|
Jon, I understand much of what you're saying. As a former risk director for our IFC, I know the situation universities and HQ's are in. However, I don't feel that covering their bases is an adequate reason for a lot of the rules they impose. Much of it has little to do with physical hazing, and more on the idea of protecting self esteem. Basically, this is what I think should be done. I think HQ's should obviously be against hazing, but should take action only when the hazing is dangerous. The same with the Universities. Basically my problem is not with them covering their ass, but rather with the general sentiment coming from our HQ's and Universities. I don't want them to go "We recognize the value of beating kids," but I would like to see the end of them interpreting pledges as some fragile impressionable youth they have to protect from emotional damage. These guys are men, and they should be treated as such. Another reason I argue for the value of hazing is that many on this site really don't understand that it does work. Ask the military. Ask politicians, lawyers, doctors, and our fathers. I'm not asking that we be given free reign to beat the crap out of kids, I'm simply asking to not get in trouble for making pledgeship a journey rather than cakewalk. I think pledges should come out of pledgeship as changed, fraternity men. Thats how we operate, and we consistantly see our new brothers have more confidence,more loyalty to one another, better manners and improved social ability.
|