T-shirt club

[LPIDelta]

Following the laws of the state and the policies of a private membership organization and living according to the oath you took at initiation does not equal following the herd. It takes integrity and character, which are qualities of great leaders.

[DGTess]

In no way have I ever, ever, condoned hazing - as it should be defined.

I have condoned, and celebrated, some activities that according to NPC definitions, could be defined as hazing. But since authorities at all levels have chosen to limit some activities of a character-building nature on the off chance they might offend, they've lost a great opportunity to teach the difference.

It's like banning the use of an additive because it may cause health concerns in some - rather than identifying the risk and allowing people to live with their own choices.

[SWTXBelle]

Oh, I totally agree that in some cases they have thrown out the baby with the bath water. The problem is trying to define things so there is no room for error. In some cases, it is a matter of following the law. In others, it is removing the chance for a mistake.
I helped my mil when she was a court reporter in a case involving a suit against a fraternity. It was obviously the fault of the member who chose to indulge in risky behavior, but the fraternity was still held accountable. National and International HQs can't be blamed for trying to limit their liabililty - we are talking MILLIONS of dollars in just one suit. It is a harsh reality, but a reality none the less.
Do I think it is ridiculous that you cannot require new members to interview actives, for example? Yes - but I do understand the slippery slope that concerns HQs. If the choice is going a little too far in defining hazing, or exposing the GLO to massive liability, I too must vote for the former.

[LPIDelta]

To me, it sounds like the OP isn't talking about things like interviews or scavenger hunts... he is talking about things which would clearly fall under any definition of hazing, including activities which could lead to physical and mental abuse (push ups and mental abuse by actives trying to "motivate"). There is a difference for sure.

And sometimes its not what you do--its how long you make the new members do it, and what the consequences are if they refuse to do it or finish.

Since interviews were brought up--this is a great example of what I call an unhealthy tradition. It may not be hazing or dangerous in anyway, but it does create a "level" of sister versus active. Many unhealthy traditions, if modified, should not be considered hazing. So in the case of interviews, why not have the sister and new member meet for coffee one on one and interview each other? Accomplishes the same thing--the new member gets to know the active sister, but in a less hierarchical environment. And the active sister gets to know the new member better, too.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by LPIDelta

Since interviews were brought up--this is a great example of what I call an unhealthy tradition. It may not be hazing or dangerous in anyway, but it does create a "level" of sister versus active. Many unhealthy traditions, if modified, should not be considered hazing. So in the case of interviews, why not have the sister and new member meet for coffee one on one and interview each other? Accomplishes the same thing--the new member gets to know the active sister, but in a less hierarchical environment. And the active sister gets to know the new member better, too.

Interviews are NOT an unhealthy tradition. They're one of the best things that has been lost. Many groups had ALREADY instituted sisters interviewing pledges on their own. If there were chapters or sisters that said "you have to do x, y, and z before you get my interview" then those chapters/sisters should have been disciplined before throwing out the whole thing.

And when I was pledging, in addition to interviews, we had what we called "coke dates" - the sister treated me (the pledge) to lunch or dinner. Then she wrote a page long signature about how glad she was that I was going to be part of the sorority. How the eff is that "hierarchical"?

And yes, THERE ARE LEVELS. Not everyone is the same in a sorority, and I think that pretending everyone is is why we've been getting such an influx on GC of "OMG, everyone in my sorority hates me - I haven't bonded with anyone - I want to quit." The poster then goes on to say she hasn't gone to any extra events, has blown off a lot of required things and barely knows the names of any of her sisters or pledgesisters. And she expects them to be her lifelong friends!! Honestly, if people in this age group are that socially backward, we need to reinstitute interviews and other pledging activities more than ever.

I agree with a lot of what Tess is saying. I would never tell the ASAs at Truman or Mankato or Penn State what I think is best for their chapter, and I don't think they should tell me what is best for mine either. Interviews and scavenger hunts in SOME chapters were used as hazing tools. I'm sure ritual was too. Did we get rid of it?

