Mandatory PT

[shadokat]

You're absolutely right madmax, although I'd add that if the NMs are made to feel as if they may incur a penalty for NOT participating, then you may as well call it hazing and be done. James has good ideas in terms of educating people on healthy living, but making them go to the gym...I just don't think it can be done.

Originally posted by madmax
Slight contradiction. It can't be mandatory and not forced at the same time.

I think it would be considered hazing if it is mandatory but not hazing if it is optional.

[Bro2B]

I think they would be very hard pressed to prove mandatory physical training is hazing. Now why do I say that?

Unless they had asthma or some other physical disability that prevented them from working out, it's something that is good for them. Running maybe a mile and a half a couple times a week isn't going to harm you, it will increase your lung capacity and make everyday living easier.

The way it would be set up is to inform the pledges at pre-rush and rush that it's part of chapter life, that the chapter is dedicated to a basic level of physical fitness. If they don't like it, they could always look for other fraternities, just like any other time.

Could you imagine a law suit? "Complainant advised he had been made to run a mile with other associates and members of the fraternity. He had been wearing comfortable shoes and had a digital music player strapped to his arm as well."

I just don't see how it could be hazing. Who wouldn't want to improve their fitness, their quality of life, and possibly even their social standing when they are in better shape and have much more confidence than they had for themselves previously?

[James]

Some of it might depend on the way your hazing policy is written.

Some Nationals have written policies that are so Vague, that almost anything can be called hazing.

However, as long as no "harm" is shown it won't come to anything.

Look, if a copy of your pledge program can't be sent home for a reasonably tolerant Mom to look it over and be ok with it, you are eventually going to get in trouble lol.

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by Bro2B
I think they would be very hard pressed to prove mandatory physical training is hazing. Now why do I say that?

Unless they had asthma or some other physical disability that prevented them from working out, it's something that is good for them. Running maybe a mile and a half a couple times a week isn't going to harm you, it will increase your lung capacity and make everyday living easier.

I just don't see how it could be hazing. Who wouldn't want to improve their fitness, their quality of life, and possibly even their social standing when they are in better shape and have much more confidence than they had for themselves previously?

Well, depending on your national organization's, state or university laws, hazing does not necessarily have to cause harm to an individual. Some hazing policies also say no to "activities which cause emotional or physical discomfort" (which exercise could fall into). I know that forced working out would fall into the "hazing" category under my GLO's rules . . . you should check into yours before you decide to carry out the program.

Furthermore, as a runner, I can tell you that injuries (especially in those who aren't used to running) are commonplace. Not life-threatening ones, of course, but stress fractures can result from too much running, or sprained ankles from wearing the wrong shoes. There are pulled muscles, and tons of weird injuries from people who have uneven running strides. Practically every one of the 70 runners on my high school cross-country team was injured at some point during the season. And while you guys obviously wouldn't be running as much as a cross-country team and wouldn't be nearly as likely to get injured, the fact is that running injuries are very common, and can happen on as little as 5-10 miles a week if the person is predisposed to them, and the injuries aren't being supervised properly by some sort of athletic trainer.

And as for your last question . . . a lot of people, unfortunately, don't want to get in shape. If they all did, American wouldn't have such a problem with obesity. And if everybody wanted to be in shape, then they'd all be doing it on their own, and you wouldn't HAVE to have mandatory physical training, you know?

Like I said, I do think it's a good idea, but making it mandatory could very easily get you into legal trouble. It's much safer from a legal standpoint to make it optional and then just convince the guys to come with you -- 9 times out of ten, they'll probably say yes. And if you do really insist on making it mandatory, at least check with your fraternity's bylaws, your university rules and state laws to make sure that it won't conflict with them. Many hazing laws are more strict than you might think -- somebody doesn't have to get injured before it counts as hazing.

Like James said, if this is against some kind of law but nobody actually gets injured, you probably won't lose your charter or anything . . . but they'll probably find some kind of way to sanction you, be it fines or probation or whatever.

[Eirene_DGP]

Originally posted by FuzzieAlum
If the whole chapter does it, that's fine. If it's just the pledges, that makes me nervous - and if nothing else, it won't do much good, since they'll stop working out once it's required, and there goes your effort to improve America's health.

I agree with you. I think its a good idea for the pledges and the sisters to work out together to bond, and shed a couple of pounds, but if you make people do stuff they don't want to do...its just not going to fly.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by FuzzieAlum
If the whole chapter does it, that's fine. If it's just the pledges, that makes me nervous - and if nothing else, it won't do much good, since they'll stop working out once it's required, and there goes your effort to improve America's health.

Big misconception as far as hazing. I realize in this case depending on the type of mandatory PT it could or could not be hazing. It's pretty irrelevant though according to most groups and state laws as to the status of the members participating or if all have to participate.

