[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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:

[/font][/size][/font]
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.

o.k. but isn't what you posted in the smaller font similar to what I covered in my definition of hazing? How is my definition any different?