Quote:
Originally posted by kddani
NEVER being allowed to wear the colors together until you're a sister is a bit much. I'm pretty sure that would be considered hazing by NPC orgs.
|
Requiring pledges to wear pledge pins could also be considered hazing! It clearly marks pledges as different from sisters, and requiring pledges to do anything that sisters are not required to do is one definition of hazing.
Not all organizations have this "no colors" rule, of course. In fact, addition to being in a sorority, I am a brother of Phi Sigma Pi, and during our pledge period, we had to wear colors one day a week (purple and gold on Wednesdays). I guess that could be considered hazing as well...especially when combined with wearing a Phi Sigma Pi pledge pin.
Having gone through intake and initiation in both of two different diverse organizations, I can see positives and negatives for both the extreme secrecy and the wide openness concerning the pledge period. Honestly, I do not flatly, across the board endorse one or the other. A lot of the aspects of both are based on private organization meanings/rituals/etc., and I think it's difficult to say "that is harsh" or "that is too lenient" without understanding the rest of the context of the intake process.
Soooo....while I can't explain specifically why certain groups are hard core about NOT letting pledges wear certain things (colors/letter/crests/etc.) yet others are hard core about MAKING pledges wear certain things (colors/pins/etc.), I think that I can explain that groups have reasons for doing what they do. These reasons tend to go beyond what people --even those invovled in other similar organizations-- can relate to.
Just my two cents...
S
Threaded Mode