Is branding hazing?

[hoosier]

(Thanks to Doug Case and Fraternal News for circulating this article)

Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:15:16 -0700
Subject: [fraternalnews] Is branding a crime under new Florida hazing statute?


Central Florida Future
June 15, 2005
Stuck in a haze
By Sean Lavin
The odor of burning flesh permeated the air as two blazing hot irons seared the Greek letter Omega into both sides of Byron Washington's chest two years ago. Minutes later, a third and final Omega was scorched into the fraternity member's upper arm.
What Washington endured is known as branding. And Washington was not the only UCF student that allowed a red hot Omega-shaped iron to leave a lasting impression across his body. Twelve brothers of Omega Psi Phi also asked to be branded alongside Washington that night.
Washington, who is currently serving as president of his chapter, says branding in this context isn't hazing because it's not performed as a condition of membership. Nearly 80 percent of Omega brothers choose to get branded on their own accord, he added, pointing out that branding is only permitted after someone pledging his fraternity is initiated as a fully vested member.
But a tough new law that criminalizes violent hazing in Florida directly cites branding as a form of hazing, referencing the popular activity as type of "brutality of a physical nature."
The Chad Meredith Act, crafted by Rep. Adam Hasner, R-Delray Beach, is considered by many as the strongest anti-hazing statute in the nation. The law is named in honor of a Kappa Sigma pledge that drowned as a result of hazing at the University of Miami in 2001.
When Gov. Jeb Bush signed Hasner's bill last week, high school and college hazing resulting in serious bodily injury or death became a third degree felony. Hazing that doesn't cause an injury - but could have - is now classified as a first-degree misdemeanor throughout the state.
When asked about the Chad Meredith Act's effect on branding, Hasner acknowledged that "it could be prosecuted" under the new law. But he stressed that, "cases like that, if they were prosecuted, would probably be determined on a case by case basis."
"Each case is going to have to be looked at on its own merits by the prosecutors," Hasner explained.
The very prospect of seeing his fraternity brothers prosecuted and potentially put behind bars for carrying out the age-old tradition of branding, which has been alive for generations within the Omega Psi Phi fraternity, has Washington concerned.
"I would be worried if they want to take it that far to prosecute members of my organization," Washington said. "I'll never risk my personal freedom or college education for anything."
If prosecutors do start bringing charges against students for branding their fellow fraternity brothers, Washington says he and his brothers will launch a campaign to change the law.
Citing the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of _expression, Washington said members should not be restricted from bearing their fraternity's symbol on their body in the form of a brand, much like they wouldn't be restricted from having the symbol tattooed onto their skin.
The state should "at least define [branding] a different way," he said, suggesting a distinction be drawn between incidents of forced branding and the consensual branding that his fraternity brothers enjoy as a symbol of pride in their organization.
But while Washington says branding is "not that big of a deal," and compares it to getting a tattoo, other UCF students see it as unnecessary.
"I can't even think of a reason why people would do it, I really can't," said senior Ashley Sturm, who feels the law should stay the way it is. "Because if the arm gets infected, then they can throw it back on the fraternity and say they were pressured into it."
"It just creates more harm than good," the criminal justice major continued. "There are going to be those issues you just can't escape."
Looking beyond the branding issues, Hasner called hazing an "epidemic" plaguing the state, and condemned the recent rash of incidents - including a high school soccer player from Deltona who was dropped on her head during a hazing incident - as "senseless and heinous acts that lead to physical injury and sometimes death."
"I think there is a much more positive way to impart brotherhood and sisterhood and team-building," added Hasner, who explained how he spent much of his life working to achieve just that as a chapter officer, advisor, and ultimately national officer of Phi Delta Theta fraternity.
"By increasing the penalties and criminalizing hazing in the state of Florida, I'm confident that we're going to put more students on notice that the state will no longer tolerate this type of behavior," Hasner said.
A major intent behind the law appears to focus on preventing what Hasner describes as hazing incidents that "may seem like fun and games," but instead "result in serious injury or sometimes even death."
Victims often consent to activities that seem harmless or fun, but unfortunately end in tragedy.
"Willing participants sometimes aren't willing participants," Hasner said, while pointing out how it was difficult for prosecutors to obtain a conviction in battery criminal cases related to hazing before his bill became law, because perpetrators used the victim's consent as a defense in court.
"This new law prevents the perpetrators of hazing from using the victim's consent as a defense," Hasner said. "It's an important new distinction in the law."
Aside from increasing the penalties for hazing, the bill only slightly altered the definition of hazing, which in part reads, "any action or situation that recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student ... "
The law cites the following as further examples of hazing: "pressuring or coercing the student into violating state or federal law, any brutality of a physical nature, such as whipping, beating, branding, exposure to the elements, forced consumption of any food, liquor or drug ... or forced physical activity that could adversely affect the physical health or safety of the student."
And in addition to consent no longer being a valid defense against the crime of hazing, members of campus organizations hazing others can no longer escape culpability even if the activity resulting in the death or injury of the hazing victim wasn't part of an official organizational event.
Prosecution can now occur even if the fraternity's leadership or general membership had no knowledge the action was taking place, and only a handful of members violate the law on their own.
Another key addition to the definition of hazing is the language providing that hazing occurs for "purposes, including, but not limited to, initiation" into a campus organization. This language also throws out another frequent defense organizations use when trying to beat accusations of hazing - that the act was not required as a condition of membership to enter the organization.
Prior to Hasner's bill, hazing plaguing Florida's universities was handled by university and fraternity judicial boards. The biggest punishment previously dished out for hazing was expulsion from school - a slap on the wrist compared to the five years in jail violators now face.
Hasner says he is "very positive about the outlook of fraternities and the role they play in society." Hasner says his commitment to the Greek system will not end now that the Chad Meredith Act has passed.
"I've made myself available to all the state universities," Hasner said. "I will travel to any of the schools - at my own cost - to speak to student groups and the Greek system and explain why it was so important to make hazing a criminal act in the state of Florida."

