How to stop hazing in my fraternity?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Gusteau

In terms of getting the chapter to agree to stop hazing, it usually just takes one person to speak up to find that most of the chapter agrees with him. A lot of people feel that they're the only ones uncomfortable with hazing because one else speaks up about it, and it is usually not the case.

In my experience, this is not the case.

OP, please speak to the president of your chapter and seek help from alumni advisors, and nationals if you need to. It's a lot of work to re-vamp a pledge program to disclude hazing, and if your experience is anything like mine, people will hate you for it. I'd also suggest finding some like-minded brothers prior to going to the president (strength in numbers, and at least you'll have someone to talk to when the rest of your chapter turns their back on you).

I would not suggest going to nationals directly without taking the chapter advisor route first.

Also, there's not much you can do about the pledges that dropped. Try to do better next time.

[Kevin]

What agzg said--if you're going to do this observe the chain of command as much as possible. Start with the President/executive body. If you don't get the change you want there, go to the advisor. If the advisor does nothing, go to your HQ. Depending on your organization, there might even be an intermediate step between your advisor and your HQ.

If you go straight to your HQ, there's a very good chance that if they believe you, they'll come and shutter your chapter, hopefully to recolonize it in 3-4 years with all of the current members banned from involvement. That seems to be the standard approach to these sorts of things with many groups.

[lucgreek]

Originally Posted by tmt87570

Last semester, our frat got the "hazing hotline" called on us, and again it happened this semester. Last semester, when I was pledging, our fraternity decided to end the pledging process and considered us brothers, but this semester when it happened we decided to drop our pledges.

I'm curious as to why you dropped your pledges. Wouldn't that just make the situation even worse? I can see these pledges getting royally pissed off they were put through crap and not getting initiated and now seeking retribution.

Whichever course of action your chapter chooses, it needs to be done fast. Seconding what Barbie said, if your chapter starts acting proactive ASAP rather before your national organization comes in and starts making heads roll, you will have a much better chance of surviving.

[DrPhil]

I really like this:

"...ATO, so Alpha and Omega with a cross in the middle."

[agzg]

dnall, why are you such a jackass?

[Kevin]

Dnall, I applaud your enthusiasm. Most fraternities are, indeed, badass in their own right.

The blackfeet though...

ATO used to seem to be pretty lax when it came to enforcing hazing rules, but in the last few years, at least here locally, they've taken a hard line. My younger brother is an ATO from (I think) your Zeta Nu chapter. They lost their charter a few years back for hazing, same thing happened to the chapter at the University of Oklahoma.

So you'd be smart to get a handle on that, but it seems you have.

I'd be careful about alumni advisory boards though, especially when your chapter has a history of hazing. Some of your alumni are definitely going to see hazing as an essential part of the fraternal experience, and in some places are even active participants in the hazing. An advisory board need not be composed of members only. Parents can be on it, professors can be on it, etc. If you're looking to change your organization's culture, sometimes that change needs to come from the outside.

As far as the shit talking about founders' purpose goes, I'd stay away from that one. Most folks aren't joining up with organizations whose purpose they find to be pointless.

ATO's own initial purpose didn't seem to have much to do with Christian brotherhood, at least not in the history books on my shelf. I will of course admit that the authors of said sources are slightly biased.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As far as the shit talking about founders' purpose goes, I'd stay away from that one. Most folks aren't joining up with organizations whose purpose they find to be pointless.

Amen.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Amen.

And amen.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by dnall

It's a completely normal fraternity with ragin parties, serious risk mgmt concerns, etc. It's not church deacons. We're all comfortable with the juxtaposition of the two by now.


I would say their founding was short sighted. They have lost their purpose & therefore should dissolve or remake themselves with a new change the world purpose. Otherwise it's sitting in a car that's out of gas blasting the radio and pressing on the pedals thinking you're getting to your destination. I'd rather see them out of the way so those members will go to orgs that do actively have a serious change the world mission to accomplish.

