in turn engenders loyalty to the group one has been found worthy to join.

Don't get me wrong or report me -- I am against hazing (although I quickly agree that the term is used to broadly). I do think, however, that alternatives to hazing can only be really successful, at least for most males, if they tap into this idea of earning one's letters, of being tested and proved worthy. I am also conviced that tapping into this idea can be done, can be done (probably more effectively, even) without hazing.

MC: that quoting yourself thing works. So much so, that I'm going to do the same thing.

Does anyone here know if there's an active attempt to define hazing for Greek organizations. Like, is there a Greek Task Force somewhere, with representatives from NPC, IFC, etc., whose goal is to clearly define hazing? It seems there's a need for such a definition; I wonder if we'll ever get one.

If I were on my organization's High Council, I'd be very cautious about ceding that sort of authority to outside persons. My lawyers might be telling me that I don't need a policy as restrictive as my peer organizations.

I'd also feel uneasy about the political ramifications of signing up for something like that, then backing out if I didn't like the result as well.

A policy which is over-restrictive can do more harm than good.

Kinda like the policies (some) people here are complaining about? ;)

I agree with you, 33, that a Coke Date is not hazing. You likely would not see 2 people in Court over a Coke Date.

"But, Your Honor, she bought me a cola and told me how happy she was to hear I got an A+ on my physics test! Oh the humanity!"

But I disagree that the law is unreasonably broad. Laws should have some specificity to allow people to police themselves, but should be open enough to allow broad interpretation -- to keep up with all of the things people will do to try and get "away with something."

I would argue that the hazing laws are able to be interpreted. We spend an awful amount of time and money producing programs to help our members understand the hazing laws, how to prevent hazing, and the repercussions within the organization if you violate not just the law, but also the by-laws of your own GLO. With education and a good faith effort to behave reasonably and maturely, collegiate members can understand and abide by the hazing laws of their states, and the bylaws of the university and their GLO. Often, the policies of your GLO are even stricter than the state laws. Although it doesn't take a genius to figure out the policies or the law: be respectful of one another.

There's nothing wrong with a Coke Date, on its face. Or a sisterhood walk or ball of yarn to find a sister. When you go to extremes, well, that is where things have a tendency to unravel.

It's a shame that a lot of traditions have been abolished in favor of a zero tolerance stance at hazing. Alumnae remember a lot of fun that they feel the collegians are missing out on. Almost every older alum would argue that the shorter pledge period designed to reduce the temptation of hazing has resulted in higher membership attrition rates.

But the sororities (and to some extent, the fraternities) are doing these things to stay one step ahead of the law --they are trying to cut off their liability for Susie Sorority's stupidity at taking that Coke Date one step too far.

If the members could present reasonable alternatives, propose amendments to these bylaws at convention and/or demonstrate better decision making at the collegiate level, I am sure these would turn around.

Most of the collegiate members demonstrate great maturity and good decision making. I know it is preaching to the choir that it is the very loud minority of poor decision making that ruins it for the current collegiate members. If there were a better way to police those members, we'd likely see a big difference.

When I did interviews when I was joining my local organization--I had to set up the interview by asking in person, come with a list of questions, be early to the meeting, and then I could get the signature. The point is, nothing was two way--it was all on me. Further, if they didn't like the questions, the sister could refuse to sign. And one sister made me come back the next day because the first day she wanted to watch Days of our Lives. This is the kind of interview experience I am talking about--and it was light compared to what I have seen other people have to do to "get" interviews.

So what happened when I initiated? I knew a ton of useless facts that I had memorized and I knew a little more about the actives, but they did not know me. That did nothing to make me feel welcome in the group and it did nothing to unite us as an organization. It just created a division--and I was involved in everything and I did go to events all the time.

Since my class, that chapter has worked diligently to eliminate hazing from its programming, and it is the strongest chapter on campus, either men's or women's. I think the two are correlated. Is it easy to have both--no, because it requires creativity and a dogged commitment to standards and to recruiting the right women.

You can set expectations without hazing. You can have high standards without hazing.

It's not the interviews that are dangerous but its how they are used. A "new member" interviews a sister and then the next day is asked a series of questions about the interview and the conversation may go something like this:

Sister: Where does sister Melissa live?
New Member: Ummmm I'm sorry sister but i don't remember
Sister: Why don't you know, didn't you interivew her yesterday?
New Member: Yes, yes I did but I do not remember where she lives
Sister: Well can you tell me two things about her that you do remember
New Member: Yes, she has two brother and her major is business
Sister: How about telling me something I don't already know about someone I have lived with for 2 years. First I want you to go and apologize to sister melissa for not knowing anything interesting about her and wasting her time yesterday during your interview. Next I want you to find out 5 things about her that I do not know and tell me tom. when you come and visit me.


The interview was harmless most likely it was an enjoyable time until the next day. The problem is if you give an inch people will take a mile.