Beanies on Pledges?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Beanie = embarrassing attire = hazing
Pledge pin = not embarrassing attire = not hazing

A completely subjective distinction. Which means, as a practical matter, a completely unenforceable and undefensible distinction. Who decides that beanies = embarrassing attire? What if the wearer isn't embarrassed? What if, on that campus, pledge beanies are considered a cool and fun tradition (see agzg's post)?

As has been said ad nauseum, different organizations and campuses have different definitions of what constitutes hazing. (That leaves aside state laws, which would never cover this.) If one wants to say "in my organization" or "on my campus this would be considered hazing," fine. But I just won't buy a general assertion that having pledges wear beanies is hazing (or arguably hazing).

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Beanies never went out of style.

Is it a sign of just how old I am that the first thing I thought of when I saw this thread was:



Oh, how I wanted a beany-copter so I could fly like Beany Boy.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

No.

I disagree with your assessment of beanies and I also disagree with thinking you can tell someone what hazing is for their GLO.

What is hazing arguably could differ by gender (forcing fraternity pledges to wear blue skirts every monday (hazing) vs. forcing sorority pledges(almost certainly not))

But within a gender, and more specifically within those groups of one gender within a council, I just can't see the rules on what is Hazing to be that different. Under what situations would Kappa Alpha Theta revoke a charter that wouldn't get a Delta Delta Delta chapter at least a *significant* visit from a board member? (just to pick two NPC sororities)

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Is it a sign of just how old I am that the first thing I thought of when I saw this thread was:



Oh, how I wanted a beany-copter so I could fly like Beany Boy.

LOL. I heart MysticCat.

I wear different types of beanies year-round including spring and summer beanies. When it gets colder, I will be wearing felt and non-felt beanies for the fall and winter. I hope no one considers them embarassing attire. I can tolerate being forced to wear embarassing attire. God forbid CHOOSING to wear embarassing attire. I wonder how my family and friends who wear beanies for cultural or religious reasons (even if they technically have different names) feel.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by naraht

What is hazing arguably could differ by gender (forcing fraternity pledges to wear blue skirts every monday (hazing) vs. forcing sorority pledges(almost certainly not))

I see what you mean but using words like "forcing" makes it seem stronger than a requirement or criteria. GLOs have different attire requirements and criteria for meetings, conventions, rituals, etc. That is a different tone than "forcing" especially when you're talking about prospective members.

"Forcing" sorority pledges to wear dresses or skirts can be considered hazing if the context warrants such a consideration. One example of this is how not every woman is absolutely thrilled to be "forced" to wear skirts and dresses.

Originally Posted by naraht

But within a gender, and more specifically within those groups of one gender within a council, I just can't see the rules on what is Hazing to be that different. Under what situations would Kappa Alpha Theta revoke a charter that wouldn't get a Delta Delta Delta chapter at least a *significant* visit from a board member? (just to pick two NPC sororities)

I don't know the intricacies of Kappa Alpha Theta and Delta Delta Delta. More importantly, what Kappa Alpha Theta does or does not do doesn't determine what Delta Delta Delta does or does not do. It is fine if they are operating based on general criteria, school policies, and hazing laws that have been established after years of working through this stuff. It is not fine if people think they can apply personal opinions and their own GLO's likes and dislikes to other GLOs.

[Senusret I]

The threshold for attire-as-hazing is the wearing of attire that is not normally in good taste -- not attire that is embarrassing.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

The threshold for attire-as-hazing is the wearing of attire that is not normally in good taste -- not attire that is embarrassing.

Maybe. Again, this can vary.

My org defines hazing as

"[a]ny activity or situation that creates fear, mental distress, or undue apprehension in a member; harasses or degrades a member; or an activity which injures or threatens to injure a member’s physical or emotional well being; or any other activities which are not consistent with fraternal ritual or are considered a violation of the policies or regulations of a chapter’s educational institution, or state law."

By that definition, I think the essential question would be whether any clothing could be considered "degrading" or could "threaten" the probationary member's "emotional well being." (Indeed, the list of examples includes: "Requiring members to wear degrading or unusual clothing.")

By contrast, the NPC has adopted a statement that defines hazing (in part) as "any action or situation with or without consent which recklessly, intentionally or unintentionally . . . causes discomfort, embarrassment, harassment or ridicule . . . ." So that policy does indeed seem to have "embarrassment" as a threshhold.

There are many, many different definitions of hazing out there.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

No.

I disagree with your assessment of beanies and I also disagree with thinking you can tell someone what hazing is for their GLO.

Right, because state law and university policies are totally irrelevant, if my GLO says something is okay. Like it or not, there are things that we all agree are hazing.