While this may vary from group to group it is definitely not a good rule to live by.

[Jadey28]

I think that this would be a wonderful idea...that is if EVERYONE in the chapter participated. I know that in the chapter I advise, my girls have a sign up sheet for how many hours they worked out during the week. At the end of the month, the sister with the most hours in the gym gets a prize. So, it's not mandatory, but it is an incentive to workout.

You can't make people workout. But the world would look a lot nicer if you could!

[LeslieAGD]

Originally posted by Bro2B
Obviously the pledges couldn't be forced to workout, but usually the urge to conform is a bigger desire than to be left out.

Thoughts?

Go back and look at your orginal statement. The phrases "couldn't be forced" and "urge to conform" should say something to you.

[SAEParm22203]

If actives and pledges do it, then it probably is not hazing. Sometimes, pledges/community members/parents/university staff might see that as hazing, so it is kind of touchy. However, it depends on what punishments there are if a pledge does not comply.

[FraterBob]

As an older Greek alumni "lurker", I am somewhat amused by the suggestion of pledge physical training. I preface my comments with reflections that I was in a fraternity when aggresive hazing was the norm in all Greek organizations. No doubt hazing was excessive by todays standards, but it bothers me that my fraternity now seems to distribute membership badges in much the same way which K-Mart sells jewelry, and in a way I am disturbed that membership is no longer earned.

Pledge physical training was the "centerpiece" of our pledge discipline program. Starting with the first week of school, there was always a midnight pledge line-up, at the conclusion of the pledge class meeting. A minimum of 15 or 20 minutes of pledge calisthenics set the stage for whatever night time tasks had been selected for the pledge class.
Admittedly, the exercise sessions occasionally got carried away. We had "sweat parties" where-in the radiators were turned on full, and the pledges performed an hour or so of "healthy exercises" while the actives drank beer and encouraged the pledges to "get strong" . In fact, the house pledge uniform was basically a PE uniform.

Looking back, other than some sore muscles and a bit of lost sleep, I don't find any ill effects from our "pledge fitness" program. All underclassmen were required to attain certain physical fitness levels both for required PE and ROTC classes, and the pledge programs merely gave Greeks the advantage from additional practice.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by FraterBob
No doubt hazing was excessive by todays standards, but it bothers me that my fraternity now seems to distribute membership badges in much the same way which K-Mart sells jewelry, and in a way I am disturbed that membership is no longer earned.

FraterBob,

I don't know in what era you pledged. I was in the mid 60's, and my pledge process was much like yours, I suspect, and I apparantely lived through it.

With all due respect, however, the system has changed. Pledge deaths, injuries and other complaints have brought about vague laws which have made the definition of hazing fit almost any kind of PT. And, in fact, PT isn't always necessarily good for you. People do die from too much running or physical activity -- particularly if they have hidden and/or undiagnosed physical problems. Did your fraternity require a complete physical exam before the offered you a bid to be sure that PT wouldn't kill you? Mine didn't.

Abuse of alcohol as well as mental and physical abuse brought anti-hazing laws about. If there hadn't been a problem, nobody would have felt compelled to fix it. Remember that a majority of those lawmakers who passed these laws are probably fraternity and sorority members, if the statistics we read about Greeks in leadership positions are correct. The willfull breaking of these laws, and the deaths, injuries and lawsuits that have followed have driven up our liability insurance rates to the point that many fraternities can't get liability policies at all, and have had to band together to mutually "self" insure. Just a few major lawsuits will bankrupt the system -- which could easily spell the end of the fraternity system as we know it.

If you don't buy that, look at the thread in this forum called "huh?" wherein a lawyer is attempting to sue a fraternity for "all" of it's assets -- the "Corporate Death Penalty." Although, hopefully, it is unlikely that will happen (possible though), that would close that fraternity. Probably forever. If that lawyer should succeed, how may other similar suits do you think will be brought?

Other things have not changed, though -- and I, for one, believe that you can learn about your organizations history, rites, etc. without standing in a lineup with someone screaming in your face and calling you insipid names. Or sweating your buns off and then going out into the freezing night air. Or scrubbing the chapter room floor with a toothbrush. Or being forced on ingest disgusting concoctions. Or being forced to drink until you are physically ill. On our campus, "Hell Week" was often the week before finals. Great timing.

I have had the opportunity to work with and advise a number of award-winning chapters, and I will just flat out say that they "earn" their badges. I will also say that there is no lack of brotherhood in their chapters. It does not take physical or mental abuse to bind a group together.

When the day comes that I can "buy" a Delt badge (or any other) at K-Mart, I'll be gone. It is far from that point. But it is different. The process that we knew was taken too far. So were some of the laws -- but I truly believe that the former was the cause of the latter.

Times change. Survivors change with the times. Those who don't change don't survive.