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Exactly. According to its website, ATO had a "whites only" clause until the 60s.

Guess the ATO founders were short-sighted, as well.

I have a hard time with this.

"Well we discriminated and excluded you because of your race/religion/ethnicity/not being like us but since we have stopped doing that as an organization (individuals may still follow/believe those policies) and you can come join us, shut down since your only purpose was having a group because you couldn't be in ours."

I won't disagree that your history degree is worthless if you think people should give up their history to get out of the way for the descendants of those who kept them excluded in the first place. I may go to a crappy west coast Pacific school with weak Greek Life, but thankfully my History degree is far more valuable to me than yours is to you. Weak defined as homes on the Register of Historic Places, men's and women's groups on campus for over 100 years, a campus designed by Fredrick Law Olmsted, and 10 miles away there's a similar weak situation at Wazzu. I am sure the professors at your directional Texas school, which is not in the SEC you idolize, were highly competent and capable, you just didn't learn anything about the history of others and how it is your history as well.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

I have a hard time with this.

"Well we discriminated and excluded you because of your race/religion/ethnicity/not being like us but since we have stopped doing that as an organization (individuals may still follow/believe those policies) and you can come join us, shut down since your only purpose was having a group because you couldn't be in ours."

I won't disagree that your history degree is worthless if you think people should give up their history to get out of the way for the descendants of those who kept them excluded in the first place. I may go to a crappy west coast Pacific school with weak Greek Life, but thankfully my History degree is far more valuable to me than yours is to you. Weak defined as homes on the Register of Historic Places, men's and women's groups on campus for over 100 years, a campus designed by Fredrick Law Olmsted, and 10 miles away there's a similar weak situation at Wazzu. I am sure the professors at your directional Texas school, which is not in the SEC you idolize, were highly competent and capable, you just didn't learn anything about the history of others and how it is your history as well.

You lost me. Who has a history degree?

[dnall]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Dnall, I applaud your enthusiasm. Most fraternities are, indeed, badass in their own right.

The blackfeet though...

ATO used to seem to be pretty lax when it came to enforcing hazing rules, but in the last few years, at least here locally, they've taken a hard line. My younger brother is an ATO from (I think) your Zeta Nu chapter. They lost their charter a few years back for hazing, same thing happened to the chapter at the University of Oklahoma.

So you'd be smart to get a handle on that, but it seems you have.

I'd be careful about alumni advisory boards though, especially when your chapter has a history of hazing. Some of your alumni are definitely going to see hazing as an essential part of the fraternal experience, and in some places are even active participants in the hazing. An advisory board need not be composed of members only. Parents can be on it, professors can be on it, etc. If you're looking to change your organization's culture, sometimes that change needs to come from the outside.

As far as the shit talking about founders' purpose goes, I'd stay away from that one. Most folks aren't joining up with organizations whose purpose they find to be pointless.

ATO's own initial purpose didn't seem to have much to do with Christian brotherhood, at least not in the history books on my shelf. I will of course admit that the authors of said sources are slightly biased.

Kevin,

With respect to a fellow triad member (and I really mean that), given the founding history of your organization, and that experience with our Alpha chapter, I can understand why there might be some bias on your end & think maybe history is not where we're going to be most likely to find agreement.

I appreciate your concern about the alumni advisory aspect. It is a balance thing. There is a part of me that does believe a balanced application of physical & mental stressors is the most productive way to train a new member. In fact, I know absolutely that to be true from military experience. But, it's illegal, so we can with extra effort find another way to achieve the same goals. That said, even if it were legal, I would be very concerned with the tendency over time of it to get out of hand when executed by people with too little experience or knowledge of how to do so productively. So, I don't support it. It has been many years since my chapter was in that situation. We're by no means a cakewalk now, but in the clear legally & with headquarters.

ATO has always had a Christian brotherhood, but a brotherhood in a purpose of achieving certain specific Christian goals. The brotherhood is more a function of that shared purpose, that and just a little bit of time hanging out together.

