T-shirt club

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

Does anyone here know if there's an active attempt to define hazing for Greek organizations. Like, is there a Greek Task Force somewhere, with representatives from NPC, IFC, etc., whose goal is to clearly define hazing? It seems there's a need for such a definition; I wonder if we'll ever get one.

I have not heard of such an attempt. Of course, the NPC has its definition of hazing (you have to scroll down to get to it).

And like Kevin, I think that many orgs would be reluctant to cede that kind of authority to those outside the org.

Even if such an attempt were made, though, it would still leave open the problem of as many as 51 different legal definitions of hazing throughout the country, plus hundreds of collegiate definitions (remembering that a college's concern with hazing extends, or should extend, beyond GLOs).

Originally Posted by adpiucf

But I disagree that the law is unreasonably broad. Laws should have some specificity to allow people to police themselves, but should be open enough to allow broad interpretation -- to keep up with all of the things people will do to try and get "away with something."

I would argue that the hazing laws are able to be interpreted.

I would have to disagree, unless you are using "laws" to mean policies of GLOs and universities. Violation of hazing laws is a criminal offense. One of the foundational principles of criminal law is that the law must be sufficiently clear put to a reasonable person on notice as to what conduct is prohibited. A person shouldn't have to wonder whether a judge or jury will consider doing x a violation of the law. Yes, I know there are the obscenity laws, but as a general rule, allowing broad interpretation = vague = unconstitutional.

I would hazard a guess that almost everything that has been mentioned in this thread as "going to far" (such as interviews) is perfectly legal under legal definitions of hazing, but not permitted under a GLO's policies or institutional policies.

Often, the policies of your GLO are even stricter than the state laws.

I would say that almost always they are.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by LPIDelta

When I did interviews when I was joining my local organization--I had to set up the interview by asking in person, come with a list of questions, be early to the meeting, and then I could get the signature. The point is, nothing was two way--it was all on me. Further, if they didn't like the questions, the sister could refuse to sign. And one sister made me come back the next day because the first day she wanted to watch Days of our Lives. This is the kind of interview experience I am talking about--and it was light compared to what I have seen other people have to do to "get" interviews.

So what happened when I initiated? I knew a ton of useless facts that I had memorized and I knew a little more about the actives, but they did not know me. That did nothing to make me feel welcome in the group and it did nothing to unite us as an organization. It just created a division--and I was involved in everything and I did go to events all the time.

Originally Posted by whittleschmegg

It's not the interviews that are dangerous but its how they are used. A "new member" interviews a sister and then the next day is asked a series of questions about the interview and the conversation may go something like this:

Sister: Where does sister Melissa live?
New Member: Ummmm I'm sorry sister but i don't remember
Sister: Why don't you know, didn't you interivew her yesterday?
New Member: Yes, yes I did but I do not remember where she lives
Sister: Well can you tell me two things about her that you do remember
New Member: Yes, she has two brother and her major is business
Sister: How about telling me something I don't already know about someone I have lived with for 2 years. First I want you to go and apologize to sister melissa for not knowing anything interesting about her and wasting her time yesterday during your interview. Next I want you to find out 5 things about her that I do not know and tell me tom. when you come and visit me.

The interview was harmless most likely it was an enjoyable time until the next day. The problem is if you give an inch people will take a mile.

BOTH of these are hazing and NEITHER is the way to do interviews. Neither of your groups should have been allowed to use them in this fashion and the privilege of doing them should have been taken away. From YOUR CHAPTER -not your whole organization. (And yes LPI, I know yours was local)

We NEVER had to spit facts back out about sisters - I think one time someone jokingly asked me what a sister's pet cow's name was, but it was quite obvious it was a joke. The only time we had sisters complain about questions was when one of our pledges (who was later terminated and probably shouldn't have been initiated in the first place) was asking really crude things along the lines of "do you look at what's in the Kleenex after you blow your nose?" The only hard and fast requirement we had was that we had to call and set up the interviews in advance - and that's just common courtesy. And if a pledge was visiting the house during her free time, some sisters - MANY sisters - would say "what the heck, I've got some time, do you want to do my interview now?"

I'm sorry you guys had such a crappy experience with them, and I'm sorry your chapters were full of jerks on power trips, but that doesn't mean that the groups who used them correctly and successfully should have to give them up - any more than ritual should be eliminated because some chapters made hazing a part of it.

[LPIDelta]

It is sad that such things get banned because a few bad apples ruin it--again, we're back to if you give an inch, someone will take a mile. And while it would be great to tell XX chapter that they can no longer do a certain activity because they abused the privlege, I think we unfortunately default to just banning it all together because it would get pretty difficult to keep up with which chapter could do what.

To this day, I still remember some of the random facts I had to memorize about sisters during my associating period-- I am not scarred or anything by it, but I guess I just wish they would have taken the time to get to know more about me...and more than just things like having a pair of socks to match every outfit or the first and middle names of each sibling!!

[33girl]

Originally Posted by LPIDelta

And while it would be great to tell XX chapter that they can no longer do a certain activity because they abused the privlege, I think we unfortunately default to just banning it all together because it would get pretty difficult to keep up with which chapter could do what.

We keep track of chapters' grades, the number of pledges they took, and their activities so we can give out awards. We keep track of chapters that are on social probation for this or that. Why would it be so hard to keep track of interviews - yes or no?

Sorry for the massive bump, but I was searching for something and realized I wanted to respond to this.