Quote:
Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek
o.k. Kevin, maybe it's not, but I think you have an understanding of what I classify as hazing.
|
Yep. As quoted above, I understand perfectly.
Your hazing policy is just about as dangerously ambiguous and gray as what most schools and organizations have as their own hazing policies.
I like my state's definition of the word:
Quote:
1. "Hazing" means an activity which recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental health or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation or admission into or affiliation with any organization operating subject to the sanction of the public or private school or of any institution of higher education in this state;
2. "Endanger the physical health" shall include but not be limited to any brutality of a physical nature, such as whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the elements, forced consumption of any food, alcoholic beverage as defined in Section 506 of Title 37 of the Oklahoma Statutes, low-point beer as defined in Section 163.2 of Title 37 of the Oklahoma Statutes, drug, controlled dangerous substance, or other substance, or any other forced physical activity which could adversely affect the physical health or safety of the individual; and
3. "Endanger the mental health" shall include any activity, except those activities authorized by law, which would subject the individual to extreme mental stress, such as prolonged sleep deprivation, forced prolonged exclusion from social contact, forced conduct which could result in extreme embarrassment, or any other forced activity which could adversely affect the mental health or dignity of the individual.
|
I think that Oklahoma's hazing policy (full statute at 21 O.S. 1190) is a
lot more clear than what we find with most of our organizations.
You might find "endangers the mental health or physical health" part to be ambiguous, but note that the standard applied there is that the action has to be at least reckless. That essentially forecloses the study hall/etiquette/dressing up examples I provided above as being hazing, which I still think that following your definition and many of our organizations' definitions, those things could be hazing.
Aside from all that, what you really ought to pay attention to is that the state of Oklahoma's definition and your own are two different things. It follows that what you might call hazing, the state of Oklahoma would not. That is what essentially proves the point that the definition of hazing is not a "black and white" issue as you so hotly contend.
The situation here is this: What is or is not hazing ultimately depends on the definition employed by the group or individual making that determination. What is and is not hazing is not always readily identifiable.