Hazing vs. Team Buliding
 

My sorority has a very strict anti hazing policy and our Offical Statement reads that;
"hazing is any situation which creates mental or physical abuse, discomfort, embarassment, ridicule or harassment weather on or away from sorority property."
We are so PC about this that even "harmless" activitys like scavenger hunts, pledge projects, and pledge books were prohibited.
Now I in no way advocate sensless drinking binges or public humilation, but I don't see the harm in sending new members on a scavenger hunt for sorority symbols or having them get stuff signed, I think these kinds of activitys could actually strengthen bonds between alpha (pledge) classmates by allowing them to work together. Which is also the principal behind pledge projects.
I kind of feel like I missed out a little by not participating in stuff like this, I mean the new member period is so short, I think stuff like this just makes it that much more memorable.
I'm just curious how everyone else feels about this I don't really see it as hazing it seems more like team buliding to me. I mean as long as it has a purpose and isn't hurting anyone why would it be considered hazing?

The purpose of activities is to integrate new members into the chapter for Chapter unity rather than new member class unity. Why would you want them to have a clique of their own instead of being part of the whole chapter?

The problem with scavenger hunts tends to be more a risk management issue than a hazing issue. People hurry to get things and are less careful. Someone might dart across a street without looking, be more likely to fall, etc. Additionally, it may start out harmless but over time, the women are being asked to find more and more outrageous things that could be embarassing. As far as signing things, again, the activity itself, if done correctly, appears harmless but it only takes one person who makes an outrageous demand for the signature to make it hazing. It's too high risk and the outrageous demands end up occurring eventually.

There are books and books of team building activities that can be done with new members and initiated members together which truly do inspire teamwork and sisterhood rather than divisiveness.

The most memorable team building and sisterhood activity I've done with a chapter was called "A letter to my sisters". The women were in groups of about 5 and each group had paper and a pencil. The first woman in each group started a letter to her sisters and each sister in the group added a line to it. Then a volunteer from the group read the letter out loud. By the time they were done reading their letters, there wasn't a dry eye in the room. They were beautiful and poignant letters about how they felt about their sisters. It was an activity that none of us will ever forget! (I had them keep their letters with a suggestion that they read them again every few months when things got stressful and busy to remind each other why they were together).

Dee

New member class unity does not a "clique" make. The point of getting the pledge class to work together is that it's easier to work with a smaller group at first than jump in with both feet to a chapter full of people you don't know. If I would have been presented with a chapter of 100 women and told I had to be "unified" with them from the get-go, it would have been overwhelming.

If pledge classes are all the same age they're likely to be a clique anyway...especially once they hit 21 and can go to the bar. I think that is due to AGE, not because of anything in the pledge program. If you have a pledge class full of music majors, they're going to all hang out together because they go to class together all the time. This whole "clique" argument is really old and tired and blames everything on a 6 week program without taking other factors into account. It's ridiculous to think that everyone can be best friends w/ everyone.

I agree that you won't end up best friends with everybody, but I still believe (as does AGD) that the focus should be integrating these women into the chapter rather than separating them as the "new member class".

Dee

It does in large chapters. It creates issues like voting along pledge class lines, which is an inefficient, and often counterproductive way to transition power.

Even without pledge class activitys, there was still a bit of a separation between the older and younger girls in my chapter. I don't think a few activitys would have hurt us that way. I understand the point about risk mangement though, I never held an E-board office so thats not something I really had to think about.

As you can see from the numerous posts in this forum, risk management has to become something that each member needs to think about! Even as alumnae our activities are restricted due to risk management issues.

Dee

But my point was that in large chapters the pledges are usually all freshmen...who would probably hang out together ANYWAY. So how can all the blame for the cliqueishness be placed on "pledge class unity"???

Do you understand what I'm saying...it's like blaming a high cancer rate on a small-town factory and then finding out that the majority of the women working there have breast cancer in their families.

I agree with you that there is some cliqueishness that naturally develops, but I don't think that it should be exagerated by organization policy.

The argument used when I was an undergrad, is the same one that you advocated; that making them operate as a team prepares them to drop right into the organization. I disagree with that. From my observations, making the pledge class operate as a team, often causes them to reinvent the wheel, and a lower grade wheel at that.

Rather than simply have a pledge class treasurer, have the pledge class treasurer, and a few other pledges, intern under the chapter treasurer. Have the pledges become functional members of the organization's committee structure, and they will operate in it better, and faster. Also, the pledges will get to know the members sooner, and in greater depth.

Another issue for many schools, FSU included, is that a minority of pledges may be freshman. My chapter has always had more sophmores and juniors combined, in a pledge class, than freshman. The natural age factor simply doesn't apply for us.

I guess it boils down to my belief that until you're initiated, you're not an active member. You're a probationary member. I don't think a probationary member should be able to do things like vote on termination of a longtime member whom they don't even know, or see things like bank account numbers. If a GLO is giving a probationary member all the same privileges as an active member, they should just eliminate pledging entirely rather than using a watered down program.

I also agree that until you are initiated, you're not an active member. I see the probationary period as a time to assimilate pledges into the organization. They should not have access to ritual, or in my opinion, the right to vote. I also don't like pledges attending actual chapter meetings. Outside of that, I see nothing wrong with a pledge knowing about the operations, including the finances, of an organization for which that pledge is paying, and training.

I see "pledge class unity" as unnecessarily dividing the organization, and strengthening cliques that may occur, rather than attempting to unify the chapter as a whole.

I guess it's that some groups just are so fanatically against any show of PC unity whatsoever...which IMO is just as dumb as pushing the "go everywhere together" type of PC unity. There should be a happy medium.

Adelphean, there was a time when I would have agreed with you 100% about scavenger hunts - and then I served as Chapter Advisor. Among the things that have happened during seemingly harmless scavenger hunts (and this is from other advisors, too, not just me):

*People surprising the opposite sex in the dorm bathrooms.
*Petty fights over petty things (points, etc).
*People straying too far away from campus, causing a LOT of worry with the time period.
*GLOs in general getting a bad reputation for sponsoring a "juvenile game" such as a scavenger hunt.
*A near-kidnapping episode.
*MANY near-car accidents.
*MANY arguements between the teams

Obviously, not a lot of these are life threatening - but some are. Are you willing to risk an entire chapter for one game? Our Executive Office's policy isn't - nor is your chapter's insurance prepared to cover any contingencies (sp?) should problems arise.

There are a lot of ways to bond, and I'm sure that you & your chapter can find some. Save the scavenger hunts for when you're on your own!

Right on Honeychile! I think many people do not understand the insurance and liability issues involved!

Scavenger Hunts are Risk Managment NIGHTMARES! At my school Scavenger Hunts were banned from our Orientation week back in the late 1990s. So we had "Havanger Scunts" (called Scunts for short) instead... but with the Scunts came many many rules:

1) No going off campus
2) No stealing, spending money, breaking the rules, nudity, sexual acts etc etc etc...
3) All plans, lists, trivia, must be approved by administration AND the local police station.
4) The full list of rules must be read to the entire group before the beginning of the scunt.

Even with all these percautions - accidents do happen. The university can get away with a lot more than a GLO ever could though.... and without these percautions very very very bad things can occur. My favourite horror story (edit: from the days before the rules, obviously) is someone on a foreign visa taking part in the drop-off event (you're blindfolded and driven somewhere and have to get back with some item from where you were). They dropped the poor block off across the border, and without his travelling papers, it was really hard to get back.

I agree... scunts are fun, but there are simplier and easier way to bond...

(ironically, after several years, scunts are now called Scavenger Hunts again mostly because Scunts sounds a lot like....)