Hazing. Is it necessary?

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by jon1856

And in the case of Texas seems to be defined better than many other States and Schools :

http://www.utexas.edu/student/regist.../app/appf.html

http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/gle...n-Summer05.pdf

So the questions, Brother, are: just what line did you cross? Why? And have you learned anything from this?

I'm gonna say that a line may have been crossed...but it was not serious at all. Not even close. The matter was resolved and our chapter didn't suffer by any means.

[EE-BO]

I think the whole point of the thread is getting lost here.

First off, I will say that SAE at Texas has a pretty good record overall. This is not a house I would single out as a serious hazing problem for the general public to concern itself over. I would be eager for someone to find me any good Greek House that turns out strong and aggressive leaders that has a spotless record. It doesn't exist.

The value of this thread is to talk about what hazing did or did not do for you in your particular situation- it is not about pointing fingers and asking people to expose personal details about their houses to prove a point.

Fraternities mean very different things to individual members, and in general depending on the school one attends.

The question is about what hazing you endured and what value you think it had. This is a good thing to think about and discuss. But get beyond that and it just becomes pointless finger-pointing- and perhaps jealousy directed at schools with old money Greek systems.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

I think the whole point of the thread is getting lost here.

..... I would be eager for someone to find me any good Greek House that turns out strong and aggressive leaders that has a spotless record. It doesn't exist.
The question is about what hazing you endured and what value you think it had. This is a good thing to think about and discuss. But get beyond that and it just becomes pointless finger-pointing- and perhaps jealousy directed at schools with old money Greek systems.

In my experience, if a house has strong and aggressive leaders ( and I will add smart) it should have a spotless record. For they are the ones that will lead the house away from trouble rather than into it. On the other hand, weak, dumb leadership..........

When I was undergrad, good, smart, sharp leaders and great house.

Few years ago, poor, dumb, weak leadership and chapter=house and charter gone.

Jealousy? How about care, interest and concern? Care, interest and concern that any GLO house does not lose its way in this day and age. Care, interest and concern that any GLO member or house does not cause damage to themselfs, itself, its National and the rest of GLO?
I was "brought up" to think, see and understand beyond the four walls of the house.

Was I hazed??? Looking back at it and having looked up TODAYS laws, my class came very close to the edge. BUT we did not go over it nor did we ever get that close again. We also tried to stay on the pro and positive side. Team building. Not able to say that about other house on campus at the time.

And unlike others here, when I got together with most of my class, pledgship never even came up. Lots of other things did like where were my 6000 photos and slides..........Very safe place....

[macallan25]

I pretty much have had many experiences with the top houses at just about every major Southern university........and I can't think of one that has a "spotless" record. Sure, there are situations that cross the line......but in most, the strong houses have the alumni, wealth, and "politcal" power to get them out of most situations. I'm sure most of the Southern fraternith men that post on here such as Shinerbock, EE -BO, Bows and Toes, etc. etc. would agree with me when I say that Nationals will pretty much turn the other cheek to the their respective top chapters (exlucding those in the North because I really don't have any experiece with anyone up ther.)

[LaneSig]

I took this off Kappa Alpha's headquarters website. I especially like the answer to the last myth. Our founders weren't hazed and they did alright.


Nine Common Myths about Hazing

MYTH: "Hazing builds pledge class unity."
FACT: Unity may be created within the pledge class, but the pledges will be unified against the chapter. The end result is a number of segregated groups within one disunited chapter. There is no use or reason for pledge class unity. Why not focus on building chapter unity through retreats, social events and philanthropic service?

MYTH: "The pledges want to be hazed."
FACT: If you believe this, why not publicize your chapter's planned hazing activities during rush, and then see how many pledges the chapter gets?

MYTH: "We only haze a little bit. It's not really that bad."
FACT: That's like saying, "I only steal a little bit. I'm not really a thief." If you wouldn't do it in front of your mother, don't do it.

MYTH: "If we eliminate hazing, KA will be just a social club instead of a fraternity. It will be a cakewalk to become a member."
FACT: Hazing is the spineless, easy way out. A truly well organized, positive, and educational program will require more time, dedication, and energy than a hazing program. The resulting difference will be initiates who are eager to work for and help the chapter, and who can better serve as leaders.

MYTH: "The military thinks hazing is good, and they do it, so why can't we?"
FACT: The military does not, in fact, conduct hazing practices, but rather engages in a crucial, unique type of training and preparation for dangerous military operations. According to the Dept. of the Army's TRADOC Regulation 350-6: "Hazing is strictly prohibited" and is "an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The unique training that is conducted is done by professionals to prepare soldiers and military personnel for unusual circumstances, a disciplined lifestyle, and to put their life on the line for our country. KA doesn't ask that of our members.

