Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltAlum
We can all agree that there is no common definition of hazing, and we can all agree that some of the things that are called hazing are dumb. OK, stupid.
It just doesn't matter unless or until somebody can change that.
|
But it does matter in a thread like this, because if we just jump into blanket statements like "hazing is illegal" or "[some] hazing is okay" without establishing, at least for the purposes of
this discussion what is meant by "hazing," some people are talking about apples, some are talking about oranges and some are talking about cumquats.
Can we agree that some of the things that are called hazing by some
aren't hazing under any reasonable definition? Can we agree that some of the things called hazing would qualify as hazing under a GLO or university policy but not under the law? Because that is part of real the issue here, the real impediment to meaningful and effective conversation. Even your earlier post seemed to implicitly recognize this, when you said "I went through rush and pledging before this stuff was against the law, and frankly I doubt that you have any idea of what went on in that period." I took this as you basically saying that "kids today" have no idea what hazing really is -- in other words, some of what they are calling "hazing" isn't "real hazing."
Take the four examples that Mac offered as (my words) "acceptable hazing":
- having a study hall
- having a test of fraternity knowledge
- having pledges clean the fraternity house
- making pledges have a dress code
Do you consider these examples hazing? I certainly don't see any lawsuits in the offing from these, although
depending on the circumstances, some of them
might constitute hazing under the policies of some groups. (On the other hand, one these examples (the test) is
mandated in my Fraternity.)
Quote:
|
Breaking the law is not an option for us in the long term.
|
As I already pointed out, where I live, none of the things that Mac suggested (or, IIRC, that the OP suggested) would constitute "hazing" under the law because none of them would involve or risk physical injury. So none of them would involve "breaking the law," meaning that the simple statement "Hazing is illegal" begs the question "what do you mean by 'hazing.'"