In the case of beanies, I didn't say it was black-and-white. I said that it was arguably hazing, in a way that pledge pins are not. That is why it fell out of fashion around the same time that universities and/or the legal system started to crack down on hazing.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Right, because state law and university policies are totally irrelevant, if my GLO says something is okay.

Yes, that's obviously the context for this discussion.

Keyword: Scavenger hunts

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Like it or not, there are things that we all agree are hazing.

Beanies are not among those things so we are back to square one.

Keyword: Scavenger hunts

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

In the case of beanies, I didn't say it was black-and-white. I said that it was arguably hazing, in a way that pledge pins are not. That is why it fell out of fashion around the same time that universities and/or the legal system started to crack down on hazing.

Assuming they really fell out of fashion, are you sure that happened at the same time that universities and/or the legal system started to crack down on hazing? Maybe we are looking at different timelines.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Right, because state law and university policies are totally irrelevant, if my GLO says something is okay.

I will be absolutely amazed if there is any state law that makes embarrassing someone hazing.

No one has said state law and university policies are irrelevant. What we have said is hazing policies vary widely (as do hazing laws), so what is relevant are the state laws and university and GLO policies that apply to (general) you. The state laws and unuiversity and GLO policies that apply to others may not be like the ones that apply to you at all.

Like it or not, there are things that we all agree are hazing.

I bet not as many as you think. Like I've mentioned before, under the law of my state, it's not "hazing" unless the "recipient" is actually subjected to physical injury. That leaves out many things that most if not all GLOs would consider hazing.

That is why it fell out of fashion around the same time that universities and/or the legal system started to crack down on hazing.

Can you back up the cause and effect, or is it just speculation? If if that is the reason beanies fell out of fashion, then why did non-Greeks stop wearing them as well?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I will be absolutely amazed if there is any state law that makes embarrassing someone hazing.

Maybe not, but the NPC and NPHC statements on hazing both do.

As I said, it's not black and white. I think most orgs look around, though, and think "what is so important about beanies that we'd risk it?"

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by AzTheta

Well... not sure about the hazing issue, honestly, because we've all trotted down those avenues in other threads.

I just have this to say: I still have my beanie from Brownies. And I even have a picture of my Girl Scout Troop from either 3rd or 4th grade, and believe it or not, the majority of us still talk to each other. Seriously. And I looked dorky in a beanie then, but maybe I should try again?

No.

Ugh Brownies, remember how all the clothing was brown and orange? It wasn't the 1970's when I was in Brownies but it sure felt like it. I know I have my brown jumper and orange snap tie in my basement back home. I even remember the shirts had a pattern with brown and orange GS symbols. Then when I became a junior there was this unfortunate pants and vest combo, or vest with skirt. We had to have white Keds with white socks, and I distinctly remember an emergency trip to Woolworth's on West Portal before we had an event at St. Anne's for a girl in my troop.

Originally Posted by Senusret I

The threshold for attire-as-hazing is the wearing of attire that is not normally in good taste -- not attire that is embarrassing.

I know many schools had rules about what certain classes could wear, and where they could sit or occupy spaces on campus.

There are plenty of things I find embarrassing as well as in poor taste and I see people choosing to wear them. Guess they haze themselves.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Maybe not, but the NPC and NPHC statements on hazing both do.

Then the matter is settled for the orgs with thos policies. (Maybe, and I'll leave it to someone in an NPHC org to say whether this accurately reflects their policy.)

But the majority of Greek organizations are not affiliated with the NPC and the NPHC.

I think most orgs look around, though, and think "what is so important about beanies that we'd risk it?"

Were beanies even an issue in most orgs? It always seemed like a very campus specific (and non-Greek specific) thing to me.

To be honest, I would guess that what happened to collegiate beanies can pretty clearly be seen in the first lines of Animal House:

Larry (Pinto): Take off that beanie.
Kent (Flounder): We're meant to wear them to homecoming.
Larry: Don't be a fruit, okay?

College students in many places decided they looked juvenile (or worse) and just stopped wearing them.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

As I said, it's not black and white. I think most orgs look around, though, and think "what is so important about beanies that we'd risk it?"

You're right it is not black and white which is why this discussion is happening. The same can apply to requirements like pledge pins.

I would not assume that most GLOs looked around and thought anything pertaining to beanies. There may have been no perceived risk as far as most GLOs were concerned. This may all be post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Drolefille]

All I have to add is that hats look ridiculous on me and I'm fairly certain a beanie would look doubly so.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

All I have to add is that hats look ridiculous on me and I'm fairly certain a beanie would look doubly so.

If you expressed that to a sorority and they made you wear a hat or a beanie, that would DEFINITELY be hazing.