[EE-BO]

I just had a look at the Cornell site you posted- good stuff.

Thank you also for your replies to my questions. Sounds like you and I had similar experiences generally speaking.

Leaving aside the law, though, and also leaving aside obviously criminal activities (beatings, forced alcohol consumption etc.), I think intent is worth exploring in this thread if I may.

Following is a generic example. Interested to see what others think.

Getting signatures from actives-

1. To get an active's signature, a pledge is required to ask a set list of questions. The active has the right to grant or deny the interview at a given time based on whether he thinks the pledge is showing an active interest in the chapter and brotherhood.

2. To get an active's signature, a pledge is required to ask a set list of questions. The active has the right to require the pledge to perform a duty for him in return- buy him lunch or make him wash his car for example.

3. Pledges have to obtain a certain number of signatures each week, and a certain number overall, or they will be punished in some way- having to be at the house more often, or get yelled at etc.

4. Pledges have to obtain a certain number of signatures each week, and a certain number overall, or they will be depledged.

#1 seems reasonable enough to me.

#2 drifts into the danger zone. Is #2 okay if certain limits are imposed? (for example maximum time/money to be spent, exclusion of certain types of duties that are demeaning?)

And now the consequences,

#3 is clearly illegal under hazing law.

#4 might be legal if #1 is in effect as the standard and if #4 is disclosed to pledges when pledgeship begins.

But which do you think is more damaging or harsh? Which better lends itself to abuse of pledges? Even fairly homogenous fraternities have cliques and differences of opinion. What if a guy gets a bid and a few actives disagree, then withhold their signatures and the pledge gets blackballed under this strict rule?

What does that do to the brotherhood? What message does that send to prospective members? Well intentioned as they are, the all-encompassing nature of hazing laws can actually make for worse conditions.

Or what about #1-4 not happening at all? Is this a good idea? It is reasonable to allow a person to pledge and then show no interest in getting to know the actives and become part of the brotherhood beyond just paying dues and coming to parties?

It may not be the perfect solution, but is this not a viable way to systematically get the pledges to interact with active members and get to know them? I was the guy who was at the house all the time. I got messed with less often as a result. But some guys need encouragement to hang out more and be part of the brotherhood since it takes a group effort to keep a chapter thriving.

And if it is acceptable to require interviews and signatures, then how does #2 in any way build a brotherhood and inspire pledges to want to get to know the actives? How will #2 impact how a pledge class feels about older actives when they get initiated? What will this mean for a solid leadership when the pledge class are taking over the reins as officers?

These are the questions I think one has to consider with respect to all activities that could potentially be construed as hazing. And answers may vary based on what kind of fraternity you want to be in and what it means to you.

And if you are asking these kinds of questions, then I think things like paddling and forced drinking can quickly be eliminated as activities that contribute nothing of value whatsoever- at least in the kind of house I wanted to be associated with as an active and want to support as an alumnus. I am not talking about voluntarily kidding around among a few guys by the way- though it is a slipperly slope- I am talking about a systematic approach applied from the top down on all.