And I'm not saying "tradition for the sake of tradition." I'm not someone who was active in college and then never went back to the campus. I worked with my chapter long after our pledge program had been "diluted." There was a difference in the way the women treated each other and treated the sorority. And it was NOT a good difference. Other women I attended college with have said the same thing. It was almost as though the women were encouraged to be more businesslike and less sisterly. Maybe that works for a 200 member chapter, but I am not from one of those. As for your "one on one" coffee idea - we weren't even allowed to do that. No sister was to be alone with any pledge at any time. Everything was group, group, group, constantly. Now of course it's swung to the other end of the pendulum and everything is an "individual challenge" but that's another thread.

whittleschmeg - your post is so full of inconsistencies I don't know where to start - perhaps by telling us exactly what an "interview" entailed that made it so dangerous?

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Oh, I totally agree that in some cases they have thrown out the baby with the bath water. The problem is trying to define things so there is no room for error. In some cases, it is a matter of following the law. In others, it is removing the chance for a mistake.
I helped my mil when she was a court reporter in a case involving a suit against a fraternity. It was obviously the fault of the member who chose to indulge in risky behavior, but the fraternity was still held accountable. National and International HQs can't be blamed for trying to limit their liabililty - we are talking MILLIONS of dollars in just one suit. It is a harsh reality, but a reality none the less.
Do I think it is ridiculous that you cannot require new members to interview actives, for example? Yes - but I do understand the slippery slope that concerns HQs. If the choice is going a little too far in defining hazing, or exposing the GLO to massive liability, I too must vote for the former.

I don't understand. When you say "interview" actives, what do you mean?

We had to meet every active and learn something about her, then get her to sign our pledge book. We didn't have to DO anything to get that signature, just talk to her, perhaps discuss some aspect of our pledge training, get to know her a little. Of course, there were fewer than 20 actives, and we pledged for a full semester. I can't imagine having to have a 30-minute conversation with every sister in an 80-member house, not if you're going to keep the grades up and meet other obligations. But what's wrong with an interview?

Or does "interview" now have some connotation I'm not familiar with? Perhaps it isn't a real interview?

[SWTXBelle]

The interview I referenced is exactly what you described, and in some cases it is now considered "hazing" because it is an activity required of pledges that is not required of actives. I used it as an example of something I consider NOT to be hazing - in fact, something which serves a valuable purpose - but which is considered sometimes to be hazing and thus outlawed.
I assume that it was the past abuse of some - making pledges "earn" the interview by doing something like washing a car - that made this problematic. Still, this is an example of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater".

[DGTess]

You bring up exactly the point I mean -- defining something as hazing simply because someone else doesn't have to do it. We are not all equal, and the sooner a student realizes this, the better off he is. We have a right to be treated equally; that doesn't mean we have equal abilities, talents, capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, or wants. We shouldn't be making rules that say we are.

It's one of the (many) reasons I no longer support the greek system in universities. This is an instance where something is prohibited (not outlawed; there's nothing illegal about it) simply because it might, conceivably, get out of hand (though I honestly don't see how an interview can get out of hand). It teaches our students to take the safe way. The safe way is seldom the right way.

Nothing wrong with earning an interview. In real life, we do that all the time.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by DGTess

You bring up exactly the point I mean -- defining something as hazing simply because someone else doesn't have to do it. We are not all equal, and the sooner a student realizes this, the better off he is. We have a right to be treated equally; that doesn't mean we have equal abilities, talents, capabilities, strengths, weaknesses, or wants. We shouldn't be making rules that say we are.

It's one of the (many) reasons I no longer support the greek system in universities. This is an instance where something is prohibited (not outlawed; there's nothing illegal about it) simply because it might, conceivably, get out of hand (though I honestly don't see how an interview can get out of hand). It teaches our students to take the safe way. The safe way is seldom the right way.

Nothing wrong with earning an interview. In real life, we do that all the time.

You're such an enigma to me, Tess!

You speak so poorly of the greek system here and on your blog, but yet you identify yourself with your GLO in your user name. You are clearly a proponent of individualism and yet you bemoan the loss of activities that tried to force "group think" on pledges. You clearly don't like laws (or the government) to tell you what to do, but you think older sisters should be able to tell newbies to do what they tell them to do because they tell them to do it.

