Cornell to Ban "Pledging" for GLOs

[LaneSig]

http://www.theithacajournal.com/arti...xt%7CFRONTPAGE

Cornell will be banning pledging for GLOs. Groups must figure out new alternatives to traditional pledging or new member periods.

IMO, the president of Cornell is mixing up hazing with pledging.

[33girl]

I'm not sure who's truly the idiot, the president or the writer of that story.

[SWTXBelle]

I'd say it's a tie.

[Gusteau]

A name change doesn't change people attitudes towards membership education. This will change very little if anything unfortunately.

[ASTalumna06]

In Skorton's op-ed piece he states that about 2,000 alcohol-related deaths occur annually among American college students. At Cornell, high-risk drinking and drug use are two to three times more prevalent among fraternity and sorority members than elsewhere in the student population, he wrote.

He goes on to state that, during the last 10 years, nearly 60 percent of fraternity and sorority chapters on campus have been found responsible for activities that are considered hazing under the Cornell code of conduct.

"Hazing has been formally prohibited at Cornell since 1980 and a crime under New York State law since 1983," he wrote. "But it continues under the guise of pledging, often perpetuated through traditions handed down over generations. Although pledging is explained away as a period of time during which pre-initiates devote themselves to learning the information necessary to become full members, in reality, it is often the vehicle for demeaning activities that cause psychological harm and physical danger."

Has anything been done in the past regarding these alleged hazing incidents? It seems to me that if any student has acted outside the rules set forth in the Cornell Code of Conduct, they should have been brought before the school, or the authorities if the situation called for it.

If this has continued to go on without prior warning/punishment, it seems to me that blame for the death this past spring should partially fall on the shoulders of the higher-ups at the school, who didn't take control beforehand.

If it had been swept under the rug in the past, it shouldn't have been, and pledging wouldn't have been done away with now.

How are they even going to do away with pledging completely? What if a chapter is simply teaching their new members the way of their fraternity/sorority in a structured and meaningful way, that doesn't bring harm to any of the new members.. will that be considered a violation of this new policy? Or are they considering "pledging" and a "new member education period" to be two different things?

[Drolefille]

I do not think that the word "pledging" is simply being used to refer to "new member education" but some specific campus 'traditions.'

For example think of how "pledging" is/was used in some NPHC* contexts. Many of those processes have been banned, altered, etc. The use of the term is probably accurate for the situation, but means a hazing process, not just isolated hazing incidents or a new member education process.

*Not that this is the same thing, just drawing a comparison to word use.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I do not think that the word "pledging" is simply being used to refer to "new member education" but some specific campus 'traditions.'

For example think of how "pledging" is/was used in some NPHC* contexts. Many of those processes have been banned, altered, etc. The use of the term is probably accurate for the situation, but means a hazing process, not just isolated hazing incidents or a new member education process.

*Not that this is the same thing, just drawing a comparison to word use.

Understandable.

But then.. shouldn't the article be called "Cornell to ban hazing, like they should have done a long, long time ago"?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Understandable.

But then.. shouldn't the article be called "Cornell to ban hazing, like they should have done a long, long time ago"?

No, because they are doing away with pledging in a similar fashion as the NPHC did in 1990. Hazing is already banned at most colleges/universities and illegal in several states.

And pledging is not synonymous with hazing and doesn't have to include hazing. Pledging can involve new member activities that are common in GLOs but are not a formal new member activity. Examples include NPHC "pledges" lining up and marching across campus/off campus (which happened in some undergraduate and alumnae/alumni/graduate chapters). That isn't automatically hazing but it is pledging and is not covered in NPHC sorority's/fraternity's official prospective member/intake activities.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Understandable.

But then.. shouldn't the article be called "Cornell to ban hazing, like they should have done a long, long time ago"?

*shrug* I have no real opinion on that one way or the other. I've expressed my views on hazing plenty of times. Just saying that banning pledging is a legitimate way of expressing their point and probably understood by the target audience of Cornell GLOs.

They're not mixing things up, just using the local language.

[preciousjeni]

The author explains the difference (pledging v. hazing) in the last paragraph:

Hazing has been formally prohibited at Cornell since 1980 and a crime under New York State law since 1983," he wrote. "But it continues under the guise of pledging, often perpetuated through traditions handed down over generations. Although pledging is explained away as a period of time during which pre-initiates devote themselves to learning the information necessary to become full members, in reality, it is often the vehicle for demeaning activities that cause psychological harm and physical danger.

What I don't understand is why the president didn't just say that groups would be restricted to using the official recruitment/new member education process sanctioned by the inter/national org. No more local traditions permitted.