Hazing Oversensitivity
 

Yeah, somethings are clear cut hazing like forcing a pledge to chug alcohol, but c'mon some of the things I've seen people talk about are ridiculus. Some people consider calling a pledge a "pledge" hazing. It makes me wonder if having to go through an initiation cermony would be considered hazing if a pedge didn't want to. A lot of you people need to lighten up.

Everybody please post your thoughts.

You tell them! :)

Re: Hazing Oversensitivity
 

You are talking to fellow greeks. If anyone was to support what you are saying it would be us. No need to nag and point fingers at us.

Re: Re: Hazing Oversensitivity
 

Of course you're joking, right? I mean, any nagging and pointing of fingers, in EITHER direction, must START squarely with greeks - we're the ones 'under the gun' as it were, right?

And also - your premise is incorrect. Support is needed from greeks and non-greeks alike, unlike what you state. It doesn't matter if IFC and Pan-Hel don't think an action is hazing, if the president of the university does. They make the decisions, ultimately.

If TylerPKT feels that the hazing definitions are unclear and can be unfairly slanted to include non-harmful actions, then allow him to try to get feedback on this - that could be the start of positive change, you never know. I think, by taking a quick look around this forum, you can see very well that he's not quite preaching to the choir.

my biggest concern with hazing is how broadly it is defined. it seems unfair to everyone involved that "a condition of membership" is the defintion of hazing. everything we do is a condition of membership. i think the real shame is that by grouping the petty acts with the serious hazing offences, we trivialize the really bad stuff. no matter how much we preach about non-hazing across the board, we all know there is a difference between chugging and forced calisthenics vs. wearing a pledge pin and doing a favor.
there seems like there should be a statement about the candidates' well-being; and serious physical and mental well-being, not the politically correct garbage the schools feed us about people not getting their feelings hurt.
i am completely against hazing, but i feel that cake pledging is unfair to the candidates because we are not preparing them for the challenges and prejudices they will face when they become initiated. we used to have a saying at my chapter, "the real hazing starts when you become a brother,"

teke4life--

What kind of favors do you have new members do for you?? If you're asking them to run to the store to get you a soda or to McDonalds to get you dinner, that's hazing, and it's really unnecessary. That kind of hazing, IMHO, is just pointless. Teach your new members how: (from the TKE Creed)

To Believe in the life based upon integrity, justice, sincerity, patience, moderation, culture, and challenge in order to serve as a responsible, mature member of society;

To Believe in the cardinal principles of Love, Charity, and Esteem and to use them to guide my life;

as was meant by your founders. I'm not trying to say your chapter hazes, but I just have to believe that your founders didn't intend to have new members learn fraternity life through fetching a soda for a brother.

I'm new to these boards but have been in a sorority for a couple years and this hazing sensitivity has bothered me also. We're not allowed to buy are "pledges" oh i mean new members paddles from their big sisters. Many of the older members have them "to sarah... we love you... from your big jenny" and so on and i think theyr'e adorable. But mine just have my name on it... nothing sentimental... i think it's rather ridiculous.

Last year we sold candy to raise money for our pledge dance... i mean new member dance (if we're being pc about it) and some girls didn't want to sell and nationals probably called it hazing. Geez... i thought! We're not allowed to raise money like that anymore

I wasn't afraid of hazing until i joined a sorority and realized i was not afraid of hazing... but of being accused of hazing. Way oversensitive!

Now THIS is the best point I've heard raised so far - how can one have a solid brotherhood(/sisterhood) development program when the fear is less of developing bad brothers than of being accused of hazing (often a capital crime in the eyes of many (inter)national offices)?

I feel this to be a major downfall of the hazing policies across the board - we set ourselves up to fail rather than to succeed.

I do think that the people who are the judge/juries/jailers on the whole hazing deal are waaayyy too sensitive. It's to the point where you cannot get into a verbal altercation over personal issues with a pledge or else it's considered "verbal harrassment/psychic trauma/blah blah blah." Pledges, excuse me, new members, who don't want to go to pledge meetings cry "Well, it's interferring with our academics!" Guess what? That's hazing!
Most of these hazing laws etc.... are a great thing! I don't want to be forced to drink, have sleepless nights, be humiliated! However, I think that because they are being so general with the definitions of hazing, the pledges are the ones that rule the house, not the actives.

