Sigma Chi may make branding an expellable offense.

[hoosier]

Parent of university student complains about branding ritual



08:32 PM CDT on Friday, July 9, 2004
By MIRA OBERMAN / The Dallas Morning News
COMMERCE, Texas – A burly football player crouched by the barbecue grill, two other boys holding him so he wouldn't flinch. A fraternity brother remembers some girls saying, "Don't do it," but nobody paid much attention.
A hot branding iron, with the Greek letters sigma chi on the business end, was held against the middle of the football player's right shoulder blade for a second or two. The smell of burnt flesh lingered a bit longer.
It's a scene that has been played out many times at Texas A&M University-Commerce, according to some professors and fraternity members. It was the second brand Chad Oliver had received, and many of the current members of Sigma Chi and some of the alumni also have brands.
Nobody had ever really complained, until Chad Oliver's father gave him a hug on Memorial Day weekend and Chad said "ouch."
Stephen Oliver's outrage sparked investigations by the fraternity's head office and the administration at A&M-Commerce.
"It's not normal human behavior," Stephen Oliver said, the anger still palpable in his voice weeks after he discovered the mark on his 19-year-old son's back. "This is a cattle brand."
Mr. Oliver said he was upset when his son got a brand on his left upper biceps, but he didn't complain at the time because he believed it to be self-inflicted. It bothered him more, he said, to think that his son's fraternity brothers believe it's OK to burn the flesh of their friends.
He blames the fraternity's leadership.
"They've generated an environment where something that I consider abhorrent is acceptable," he said. "I'd like this type of behavior to be acknowledged as sick."
The initial reaction from Sigma Chi's national office was cautious.
"Our understanding was that, in this situation, this was not a forced activity," said Brian Burbrink, assistant director of chapter development for Sigma Chi.
Mr. Burbrink said it is unlikely that the fraternity will take disciplinary action against the Zeta Eta chapter, but Sigma Chi will probably offer some "guidance as to perhaps alternative displays of pride for our organization."
As news of the controversy spread, though, the fraternity decided to take a harder line. Sigma Chi's regional chapter supervisor, Tom Stephens, said the fraternity would consider making branding an expellable offense.
Chad Oliver said he doesn't regret his decision to get the brand, even if it angered his father and embarrassed his fraternity.
"I decided to do it, and I wanted to," was about all he was willing to tell a reporter at a meeting organized by his alumni adviser. "I just felt like doing it, I guess."
Branding has a long history on college campuses, said Dr. Richard McKaig, executive director of the Center for the Study of the College Fraternity at Indiana University.
It's been a tradition among some historically black fraternities for decades and has also played a role in hazing rituals at many historically white fraternities, most famously during President Bush's tenure at Yale's Delta Kappa Epsilon. The practice became less common in the 1980s, when a number of high-profile cases led to anti-hazing legislation, and is now rare among historically white fraternities, Dr. McKaig said.
Though national organizations have tried to stamp out branding along with binge drinking and the hazing of new pledges, they have been unable to eliminate many of the "informal rituals" that develop at local chapters, Dr. McKaig said. Branding, or more commonly, tattooing, fraternity letters onto their bodies is often still considered by many to be the ultimate expression of a lifetime loyalty to the fraternity.
"It's a combination of fitting in and bonding in a way that's clearly irreversible," he explained. "Loyalty to the group is a highly cherished characteristic for this age group."
Although the university is taking the branding incident seriously, the administration can do little if coercion did not play a role in Chad Oliver's decision to get branded, said Dr. Keith McFarland, president of A&M-Commerce.
"Sometimes young people do things we don't want them to do," he said.
Sigma Chi Zeta Eta members and the chapter's regional supervisor insist that the fraternity does nothing to pressure students to brand themselves. They note that the current chapter president doesn't have a brand.
"I don't see why it's gotten blown out of proportion," said David Long, a fraternity member who has a Sigma Chi tattoo on his chest. "It's always been something we've done to set us apart from other fraternities."
Mr. Long said he was going to get a brand when he pledged with Sigma Chi but changed his mind after he saw that the fraternity brother doing the branding did a poor job on his friends.
The 22-year-old senior watched Chad Oliver get branded in May and said everyone was just having a good time.
"He said he wanted one. His other good buddy did, too, so three or four people did it," Mr. Long said. "I did one of the guys. I just heated [the branding iron] up until it's bright red.
"Somebody holds the guy, and he closes his eyes. It takes about one-and-a-half seconds – it's that quick. You just put it on and take it right off."
"I'm sure some people would look at it like it's a little bit out there," said Joel Dungan, 22, who graduated this spring and has Sigma Chi branded on his left biceps. "For me, it's just I'm a member of something I'm really proud of and I wanted something that would reflect that."
That choice may not be available to new members if Sigma Chi adopts the proposed policy making branding an expellable offense.
"It just doesn't look good," Mr. Stephens said.

[Tom Earp]

OMG, It seems stupidity reigns!

I am afraid, if it was my son, He would never know pain like I would put out!

WOW, lets hear more disparaging words about Greeks

Just what we need

Monkey See, Monkey Do?

[john1082]

The notion of making branding an expulsion offense is interesting, but if you boot the guy, guess what he'll display for the rest of his life? That's right, the letters of the house that expelled him.

[Senusret I]

I don't think they should make branding an expellable offense.

I don't think it should be an offense at all.

In fact, I can think of some ways this could be a regulated activity.

[mommag2]

I personally wouldn't do it, but I have heard about sisters in the Divine 9 that have been branded and I dated a guy that had his letters branded onto his left bicep it felt weird, but hey it was want he wanted to do to show loyalty to his org.

