[Kevin]

We've had other discussions as to how the word "hazing" has grown to encompass just about everything for some groups. The definition has grown to the point where I simply don't agree with your 95% vs 5% statement. I think that if we look back to most of our traditional programs, we'll find things like scavenger hunts which in 95% of cases are completely innocent, but in 5% of cases, they might involve questionable activities. However, under our respective organizations' rules, we would have to say that 100% of those organizations hazed.

The definition of hazing has become so broad generally for insurance and limitation of liability purposes, and of course, HQ can tell its chapters to stop doing scavenger hunts until its blue in the face. Hoewver, anything short of placing an advisor who is on the HQ payroll in each chapter house is going to fall short of accomplishing that goal.

Instead, HQs (in my estimation) have offered up national programming in an effort to offer us carrots instead of sticks. In other words, they give us something that is highly effective for intake, they reward us for doing it, and they offer support, training, and other enhancing services. They do this so that instead of the scavenger hunt we would have done in week 2, we will instead be going over module 3 of our program (or something to that effect) which could involve facilitated discussions, ropes course type games, community service, etc.

33 -- in addressing all organizations, NPC, NIC, NPHC, etc. sometimes we have to make some pretty sweeping generalizations. I didn't mean to implicate that everyone hazed, but I think a lot more hazed in the past than do now, especially under current definitions.