[SirHornyToad]

Does this mean when I went to a shop and got my Tatoo I was being hazed?

Here's a question, My pledgemaster paid for it 3 years after i finished pledging, does that mean he hazed me, I hazed myself or the tatoo artist hazed me?


Is offering to pay for my little brothers if he wants one hazing as well?

What about the 8 new girls in one sorority that went and got tatts after pledging was over together...

hahahaha

[PhoenixAzul]

Perhaps it is just the way I am reading this, but it sounds like there's not enough credit given to people for making their own choices. Those Omega Psi Phi brothers were making their CHOICE to be branded (side note: as someone who enjoys body modifications and has several herself, I would have had a professional studio do it... the article doesn't mention an artist doing it). It sounds like there is this impression that everyone who joins a GLO has no spine and will only go along with the herd mentality of the larger group, which we all know is BS.

[epchick]

Originally posted by PhoenixAzul
Perhaps it is just the way I am reading this, but it sounds like there's not enough credit given to people for making their own choices. Those Omega Psi Phi brothers were making their CHOICE to be branded (side note: as someone who enjoys body modifications and has several herself, I would have had a professional studio do it... the article doesn't mention an artist doing it). It sounds like there is this impression that everyone who joins a GLO has no spine and will only go along with the herd mentality of the larger group, which we all know is BS.

I doubt that any Omega Psi Phi brother has ever gone to an "artist" to get their branding. Around March when I went to the greek Step Show, there were a few Omega Psi Phi alum there and I saw that HUGE Omega branded into the arm. I thought the dude had done it himself...like scarification, but it was just really big. This dude had those huge body-builder biceps and the Omega just took up the top half of his arm.

Anyhoo...i don't think in this case it should be considered hazing, especially since they weren't forced to do it...it wasn't a part of their "new member process."

[Tom Earp]

Branding would of course depend on the circumstances wouldnt it?

Peer Preasure being one of course.

Friend of OPsiPhi has one and another KAPsi doesnt.

Evidently if it is done after Activation, it cannot be hazing of a New PM.

Sory, but myself, I am not into branding and tatts.

But I am sure if something would happen to an indiviaul, there would be law suits and legal ramifications.

[Wolfman]

As an Omega man who has four brands,a couple of thing must be made known:

1) Officially Omega Psi Phi has a statement of position against branding, as a Fraternity-sanctioned practice.