[DeltAlum]

Just saw this posted on Fraternity/Sorority News today and thought it worthwhile to add to this thread:

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 11:55:55 -0700
From: Fraternity/Sorority Newsclips <Doug.Case@cox.net>
Subject: Across U.S., hazing lives despite laws

Chicago Tribune
May 26, 2003

Across U.S., hazing lives despite laws

By V. Dion Haynes
Tribune national correspondent

The activities of the Kappa Alpha Society at Cornell University
caused a national furor when one of its pledges, a young man from St.
Louis, died after plunging into a canal during a hazing ritual.

Amid the screaming headlines and the editorial cartoons that
demonized the perpetrators, Illinois adopted what is believed to be
the first anti-hazing law to deter activities at school subjecting
any student "to ridicule for the pastime of others."

That law was passed 102 years ago, on May 10, 1901, which makes the
recent case involving students from Glenbrook North High School in
north suburban Northbrook an example of a persistent problem.

The same year the law was passed, newspapers were abuzz over the
death of a West Point cadet and the subsequent trial during which
another young cadet, Douglas MacArthur, testified about rampant
hazing at the academy.

Yet the practice continues, and the Glenbrook North case has focused
new attention on the Illinois law, under which 15 students have been
charged, and similar statutes in 42 other states.

Despite the nearly unanimous support among the states for such
legislation, anti-hazing advocates contend that the laws either are
too weak or are overlooked.

Moreover, some experts assert that these laws and bans by schools may
be making hazing more attractive to youths and pushing it
underground, where the activities go unsupervised. Some also worry
that, in this era of "Jackass: The Movie" and the "Fear Factor"
reality television program, the dangers associated with hazing may be
escalating.

"Kids are more desensitized to the hazards. The initiation rites of a
generation ago may seem tame and lame to them," said Tom Hutton,
staff attorney at the National School Boards Association, who has
helped draft anti-hazing policies for numerous districts.

"They try to find more ways to go over the top," he said.

For generations, hazing has been an integral part of society's rite
of passage, regarded as a means used by police and fire departments,
the military, medical schools, college fraternal organizations, high
school athletes--and even some professional sports teams--to build
character and camaraderie in recruits.

Anthropologists and other experts say the practice has been occurring
for thousands of years. Plato referred to it, and Byzantine Emperor
Justinian I banned its use in some cases. In the 4th Century, St.
Augustine wrote about his experiences of being hazed by a group
called the Eversores.

Scholar Hank Nuwer, who has chronicled high school and college hazing
in three books, including "Wrongs of Passage" in 1999, explained the
rationale in schools: "Newcomers were accused of being criminal or
wild beasts, and [the older students justified hazing by asserting]
they needed a ritualistic exorcism."

"Students would get hit with wooden objects or paddled with a book or
frying pan," said Nuwer, who also teaches journalism at Franklin
College and Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis.

Deaths spur legislation

Now, under the 43 state anti-hazing laws, spurred by dozens of
hazing-related deaths, the practice is deemed a crime punishable by
fines or imprisonment.

Since the 1990s, most national fraternal organizations have banned
hazing, replacing the physical and psychological intimidation at the
center of their pledging activities with dramatically milder, largely
meet-and-greet membership drives. High schools also have taken an
anti-hazing stance as part of zero tolerance policies against
bullying.

Victims' relatives and anti-hazing advocates, however, insist more
needs to be done to enforce such prohibitions.

In 1990, Alice Haben of Oswego, Ill., launched a campaign to toughen
Illinois' 1901 anti-hazing law. The General Assembly amended the law
in 1996, changing the crime from a misdemeanor to a felony if a
victim is seriously injured or killed.

Haben acted after her 18-year-old son, Nick, died after being forced
to drink large amounts of alcohol in an initiation ritual for a
lacrosse club at Western Illinois University. Hazing charges against
the 12 men who allegedly forced her son to drink the alcohol were
dropped, though Haben reached a settlement with them in a civil suit.

"Drunk driving 30 years ago was no big deal. But Mothers Against
Drunk Driving made it an issue, and it is now frowned upon," Haben
said. "If people are made aware of what is happening with hazing, we
can do the same thing."

Experts say these anti-hazing laws vary. For instance, New York and
Texas are considered to have strong laws and impose severe penalties
against perpetrators of hazing even if their victims agreed to
participate. In North Carolina, which is considered to have a weaker
law, prosecutors have applied the ban to public schools but not
private ones.

South Carolina's law applies to fraternities, but not hazing
involving the Citadel military college or sports teams.

A 2000 study concluded that hazing affected nearly half of high
school students selected for the survey. The practice is routinely
used as initiation for sports teams, scholastic groups, bands and
even church youth organizations.

