Legalized Hazing
 

I got to thinking this evening.

What jobs and/or activities are supported by communities and governments that technically are hazing or in any other terms being placed in a greek life situation would be considered hazing.

-Personalized Trainer (this is where I got the idea from a fraternity brothers profile)

-Haunted tours/ hayrides

-Themed Amusement Parks

-Summer camps for overweight children to lose weight*

-Military school*

*interestingly enough most children are usually sent to these places against their will ... talk about brutal. There's a difference between choice and force.

Add any other activities/jobs or comments.

None of the examples you give are hazing, "technically" or otherwise, because they all lack an essential element of what constitutes hazing -- that the activity is being engaged in or endured in order to achieve initiation into an organization or maintain membership in that organization.

Basically being told to do anything

I'm sure the military would be interested to hear that.

Only if you are reporting a case of hazing.
Hazing is also against Military Code of Conduct.
And yes, as with GLO's, it does happen.

As jon notes, the military already understands hazing quite well, including the definition of what constitutes hazing. Whether it chooses to do anything about it may be a different question.

But in case it's what you're getting at, boot camp =/= hazing.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/marin...rinehazing.htm

Relevant articles are linked from this internet source.

Military hazing is classified and you won't see too much hazing story in the news. They deal with most of it internally. Many people feel that military hazing is par for the course and that it even trains people how to handle combat or the possibility of being a POW. This belief makes it difficult for military hazing activists to find a leg to stand on. Afterall, many hazing practices in GLOs and other places have military roots but people feel that military hazing isn't hazing regardless of the definition.

I have said it before and I will say it again.

Graduate School.

Also, when I think about gophers and interns, I think these types of jobs might constitute hazing too, by most definitions. Often, the gophers and interns are doing work, which is occasionally demeaning, for little or no pay with the hopes of obtaining a paid position in the future.

I think that constitutes "activity...engaged in or endured in order to achieve initiation into an organization or maintain membership in that organization," depending on how you define "organization."

Sorry, but I don't. I think it constitutes work. ;)

But what if they're not getting paid?

Exactly, by definition most of what most of us endure on a given day at work constitutes hazing according to these over-zealous definitions--especially if we are young in our careers.

Why should our organizations be forced to coddle people under threat of law suit, when our bosses get away with hazing us every day.

Employees get paid and do have labor law protection, so if someone is truly getting "hazed" at work, it would likely fall under some kind of harassment law and you would have remedies.

Getting bossed around at your job where you get paid (or experience/references for your resume) or training to handle the high-stress duties and risks of being a soldier (who also gets paid) are completely unlike a fraternity or sorority hazing situation.

Last I checked, GLO members didn't draw salaries or have protection under labor laws and the Chis didn't need to prepare for mortal combat against the Upsilons. (names made up to protect the nonexistent)

The military is one big haze session.

How else you going to get someone pissed off enough to do the things they do? i have so much respect for the military putting up with all the crap they do, its fraternity hazing x 20... except they call it "getting smoked"

No, it doesn't -- not according to any actual definition of hazing I have ever seen (as opposed to rampant popular misconception about what constitutes hazing) -- and it's just plain silly to claim otherwise.

I was mostly talking about the over-zealous definitions of hazing that prevent things like scavenger hunts. Of course I am not referring to anything that might cause physical or permanent emotional harm. But regulations designed to prevent pledges from becoming "stressed out" seem a bit over the top to me.

And those are the definitions that I am talking about, i.e. over-zealous; definitions which some organizations seem to be governed by.

^^^ I got you now. Thanks.

I'm pretty sure that by making me agree to an agreement of terms before registering, GreekChat.com is hazing me.

I'm thinking that investment bankers and stock brokers have had to have gone through some legalized hazing. Companies have been known to administer 'stress interviews' where intense situations are simulated to measure the quality of response and reaction to a volatile business market where millions of dollars are at stake. If someone wants to be in that company, they'll probably subject themselves to being screamed and swore at in a hot room. An angry client might be much worse...

Even if an interview crosses the line, there would probably be some reluctance to blow any whistles, as a prospective candidate wouldn't want to bring negative attention to the industry.

Because friendship and respect are core values of all Greek organizations, but they are not necessarily values that employers care about.

But does friendship equal coddling? Does respect equal coddling? I am not so sure.

Again, I am just talking about the over-zealous definitions of hazing, which I often have heard about on this board. That was my perception of the question.

How about medical interns working something like 36 hour shifts and doing whatever their resident asks them to do? According to every medical TV show I've ever seen they get hazed quite a bit. ;)

First part of your statement maybe correct.
Second part, as you stated "as seen on TV";)

I think that legal definitions of hazing are pretty good, but that the anti-hazing plans that GLOs have or the execution of those plans in the hands of undergraduates get goofy sometimes.

I think there's a tendency today to classify any number of risk management issues as hazing rather than explaining the difference that you can't to this because it's hazing vs. you can't do that because it's likely to be stupidly dangerous.

Exactly. And there is a parallel tendancy to consider anything that distinguishes between initiated members and pledges/new members/probationary members/your GLO's term here, no matter how reasonable or benign it might be, hazing.

Yep. And as I've said before I think this is dangerous in the long run because it's likely to be a little like the boy who cried wolf. If you call everything hazing, is anyone likely to really pay attention when the issue is serious?

Basically the hazing laws are there but are rarely enforced unless there is a specific complaint.