I don't see it as hazing since he had the CHOICE to either do it or not do it , his membership in the org was not contingent on his choice.

However dumb/painful you and I think it is, it is their choice and I don't think that a it warrants explusion for having it done.

Those who want to, will do it and those that don't want to do it won't.

It's as simple as that

[ZZ-kai-]

If a person willingly gets branded, or brands themselves, there is nothing wrong with that. It is basically a different form of a tattoo.

If EX makes this an expellable action, then they are overstepping their boundaries.

Dads need to keep their cake-holes shut, when their legally adult son willingly brands himself. This dad needs a shot to the nutz for bringing all this media attention to this harmless act.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by ZZ-kai-
If EX makes this an expellable action, then they are overstepping their boundaries.

...when their legally adult son willingly brands himself. This dad needs a shot to the nutz for bringing all this media attention to this harmless act.

I'm not sure your first point is true. Organizations can choose not to allow smokers...and other things. If Sigma Chi decides that "branded" people are an embarassement or whatever, isn't that their decision?

Second, as a father of a college age son, I might caution you about your cake hole as well. IF the family is supporting the son financially (I don't know if that's the case here), I think they have at least some say in how he acts. If a student has reached his/her majority and is totally supporting her/himself, I think there is an argument that they are pretty much free to do whatever they want. However, it is my impression that "most" students get at least some (and often substantial) support from parents.

If that's the case, I think the parent has the right to expect some level of cooperation. The other side of the coin is for the parents to discontinue that aid.

I mean, fair is fair -- if you expect help from your parents, you should meet them halfway.

[33girl]

Originally posted by john1082
The notion of making branding an expulsion offense is interesting, but if you boot the guy, guess what he'll display for the rest of his life? That's right, the letters of the house that expelled him.

isn't it ironic, don't you think, a little tooooo ironic, yeah I really do think.

This dad needs to realize his son is a grownup and blame HIM for what he considers a bad choice, maybe by cutting off his allowance, because the son doesn't sound like he bears any ill will to the fraternity - he wanted to do it. Then again, to do that dad would have to admit that he @#*%ed up in his childrearing.

[ZZ-kai-]

Delt,

I understand and respect your views on this topic - however, I disagree with them.

I do not have any children, maybe I will feel differently when I do, but if my son were to go get Beta tattoos, such as his father did, I'd probably pay for them. If he were to get a Beta brand, I'd be there to hold his hand.

Whether or not the parents are funding this kids college, they still have to let him grow up and make his own decisions.

If my parents funded my college (which they didn't) and they were to hold that money over my head, I'd have told them to get bent.

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I'm not sure your first point is true. Organizations can choose not to allow smokers...and other things. If Sigma Chi decides that "branded" people are an embarassement or whatever, isn't that their decision?

Second, as a father of a college age son, I might caution you about your cake hole as well. IF the family is supporting the son financially (I don't know if that's the case here), I think they have at least some say in how he acts. If a student has reached his/her majority and is totally supporting her/himself, I think there is an argument that they are pretty much free to do whatever they want. However, it is my impression that "most" students get at least some (and often substantial) support from parents.

If that's the case, I think the parent has the right to expect some level of cooperation. The other side of the coin is for the parents to discontinue that aid.

I mean, fair is fair -- if you expect help from your parents, you should meet them halfway.

[Kevin]

We've discussed this topic ad nauseum.

For the record, I think it can be hazing, and often is a situation where there is peer pressure involved. What this kid described is definitely a situation where peer pressure was involved. Perhaps a form of self-hazing.

Again, it totally depends on the group's definition of hazing. If that's what Sigma Chi wants to call hazing, that's up to them.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by ZZ-kai-
Delt,

I understand and respect your views on this topic - however, I disagree with them.

I do not have any children, maybe I will feel differently when I do...

That's fair. I think you will.

No parent or "child" is perfect. Our three look back now at some of the things they did when they were younger and just shake their heads.

Trying to put myself in this father's place, I see a young adult making a lifetime decision that he may really regret later and be able to do nothing about it. As a stupid possibility (but the only one I can think of at the moment), what if this young man wants to become a career lifeguard and employers don't allow brands or tattoos? (OK, I admitted it was stupid)

I wish I could undo some of the things I did against my parent's wishes. You only learn that with time and hard knocks.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Okay, you know what bothers me most about situations like this. Is that the parents are the ones doing all of the complaining. Last time I checked these were men and women. Technically adults. While I understand that many of these parents are paying for their childs education, why are they so involved in their personla business?
I presonally think that branding is stupid. While I do like and have 4 tattoos of my own, they are completely different from branding, and they were done by professionals.
But, if these gorwn men and women want to get a brand then let them. They have to learn from their mistakes. Why are these parents coddling them so much?

[shadokat]

I don't know about the branding being an expellable offense...that's up to others to decide if they so choose.

My fear would be in the safety of the branding. I mean, just like any tattoo or what not, I would have thought these kids went to a reputable establishment, but to have one brother doing it for them...it just can't be safe. Scary even...

[Tom Earp]

Just wait until the flesh of your loins does something like this and then write us back!

Why net make it an expullsion provision.

As Shadokat expressed, what if something goes wrong and a kid dies?

Can it, yes.

What if said kid for some reasons is no longer a member of said Org.?

What if I tatood my ex wifes name on my body. EX-Wife, not being very cool later. What would new girl friend say?

Last I heard, human bodies werent cattle but had a thinking mind, well sometimes!

If one notices, cattle are getting ears pierced with tags of said owner! Is that a hint?

Oh no, not pierced ears either!

[ZZ-kai-]

All due respect Tom, but this kid has every right to do this to himself. Your, Mine, Delt's and everone elses opions don't really matter - not even his Dad's.