Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
I read the definition. I stopped at "emotional harm."
What is that?
That's kind of like the "mental discomfort" definition which someone posted earlier. So ambiguous as to be meaningless. So meaningless as to be dangerous if interpreted by the wrong people.
I think we're averse to using hard and fast terms to define hazing as collegiate members will find the loopholes faster than those loopholes can be closed. On the other hand, shouldn't we also be conscious about the fact we're using terms which defy definition?
|
Yes. Your post sums up everything that's wrong with all the hazing laws and policies today.
If we mean "you are not allowed to make fun of a pledge for not knowing fraternity history" or whatever - we need to say that, EXPLICITLY. and every other single thing we don't want to happen. It takes a lot longer, but if we really want to prevent it from happening it's what must be done.