The study, called Initiation Rights in American High Schools, said 48
percent of students in select organizations were hazed and 30 percent
performed illegal acts as part of initiation. Moreover, 71 percent of
those subjected to hazing reported suffering negative consequences
such as injury, falling grades or conflicts with parents.

"It's a lot more prevalent and pervasive than what we originally
thought," said Norman Pollard, director of counseling and student
development at Alfred University in Alfred, N.Y., the study's
co-author.

While the Glenbrook North case sparked widespread outrage and shock,
it is hardly the most egregious example of hazing gone awry.

In March, 11 members of the Psi Epsilon Chi fraternity at Plattsburgh
State University in New York were charged in connection with the
death of a pledge, Walter Dean Jennings, whose brain swelled after he
was forced to consume large amounts of water.

In February, the Zeta Phi Beta sorority at Virginia Union University
was suspended and four members charged with misdemeanor hazing for
allegedly causing severe injuries to a pledge, Kimberly Daniels, who
was paddled 35 times.

And last September, Kristin High and Kenitha Saafir, both students at
California State University at Los Angeles, drowned while reportedly
performing a pledging ritual for a citywide chapter of the Alpha
Kappa Alpha sorority. The women, blindfolded with their hands tied
behind their backs, had been forced to run through strong currents at
a Los Angeles beach at night.

Though California has an anti-hazing law, the Los Angeles County
district attorney's office and the Los Angeles Police Department have
declined to file charges against the sorority, said Angela Reddock, a
Los Angeles lawyer who is representing High's family in a civil suit
against nine sorority sisters.

"Part of the family's frustration is that the [police] didn't conduct
a thorough investigation," Reddock said. "One of the officers said he
didn't know there was an anti-hazing law in California."

In March, six months after High and Saafir died, Rep. Diane Watson
(D-Calif.) introduced the Hazing Prohibition Act of 2003. The bill
would amend the federal Higher Education Act of 1965, requiring
schools to withhold for one year federal loan and grant money from
students who haze others.

Frat group renounces practice

In a resolution, the North-American Interfraternity Conference, which
represents 66 fraternities, asserted its "continuing repudiation of
hazing." The organization offers chapters a booklet called
"Brotherhood Building Ideas," which suggests how members can "build
trust, rapport, respect and unity without hazing."

The National Pan-Hellenic Council, which represents nine largely
black fraternities and sororities, adopted a similar policy.

"We have zero tolerance policies for hazing," said Ricardo Deveaux,
national first vice president of the council. "Our national
presidents have come together and abolished pledging. We now have
`membership intake' programs and [prospectives] are no longer
required to perform tasks."

[FraterBob]

Delta Alum, thanks for your reply. I too pledged during the mid-60's. but although our experiences may have been similar, our Greek letters differ.

It was not my intent to totally defend hazing. Some of the hazing we endured could not even be described in a co-ed forum such as this, let alone justified.
And yes, I too survived!

It was merely my position, that some healthy doses of pledge class physical training, in itself, should not have been deemed unacceptable hazing per se.
Frankly, I would find some sweaty armpits to a pledge uniform, far less demeaning as paddle reddened posteriors!

Your comments regarding prior physical exams may have been well intended, but if you were of college age in the 60's you no doubt experienced pre-induction physical exam (s) for ROTC or your draft board on one or more occasions. Did you ever recall anyone failing one?

I would agree with you that Hell Week had no place immediately prior to final exams. We scheduled our "Help Week" and initiation in early April. This assured that we did not initiate anyone who flunked out at semester, and guaranteed the requisite supply of pledge labor utilized to keep the house going was available for most of the school year.
The closest thing we had to hazing during finals week, is that all pledges
sat at the library tables from 7pm until midnight studying, and needed permission of the pledgemaster or an active to get up to even get a drink of water or goto the bathroom.

And as to alcohol, no arguments from me. Our pledges were stricly prohibited from drinking any alcohol, period! The closest they came to alcohol was when they carried members beer tankards to the kegs to keep them full during parties or pledge activities.

So back to PT, in the entire scheme of things, what was the bid deal about pledges doing some push-ups?

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by FraterBob
Your comments regarding prior physical exams may have been well intended, but if you were of college age in the 60's you no doubt experienced pre-induction physical exam (s) for ROTC or your draft board on one or more occasions. Did you ever recall anyone failing one?

We probably won't agree...so be it...that's why this is a forum.

In answer to your question above, yes, and it was the guy you would have least expected. He was this rugged looking former high school jock. A real gung-ho type who was immediately in front of me in line for blood tests.

He broke out in sweat and just crumpled to the floor. I'm sure there was somethig else that disqualified him, but what a surprize!

Other than that, you're right about the physicals -- mine could have been taken in tact right out of the scene in Alice's Restaurant. Including having to see the military shrink because I was "arrested" for not paying parking tickets. He decided I was probably "moral" enough for the Army.