I don't understand "ruling the house". Isn't everyone equal?

I doubt that there is anyone on this board who isn't concerned about the liberal definitions of hazing. I don't think any of us like it -- including those of us who equate real hazing with stupidity.

But that's the way it is. And it's the law in every state. And it's the rule in every Greek Letter Organization.

So, until someone, or some organization, or some legislature or whatever changes it, we live with it. And we abide by it.

Or we lose our charters.

Which part of that is so hard to understand?

Anytime Legislation is envolved, we are all in real trouble:mad:

Maiming and death are a real problem to all of us!:)

As a I stated in a previous thread way back when, I was there for a 2 day iniation, we had thet many guys, at the end one of the new Brothers started chugging a bottle of Amaretto. I put a stop to that real quick. It was his decision but could have led to disastours terms!

I traded paddle swats with a member of a Fraternity because he thougt it was neat! BS, he learned that from his Fraternity, and I tried to show him how stupid it was! Boy was my ass sore, but I won!!!! What a victory:(

At the time I was an independent! Stupid on both of our parts!:)

I had little respect for him after that!:mad:

I think it's less misunderstanding, and more distrust of the liberal application of hazing laws. Few will stand up, even in a fairly anonymous forum, and actively promote hazing, whether as a development tool or as anything else other than a quick way to lose a charter. However, as seen here, more than a couple actively worry that things that aren't hazing, but can be misconstrued or stretched to possibly fall under one unclear sentence of hazing law, can lead to unwanted and unneeded trouble for a chapter. I think everyone can name at least one sob story of a chapter that mishandled affairs, and was rung up for a relatively minor offense that had no negative effects on the actual pledges in question.

We all (should) try to walk the straight and narrow path - it's lunacy to do otherwise. However, there is a point of diminishing returns, even for legislative and other such policy - and I think that's the real deal as far as greek concern, that we've reached a point where we worry more about avoiding any sort of trouble than in what the actual right and wrong of the situation is.

I think all Moxie is trying to say is, if a couple pledges don't want to do this or that, then it can prevent the sorority from doing something that would be good for the overall membership. They discontinue the activity for fear of the pledges crying "hazing." AO Cutie Pi's candy sale was a good example. No, the majority of pledges are not like this, but there are some people who are just butt-heads and on power trips.

My fave story (and this is 100% true) is of the girl who told our Greek advisor that being forced to go to the campus-wide new member hazing seminar...was hazing. And if you use the most stringent definition, she was right...it was something initiated members didn't have to do, and it was required to be initiated. That's the kind of ridiculousness that happens.

I would go on, but KSig RC took the words right out of my mouth, as Meat Loaf says. ;)

I will be first to say that I do not condone hazing in ANY form. I probably have a more stringent view on it than most here. My chapter was the only non-hazing chapter on my campus. It was truly sad to see the ridiculous behavior that some people went through to get into their groups. But that was their choice.

I am not a jury/judge or jailer, but I've had more than one chapter in my region brought up on hazing allegations. One chapter was reported for hazing because the Greek Advisor said that the NMs were forced to wear yellow scrunches on their wrists during pledging. All NMs got yellow scrunches from their big sisters. Sisters wore them all the time as well. Honestly, I laughed at the allegation, and we didn't do anything to this chapter, because the allegations were silly.

On the other hand, I had a chapter brought up on a whole host of charges, from paddling to drinking. And the new members were told that if they really wanted to be sisters, they'd lie for the sisters. This is, in my opinion, ridiculous. There were things alleged that many would say is nothing, but the point is that these NMs were forced to feel that they wouldn't be part of an organization if they answered the questions we asked.

I say all of this because I think it's important that people know where I come from. If someone wants to go through hell to become part of an organization, that's their prerogative. Point is that it's against the policies of all of our organizations, and if you get caught hazing, then you do the penalty.

As for the fundraiser problem that 33girl mentions, I know that as part of our new member program, the new members plan and implement a fundraiser for our philanthropy, and it's not considered hazing.