MYTH: "If a pledge doesn't respect us or our principles, we'll haze him until he improves."
FACT: Hazing a new member who doesn't turn out to be worthy of membership makes the situation even worse. Just like other forms of victimization, hazing breeds mistrust, apathy and alienation, not respect. Simply terminate his pledgeship instead of endangering him and the chapter.

MYTH: "If we eliminate hazing, the other fraternities on campus will no longer respect us."
FACT: A positive, educational program can only result in a much better all-around chapter. If the other groups condemn your chapter for improving and being number one on campus, who cares?

MYTH: "Hazing activities are the only methods we have of disciplining the new members."
FACT: There are positive and negative methods of administering discipline. How does the chapter discipline an initiated member? Methods of discipline should be the same for new members and active brothers.

MYTH: "I went through it, now the pledges have to go through it."
FACT: Would you go through it again? It only takes one class to break this so-called "tradition." Our founders and early members were not hazed, so why treat today's new members differently?
If you think hazing has anything to do with brotherhood or friendship, you're caught up in the myths about hazing. At its best, hazing builds resentment between new members and initiates. At its worst, people die.

edited for easier reading

[jon1856]

And this link for other additional Myths & Facts about Hazing. And Tex-guess where it was adapted from:

http://www.stophazing.org/mythsandfacts.html

And while you seem to hold any school North of the M/D line in distain, here is a rather interesting link from a Ivy-league school named Cornell:
http://www.hazing.cornell.edu/index.html

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by jon1856

And this link for other additional Myths & Facts about Hazing. And Tex-guess where it was adapted from:

http://www.stophazing.org/mythsandfacts.html

And while you seem to hold any school North of the M/D line in distain, here is a rather interesting link from a Ivy-league school named Cornell:
http://www.hazing.cornell.edu/index.html

I don't hold them in disdain......I just said I don't have much experience with them. Look....I am not an advocate of hazing that causes emotional/physical problems.....or something that can be life threatening or tramatizing. I'm sure EE-BO, Shinerbock, and others know of plenty of good alternatives.....that can be more than acceptable.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by jon1856

In my experience, if a house has strong and aggressive leaders ( and I will add smart) it should have a spotless record. For they are the ones that will lead the house away from trouble rather than into it. On the other hand, weak, dumb leadership..........

When I was undergrad, good, smart, sharp leaders and great house.

Few years ago, poor, dumb, weak leadership and chapter=house and charter gone.

Jealousy? How about care, interest and concern? Care, interest and concern that any GLO house does not lose its way in this day and age. Care, interest and concern that any GLO member or house does not cause damage to themselfs, itself, its National and the rest of GLO?
I was "brought up" to think, see and understand beyond the four walls of the house.

Was I hazed??? Looking back at it and having looked up TODAYS laws, my class came very close to the edge. BUT we did not go over it nor did we ever get that close again. We also tried to stay on the pro and positive side. Team building. Not able to say that about other house on campus at the time.

Hi Jon,

I agree 100% with the first part of what you have said above. Strong leadership and clear boundaries which are enforced are vital- especially in Presidents and Risk Management Chairs. I too have witnessed ups and down in my chapter (both during my time as an active and via news I have received as an alum) directly related to strength of leadership.

As for the last part of your post, you indicate your class came "very close to the edge" in the context of today's laws. Did you guys have pledge meetings? Did you have to take lore tests? Did you have house cleaning duties of common areas (i.e. not individual's rooms)? Did you have to collect signatures? These are all technically against the law and considered hazing. Yet I have never seen the Greek House that does not do these things.

Alcohol is what concerns me. Not just because of the risks it creates for a chapter- but because of what it does to people in life who learn bad habits in college.

Bad hazing incidents- or bad decisions resulting from inebriation (which are often mischaracterized as hazing incidents as in a particularly unfortunate UT matter in 1995)- are, in my experience, alcohol-related.

That applies campus-wide however, it is not just about Greeks.

With some exceptions, I see the form and intent hazing takes at a chapter as saying something about the character of that chapter. To me, this is between the chapter, its alumni and HQ provided the chapter is operating on privately owned property.

But when it comes to the dangerous or harmful activities that we should all be working to prevent (i.e. deaths, hospitalizations and things like blackballing someone you pledged with the intention of blackballing from the start), then you and I surely agree Jon- and I would again submit that alcohol is the factor that drives many of these things.

Going to college is about getting an education first and foremost. Greek life should enhance that experience. Greek or not, some kids will die in college- and that is unfortunate. But I think going after "hazing" is not quite the right approach.