2) It is a firmly ensconsed practice (tradition) in Omega so a very large percentage of brothers get "hits" i.e., brands.

3) As a traditional practice brands can only given to men who have been initiated, so in one sense it is out of the purview of "hazing" as commonly viewed.

"Que Psi Phi 'til the day I die!"

[Kevlar281]

We have a chapter brand; we don’t use it on each other, in fact it’s entirely the wrong brand to use for body modification. It’s actually an annual event in the spring where all newly initiated brothers get their boots branded. I know were not the only fraternity on campus who practices this tradition; and anyone from cattle country would understand the significance of a man branding his boots.

[starang21]

NO.

[sugar and spice]

Branding is hazing only if it is not done by choice. What's the difference between them deciding to brand their letters on versus having them tattooed on? I'm wary of any law that tries to limit how people can modify their bodies when it's by their own choice.

And given that what Wolfman said about only initiated members getting brands (I can't imagine a pledge of an NPHC organization being stupid enough to get a brand before initiation!), even in the rare cases where force or pressure is used, it would not be part of the new member period, and thus it's not hazing. And in cases like that, wouldn't an assault law already basically cover what needs to be covered?

[CanadianZete]

I personally see no problem with being branded;having one myself. I know that getting mine was a choice that I made, it was not sanctioned by our headquarters, or pushed on me by others. It was a personal choice I made. It was cheaper then a tatoo, and means more to me then a tatoo ever would, because it is routed in tradition.

[kddani]

I don't see the point of brands in general (but that's another thread), but if he did it on his own volition, who cares? Since when is it illegal in this country to maim yourself? lol

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
...even in the rare cases where force or pressure is used, it would not be part of the new member period, and thus it's not hazing...

I have to disagree with this statement.

I don't think you can say hazing can only happen if it happens to certain people. I think duly initiated members can be hazed.

For example, what if the chapter made getting a brand a condition on remaining a member in good standing? But the didn't hold you down and force you to get a brand, but they treated you like crap and did everything in their power to ostracize (sp?) you from the group. I think that can still be considered hazing.

[gpb1874]

there are few NPHC men in my area (that i know of), so this isn't based on a huge sampling. from what we've talked about, NPHC men only get branded if they really want to. they've never mentioned feeling pressured to do it by others. i get the same impression from those on GC. a tatoo can be removed, a brand can't, so it appears that it is taken very seriously by those who consider it.

now, that's not saying it couldn't be hazing.....it depends on the situation. but, just branding in and of itself should not.

[Wolfman]

Hazing is a serious issue which must be addressed in the cultural phenomenon in Greek-letter groups, esp. in NPHC organizations. But the practice of branding doesn't quite fall into the niche of how hazing is traditionally been viewed, esp. in regards to how this practice is viewed.

As a 25-year brother of Omega Psi Phi, who was branded 24 years ago, the nature of the practice itself seen as barbaric and gruesome to outsiders would tend to elicit more attention for this reason alone. As an "insider" one knows that to be able to be in the position to be branded, i.e. have been initiated in the Fraternity, is the real focus. The brand ("hit") is viewed as an honour for those who have the privilege of being Omega men. To brand an pledge or aspirant is the fraternal equivalent of blasphemy;it's would be an oxymoron! There are many brothers, who for various reasons(religious, medical,etc.), don't get branded. And as I mentioned before, the Fraternity has officially disassociated itself from this practice, including tatooeing with Omega symbols.

And the thought that someone would go to an "artist" to do this shows a complete lack of understanding of the sociocultural significance of the practice. It is done by someone who shares the fraternal bond and life experiences so that the practice has meaning. It's like a father cutting the umbilical cord or a priest admninistering the oil of chrismation to an infant--both loose analogies. The one who is branded knows full well the risks involved. I was told by brothers how to take of mine so that they would heal properly, and antiseptic precautions were taken.

Making branding as hazing issue is "barking up the wrong tree"-- pun intended.

" Que Psi Phi 'til the day I die!"

[preciousjeni]

I think it's a bit naive of us to discuss branding as I've seen in this thread. Branding, tattooing and scarification are rites of passage that have existed for tens of thousands of years.


ETA: Wolfman makes the vital point that branding is not something that you'd go to a "professional" to have done - that defeats the purpose.