Quote:
Originally posted by snuggles12
"I feel that NO intake on alumnae and collegiate levels would be a solution to the whole matter, and yes this is coming from a non-bglo member."
Having no intake at all levels will not stop hazing. For example, in the drowning incident, suspended members of the organization were pledging others. There will always be members or ghost members who will be able to find people to pledge.
Hazing will always exist because we have some sick people in our organizations who get off on physically assaulting others or putting someone's life in danger. I define hazing as a person who has received a serious injury or putting someone's life in danger (i.e., kidney damage from repeated hits, need surgery to repair skin from buttocks due to repeated hits, making a person eat a food item that contains an ingredient that is deadly to that person and the BGLO member is aware that the food item is deadly to that person, etc).
I think to minimize these harmful and deadly incidents is to bring the pledge process back with improvements. First of all, BGLO's need to be train on how to conduct pledging activities that are challenging, that will enable the line to work as a unit and to do things for the greater good of the line. Pledging activities should encompass the entire line and to make each person grow individually and to unearth hidden abilities that usually come out during stressful situations. Also, there should be elements of stress and surprise during the pledge process. The training right now is inadequate because it focuses on what not to do. The training needs to emphasize that the members are responsible for their line. They are responsible to make sure that the entire has mandatory study time and that their grades should not drop. They are responsible to make sure everyone on line is safe and is presentable in public.
2nd, the sponsoring alumni chapter of the collegiate chapters needs to be more involve to supervise. The collegiate chapter should conduct the pledging activities but the alumni chapter should also be there only to step when absolutely necessary. Also, instead of the alumni chapter vetoing certain pledging activities, the collegiate and alumni should work on compromise that is still challenging but safe.
Thirdly, the entire process before pledging should be redeveloped. There should be multiple interviews, activities for potentials prior to rush that would allow the members observe potentials, etc.
Fourthly, the pledge process should be extended and should have surprises.
Just my opinins.
BJ
|
Ditto, Soror!
AS I stated earlier, I feel the only, and really most obvious, solution, is to bring the process back. And as Snuggles stated, with intense training of members on how to pledge incoming members and what that really means because it does NOT mean hazing. Sure, we all have crazy men and women in our respective organizations who will, undoubtedly try to get in a little "extra." But if everyone is on the same page about then I think the circumstances will be less dire. There are ways to pledge people without killing them...it has been done...currently and in the past.
What we have now is a situation where line after line of so and so chapter of whatever sorority/fraternity is coming in through straight intake and feeling inadequate for whatever reason (and people do feel inadequate...whether they want to admit it or not). Like a mother who wants better for her child, she is willing to let grandma (read: renegade members) come back and raise her babies.
Also, again, graduate advisors need to be put up on game as well. I know people are busy with family career, etc., but again, if the process is brought ack thenothers are accountable as well...not just the advisor and the inner circle of people who know the pledging is happening but EVERYBODY!!!
Just my opinion.