|
IMHO most of the anti-hazing reforms are just window dressing. Changing the words we use to describe rush and pledging doesn't change what it is. I can adopt the term "recruitment" since that is actually a better description of the act of growing your membership, but I just can't wrap my head around the term "new member". The reality is that they aren't members until they are initiated. I'm glad OPA hasn't made that switch in terminology because it bugs me. (To be clear, we don't prohibit our collegiate chapters from using the NPC terminology on a local level if they want to. We leave it up to each chapter to use the terminology that makes sense in that environment.)
And I am equally relieved that OPA still has a standardized education period -- complete with a test -- that ensures our members understand all of OPA's history, structure, and policies before they are initiated. Making pledges recite the Greek alphabet three times while holding a burning match = hazing. Asking them to learn the chapters in their district, or what our national policies are on alcohol, discrimination, social media, and privacy not= hazing.
But curious… have any NPC orgs seen real harm from moving to the new hazing definitions and membership nomenclature? For instance, are you finding that your new members don't understand and appreciate your history as well as they did back in the pre-policitical-correctness era?
|