Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalGirl
That combined with the ever growing list of "Wait, that's hazing?" offenses makes me wonder if it would be better to change the definition of hazing altogether.
What do you think?
|
This is the exact thought I had when I first saw the thread. I don't like that a scavenger hunt can be lumped into the same category as binge drinking, verbal abuse, or sleep deprivation. I think this practice undermines the seriousness of the message for, well, the more serious offenses.
When I was a collegiate, we were very strict in our non-hazing policies. The guideline I always heard was that we couldn't have the new members to do anything differently than the actives (with the obvious exception of ritual items, etc.) Then you get into these discussions about giving the new members a special item to wear on bid day, like a different colored shirt, so they can recognize who's an active and who's new, etc.
Even with those "most common" examples listed in pbear's post from Gamma Phi - I think there's a difference between singing in public and being pressured to drink. But there's so much more importance around the intent, ability to opt-out, being mindful of what causes humiliation, etc. That's a more nuanced conversation to have.
This is an extremely complex issue, I realize. And there is a lot of gray area that can never be realistically settled, so I understand why organizations would simply adopt a zero-tolerance stance. But this Miss America scandal should be interesting to watch - she's technically admitted to hazing "under the broad umbrella of hazing", and the MAO is backing her up wholeheartedly. That seems to indicate that at least one major entity doesn't think her actions were too bad.
Threaded Mode
