[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, I get that, but I have some trouble with it to be honest. On one hand, I'm all for the rule of look to what your state/campus/org define as hazing and follow that without worrying what other orgs say.

But on the other hand, I think that if an org prohibits something like NMs wearing letters because it's "hazing," the only logical conclusion is that, in that org's opinion, anyone else that follows a different path is allowing or, worse, mandating hazing. Hazing has become a foggy enough (and sometimes way overbroad) concept without adding this layer of confusion. It's really not too hard to see it playing out on a campus: "OMG, you don't let your NMs wear letters?! That's hazing!" We've seen it play out that way at GC.

I have absolutely no problem with an org saying "It is our policy to allow all NMs to wear letters from the moment they become NMs because we don't want differences between NMs and initiated members," just as I would hope no one would have a problem with my fraternity having the policy it does for us. But I don't think it's helpful when an org adds "because it's hazing," and I think that presents potential problems for other orgs.

My $0.02.

Right, if anything that differentiates NMs is hazing, does that mean new member meetings are hazing, too?