That said, I wish you the best of luck, and to your brother.

To whomever was saying something about whites only... that rule for us was the same one requiring members to be Christians. Change was voted down in the 40s based on the Christianity aspect of it. I hope I've expressed the degree of Christian basis for which we exist, and so I hope you're understand why it took us some time to be open to other religions. There was not open opposition to desegregation in the 40s, even with what is still today a predominantly southern organization. We are not perfect in that regard. Few organizations of this age are. All I can say is I hope we've learned from that aspect of our history and become better for it.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by dnall

To whomever was saying something about whites only... that rule for us was the same one requiring members to be Christians. Change was voted down in the 40s based on the Christianity aspect of it. I hope I've expressed the degree of Christian basis for which we exist, and so I hope you're understand why it took us some time to be open to other religions. There was not open opposition to desegregation in the 40s, even with what is still today a predominantly southern organization. We are not perfect in that regard. Few organizations of this age are. All I can say is I hope we've learned from that aspect of our history and become better for it.

But, were your founders shortsighted?

[dnall]

No? My founders didn't pass the rule restricting membership to whites only.

What the hell. The only theoretical org my statement could have been taken to say had short sighted founders would be one that never had a meaningful purpose in the first place. Anyone that's taking that as an insult is making a negative judgment against their own org that I never implied.

Why are people so damn nit picky and judgmental about everything around here? Do yall really like starting crap and finding fault in every possible thing? I thought we were here to have legit discussions of real issues and try to help people.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by dnall

No? My founders didn't pass the rule restricting membership to whites only.

What the hell. The only theoretical org my statement could have been taken to say had short sighted founders would be one that never had a meaningful purpose in the first place. Anyone that's taking that as an insult is making a negative judgment against their own org that I never implied.

Why are people so damn nit picky and judgmental about everything around here? Do yall really like starting crap and finding fault in every possible thing? I thought we were here to have legit discussions of real issues and try to help people.

It isn't what you say, it is how you say it.

With your founders and a whites (I am going to guess religion was also a clause) clause I will agree with you that they probably didn't pass that rule. They didn't have to because the whole eligible membership pool was white, probably Christian, though they may have specified what type, for example Protestant not Catholic. I'm sure the clauses came later when people who were not white and Christian were in college and would seek membership.

Even with your founding chapter the one guy who wasn't Christian, CSA veteran and sculptor Moses Ezekiel who graduated in 1866, probably wasn't even considered for membership based on his faith. From what I've read of him it was hard for him to even be admitted to VMI, so not being invited to join a group that you've stated is definitely Christian (Alpha Omega) is not a huge surprise.

If you're interested this is one page about him http://www.jewish-history.com/civilw...s_ezekiel.html

So many (historically white) groups had clauses on race and religion, we all know it. I just don't understand what the big secret is about admitting it and acknowledging when we officially took it off our Inter/National documents. I can't think of any group that doesn't have people who aren't WASPs nationally so maybe some groups never officially got rid of it but haven't been enforcing it, and don't want to be embarrassed that it is still there.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dnall

No? My founders didn't pass the rule restricting membership to whites only.

What the hell. The only theoretical org my statement could have been taken to say had short sighted founders would be one that never had a meaningful purpose in the first place. Anyone that's taking that as an insult is making a negative judgment against their own org that I never implied.

Why are people so damn nit picky and judgmental about everything around here? Do yall really like starting crap and finding fault in every possible thing? I thought we were here to have legit discussions of real issues and try to help people.

Your founders [mine too] didn't need to pass that rule because for a long time, we weren't at any schools which accepted black students.

As far as purposes, they change, right? I mean, Sigma Nu was founded because our founders perceived the precursor ATO organization to be abusive of their fellow students, unaccountable to anyone, and just generally perpetrating a reign of terror on the school. That problem was solved, and we still exist. Purposes change. I figure you probably get that.