[WCUgirl]

Okay, just so we're all on the same page regarding the definition of hazing, I copied the definition from the NPC's website. It reads:

"Hazing is defined as any action or situation with or without consent which recklessly, intentionally or unintentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student, or creates risk of injury, or causes discomfort, embarrassment, harassment or ridicule or which willfully destroys or removes public or private property for the purpose of initiation or admission into or affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership in a chapter or colony of an NPC member fraternity."

I agree w/ CarolinaCutie that there is a difference b/w preventing someone from being initiated b/c they can't attain a certain score on a test and docking say 5 or 10 points from an initiated member for not passing the test. But how do we determine how many points are fair and would be equivalent to no initiation? In this case, it's 75. What about 50? Or even 25?

What happens if the new member still can't pass the test after the 2nd try? How many attempts do they have to pass the test?

The way hazing has always been explained to me, any kind of separation of new members and active members is hazing. Just b/c both initiated and non-initiated members take the test, if there is a different consequence (for example, no initiation for new members versus losing points for active members), then it could be considered hazing. Why couldn't we just deduct points from the new members for not passing the test instead of preventing them from or delaying initiation?

For the record, I'm not trying to argue that testing new members or initiated members is wrong or that it's hazing, because obviously many of the NPC groups think it's okay since it's a requirement. I'm just trying to present possible arguments and point out that the gray area is probably a bit larger than we sometimes realize.

Also - thoughts as to ensuring that our members know the history. I agree that it's important that we all know the history of our organizations. In fact, some things are hard to forget when you see them every day (i.e. your org's colors, your symbols and mascots are common b/c they're on every piece of 'nalia you own!). But really, are you going to consider someone who has a 4.0 GPA, is chapter president, has 100% participation and a true leader and asset to your GLO a bad sister b/c she can only recite the names of 3 of your 8 founders? What advantage is being able to recite from memory the name of all of your founders anyways? The meaning of the ritual that you hold inside your heart is not something on which you can be tested.

Again - I'm not trying to argue it's not important to know your history or information, I'm just curious as to what people think how practical it is to require memorization of facts for membership.