Quote:
Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek
My point precisely.
None of this falls under what hazing actually is. It's not grey, but people make it grey, by posting opinions like the one you quoted. It's black and white, because it involves a group's request (or the request of individuals within that group that the person in a subservient position perceives to be important) that a potential new member take some action in order to be held in esteem by the group and/or to gain entrance into an organization. I think request defined as hazing can be explicit, or implicit, either way it's hazing and it's wrong. The problem is people who haze and expect those who are hazed to behave in a certain way fail to consider the fact that some pnms could be chronic worriers who could be distressed by verbal abuse, or that some come to the fraternity/sorority with a bad past, have thought about quitting school, are addicted to alcohol/drugs or perhaps have considered suicide. Even strong and healthy people have limits to which they can be pushed. Add to the fact that many hazing traditions are inherently negligent, and sad consequences such as wrongful deaths become all too likely, especially when binge drinking is involved.
macallan25, I totally disagree with you. Members who haze justify actions that are outside the range of normal human behavior. People who join by allowing themselves to be hazed, crave relationships and acceptance, not primarily because they respond to the organizations particular ideology. Some people allow themselves to be hazed because they find themselves in an unfamiliar surrounding their 1st year in college away from family and childhood friends, so they then seek a feeling of belonging. To these people, enduring hazing rather it's physical and/or mental, beats the pain of loneliness. I'm not saying joining a fraternity or a sorority is wrong, I would be a hypocrite if I said that. But I don't think anyone should have to risk their health in any way, shape, or form.
Also macallan25, because my opinions are different from yours doesn't make them dumb! I don't agree with 99.9% of your posts in many threads that you've posted in, but I don't call them dumb or stupid. Your opinions on OJ are the only posts I've ever agreed with. If you think my opinions are dumb, then you don't have to respond to them.
|
It would seem then that the only way not to haze (per your definition which is something you apparently just made up) is to not have new members.
My collegiate chapter shows up to football games in shirt and tie -- sometimes coat and tie. Do you think that new members, pledges, feel maybe just a tiny bit of peer pressure to also show up in shirt and tie? Do you think they might be asked to change clothes if they didn't? Yes and yes.
That's hazing to you? It is under your definition. That said, I've never heard of anyone in the history of the world being charged with hazing for activity such as that.
My collegiate chapter emphasizes social graces, good manners and etiquette. We teach our new members how to act, how to treat women with respect, etc. When they're at formal, do you think new members feel like they're under a bit of a microscope when it comes to how they treat their dates? Do you think they will be corrected if they do something wrong? Might that correction (done in a polite, nice way) create some "mental discomfort"? Yes, yes and yes.
So now, according to your newly minted definition, and perhaps my own organization's insanely vague definition, teaching etiquette and expecting members and new members alike to exhibit good manners is hazing.
In order to be initiated, our new members are required to reach a certain GPA. The GPA they are required to reach is different from that which is required to remain a member. Is requiring that new members get good grades hazing? Again, you'd be the only person in the history of the world to think that, so choose your answer carefully.