|
just wanted to give my opinion of what's going on in this seemingly endless thread.
There is a humongous problem with the definition of hazing. While the definitions do differ slightly according to who you ask, generally one can agree that it is usually too vague.
There should be no room in any chapter for endangering the life of a pledge... duh. Where it gets hazy(no pun intended) is what people have been referring to as "good hazing."
From what I have heard and read, according to the law:
It IS hazing to have mandatory study tables.
It IS hazing to force pledges to dress nicely on certain days.
It IS hazing to require them to do interviews with members.
etc. etc. etc.
Would most organizations consider this bad? Probably not. But if you are trying to legitimately be a non-hazing chapter... these actions cannot and should not be within your pledge program.
I am ALWAYS trying to keep my chapter a non-hazing chapter. There are always actives in the picture when pledges are asked to do something. But does that make it a non-hazing activity? Maybe, maybe not... with the vague definition of hazing, you can never tell if something will come around the corner and hit you like a Mack truck.
IMO (if you haven't noticed already), the definition of hazing is the root of all of these problems. There are definitely ways to create a no-danger-to-the-pledge-mentally-and-physically pledge program that could instill what these Southern fraternity men are posting about.
The people that are opposing all hazing are not understanding that the activities named above (under good hazing) IS HAZING. And apparently you guys (at least from what i can tell at 3 in the morning) are agreeing that those activities are BENEFICIAL for the chapter. If some official was to seriously investigate those activities, there is a chance, however slight, that the chapter could be shut down based on those activities.
Follow me on this if you will:
The only possible consequence for a non-hazing fraternity is a forced depledge. You cannot MAKE them do anything. They always have the option of saying no. The consequence for saying no is forced depledge.
But once you force them out of your organization for not doing something, isn't that hazing? Even in a fully hazing chapter, the worst thing way to punish a pledge is to kick them out.
The line is too vague as is. I'm sure that most chapters decide upon who to initiate based on the pledge's loyalty and value to the chapter. How do you demonstrate loyalty? Probably by doing what's asked of you. Now doesn't that mean that we're basing your acceptance into the organization on whether you follow orders? Again, aren't you denying them membership because they didn't do enough "somethings?"
Sorry, long post... i tend to ramble at late night hours. And also... i may not make sense in some areas too haha
I am a big advocate of No Hazing policies. But I firmly believe that these policies need to be more specific, as under the current rules, it seems that asking a pledge to do anything (not even telling or ordering) could be in some way related to hazing.
|