It is more about attracting the kinds of members who aren't going to do that in the first place. At least that is my thought process when it comes to being an active alum in my chapter.

Garbage in- garbage out.

PS- Good list Lanesig.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Hi Jon,
......As for the last part of your post, you indicate your class came "very close to the edge" in the context of today's laws. Did you guys have pledge meetings? Did you have to take lore tests? Did you have house cleaning duties of common areas (i.e. not individual's rooms)? Did you have to collect signatures? These are all technically against the law and considered hazing. Yet I have never seen the Greek House that does not do these things.........
PS- Good list Lanesig.

EE-BO;
We are very much on the same page. And you asked me several very good questions, which I will attempt to answer. Please keep in mind two items: I, much like you, am not there now (nor is my house) and looking at activies done years ago in todays context.
This is UPS's and WA State current hazing policy: http://www.ups.edu/x4812.xml
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28B.10.900
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28B.10.901
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28B.10.902
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=28B.10.903
http://www.ups.edu/documents/GreekExclusiveUse.pdf


We did have meetings,tests, and cleaning of common areas. We did dinner set up. We did not collect signatures. Years ago, when I was visiting, a pledge did ask to interview me for a pledge progect.
However, the way I read UPS hazing policies, which I find a bit vage, those kinds of activies do not break them. In fact, as a active brother, I helped pledges with some of their duties. A positive bonding experience.
As for Drugs & Alcohol, the problems were not part of the pledgeship program, just the house in general and as you point out a general problem everywhere.
And for the most part I agree with the rest of your thoughts.

You should read the Cornell site I posted-very informative site.

[EE-BO]

I just had a look at the Cornell site you posted- good stuff.

Thank you also for your replies to my questions. Sounds like you and I had similar experiences generally speaking.

Leaving aside the law, though, and also leaving aside obviously criminal activities (beatings, forced alcohol consumption etc.), I think intent is worth exploring in this thread if I may.

Following is a generic example. Interested to see what others think.

Getting signatures from actives-

1. To get an active's signature, a pledge is required to ask a set list of questions. The active has the right to grant or deny the interview at a given time based on whether he thinks the pledge is showing an active interest in the chapter and brotherhood.

2. To get an active's signature, a pledge is required to ask a set list of questions. The active has the right to require the pledge to perform a duty for him in return- buy him lunch or make him wash his car for example.

3. Pledges have to obtain a certain number of signatures each week, and a certain number overall, or they will be punished in some way- having to be at the house more often, or get yelled at etc.

4. Pledges have to obtain a certain number of signatures each week, and a certain number overall, or they will be depledged.

#1 seems reasonable enough to me.

#2 drifts into the danger zone. Is #2 okay if certain limits are imposed? (for example maximum time/money to be spent, exclusion of certain types of duties that are demeaning?)

And now the consequences,

#3 is clearly illegal under hazing law.

#4 might be legal if #1 is in effect as the standard and if #4 is disclosed to pledges when pledgeship begins.

But which do you think is more damaging or harsh? Which better lends itself to abuse of pledges? Even fairly homogenous fraternities have cliques and differences of opinion. What if a guy gets a bid and a few actives disagree, then withhold their signatures and the pledge gets blackballed under this strict rule?

What does that do to the brotherhood? What message does that send to prospective members? Well intentioned as they are, the all-encompassing nature of hazing laws can actually make for worse conditions.

Or what about #1-4 not happening at all? Is this a good idea? It is reasonable to allow a person to pledge and then show no interest in getting to know the actives and become part of the brotherhood beyond just paying dues and coming to parties?

It may not be the perfect solution, but is this not a viable way to systematically get the pledges to interact with active members and get to know them? I was the guy who was at the house all the time. I got messed with less often as a result. But some guys need encouragement to hang out more and be part of the brotherhood since it takes a group effort to keep a chapter thriving.

And if it is acceptable to require interviews and signatures, then how does #2 in any way build a brotherhood and inspire pledges to want to get to know the actives? How will #2 impact how a pledge class feels about older actives when they get initiated? What will this mean for a solid leadership when the pledge class are taking over the reins as officers?

These are the questions I think one has to consider with respect to all activities that could potentially be construed as hazing. And answers may vary based on what kind of fraternity you want to be in and what it means to you.

And if you are asking these kinds of questions, then I think things like paddling and forced drinking can quickly be eliminated as activities that contribute nothing of value whatsoever- at least in the kind of house I wanted to be associated with as an active and want to support as an alumnus. I am not talking about voluntarily kidding around among a few guys by the way- though it is a slipperly slope- I am talking about a systematic approach applied from the top down on all.