Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltAlum
I'm not telling you that. Your university administration and your lawmakers are. I'm not taking a position on whether they're right or wrong.
Your name calling doesn't fix anything. No matter what you say or believe, hazing is ILLEGAL, weather the definitions are right, wrong or indifferent.
. . . .
|
DeltAlum, I think your post is very good. But I don't think it's a simple a thing as saying "hazing is illegal" and then arguing about whether it is or it isn't okay or is or isn't legal. The problem in a discussion like this is that there simply is no agreed upon definition of hazing. This is amply demonstrated in this and similar threads on GC.
The OP says some "hazing" is okay and then describes pre-initiation education, making posters and bringing actives candy. Others, like LPIDElta, point out that education is good and is not hazing unless there are consequences involved:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LPIDelta
Some of the things you are talking about really aren't hazing--sometimes they get classified as such if there are consequences as a result of not completing the task. That is the difference between education and hazing. Its ok to ask new members to learn history--its another thing to ask them to do it under pressure or by memorizing many details. No one is going to get sued for educating members--they may get sued for going to extreme. I think we all recognize that.
|
But we
don't all recognize that (depending on what "going to the extreme" means). In my fraternity and I'm pretty sure in others, one of the requirements of initiation is to pass a test on fraternity history and operations. Hazing? Apparently so, according to some.
Mac takes another perspective, questioning whether
Quote:
Originally Posted by macallan25
. . . beating someone with a 2X4 or killing them via making them drink too much is on the same level, in illegality, as having a study hall or a test of fraternity knowledge or cleaning the fraternity house or making pledge have a dress code . . . .
|
Meanwhile, we have had numerous people at GC tell us it's hazing to use the term "pledges," as well as to forbid new members from wearing letters or doing vitually anything that makes a distinction between new members and initiated members.
It's easy enough to say "look at the official definition," but even that doesn't always help clear things up.
My fraternity defines hazing as "
Any activity or situation that creates fear, mental distress, or undue apprehension in a member; harasses or degrades a member; or an activity which injures or threatens to injure a member’s physical or emotional well being; or any other activities which are not consistent with fraternal ritual or are considered a violation of the policies or regulations of a chapter’s educational institution, or state law." Our policy then gives a list of about 30 examples of what constitutes hazing.
The NPC, to give one example that applies to many GLOs, defines hazing in a similar manner: "
any action or situation with or without consent which recklessly, intentionally or unintentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student, or creates risk of injury, or causes discomfort, embarrassment, harassment or ridicule or which willfully destroys or removes public or private property for the purpose of initiation or admission into or affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership in a chapter or colony of an NPC member fraternity."
Meanwhile, though, my state defines hazing as "
to subject another student to physical injury as part of an initiation, or as a prerequisite to membership, in any organized school group . . . ."
So where I live, while my fraternity or the NPC might consider something that causes mental distress to be hazing, the state would not -- meaning that in those instances, hazing is NOT illegal here. That doesn't take into account the differing definitions that can be found in the other 49 states and among specific GLOs and colleges/universities.
"Hazing," for understandable reasons, is a loaded word these days. The reality is that different people use "hazing" to mean different things, some of which may be illegal (or against GLO or university policies) and some of which may not. If we don't recognize that people are using different definitions of hazing, discussions like this one are doomed to devolve into unproductive arguments.
/lawyering