What's wrong with interviews? Just like was mentioned before, it's not necessarily the activity itself but the length to which it can be taken. You mentioned in your blog that you were in a chapter of about 20. Interviewing in that chapter would have been a snap. What about the women (and men) who pledge into chapters of 100-200? (I did and we did have to do -- AND MEMORIZE -- interviews of all 100+) There was nothing about that process that built my leadership qualities, that's just what I had to do to get through my FIVE MONTH pledge period. Trust me, I would happily have lived without it.

What did give me leadership qualities? Taking on offices and committee chairmanships and learning, at 19 and 20 years old, how to manage 90-110 of my peers and the organization that we all belonged to. Holding committee meetings, preparing agendas, writing and presenting reports, organizing philanthropies, writing letters to corporations to asking them to sponsor our fundraising efforts, building relationships with other fraternities and sororities as well as other campus groups... the list goes on and on. I remember being shocked when I was just a couple years out of school how much further "ahead" I felt than some of my peers in the working world. Some of these folks came out of college never having "run" anything and some didn't even know how to behave in a meeting, write a report to superior or work on a team.

Don't take your experience from 30 years ago in a small chapter and assume that only you somehow managed to have a worthwhile experience because you were called a pledge and had to wait to wear your letters or do phone or suite duty. I had to wait to wear my letters too but that period of waiting (and "earning" them as some people just love to call it, which I call hooey on), really added nothing to the sum total of what I got out of my greek experience. I still benefit from what I learned back then and have no doubt that the women of today are getting the same core benefits from their membership.

And for someone with such disdain for the greek system, you still seem very attached to it -- here you are on GC, you blog about it and your letters are part of your very name... maybe you'd have more positive feelings if you would let go of some of your antiquated (and I can say that because I'm not much younger than you) expectations of how things "should be" and understand that college students today face a MUCH different world than we did. And they didn't choose the changes in the system they're joining, the older adults (ala our age) made these changes because the reality of the legal system, risk management issues and getting and maintaining insurance is so different today.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I had to wait to wear my letters too but that period of waiting (and "earning" them as some people just love to call it, which I call hooey on), really added nothing to the sum total of what I got out of my greek experience.

I want to pick up on the idea of "earning letters." I note that most if not everyone who has responded to Crowboy is female, while he, of course, is male. I can't speak for the female view of "earning" letters, but I think I can speak to a male perspective. In fact, I have done so before, in the thread Hazing Works!, so I'm just going to be a little lazy and copy myself from that thread:

American society as a whole is woefully bereft of rites of passages, particularly for boys: rites that mark the transition from boyhood to manhood. For many young men, fraternities (I am going to talk mainly about fraternities here; I'll try not to go too Robert Bly ) and fraternity initiations provide such a rite. Indeed, the pledge manuals of many fraternities speak of initiation in terms of a rite of passage.

Globally, rites of passage in less "civilized" societies typically involve what might be termed testing, trial, or ordeal. That is, prior to actual initiation into manhood, the initiate must prove himself and his worth (to himself and to the men he wishes to join) by undergoing and passing one or more trials or tests. To be quite honest, I think there is something inbred in males wanting and needing to prove themselves in this way. Rituals (and here I am using the term broadly) that succeed for boys understand this and tap into this primal need. An example: initiation into the Order of the Arrow, a sort of camping brotherhood for Boy Scouts, is preceeded by a weekend-long "Ordeal" that involves no talking, manual labor (with others, which can be challenging with no talking), camping alone in the woods, meager meals, and the like. Upon completion, a boy feels like he has really accomplished something, proven himself and earned the right to be initiated.

Quite simply I think, where hazing "succeeds" (if that is the right word), it is when it taps into this primal desire to be tested and proved worthy, which in turn engenders loyalty to the group one has been found worthy to join.

Don't get me wrong or report me -- I am against hazing (although I quickly agree that the term is used to broadly). I do think, however, that alternatives to hazing can only be really successful, at least for most males, if they tap into this idea of earning one's letters, of being tested and proved worthy. I am also conviced that tapping into this idea can be done, can be done (probably more effectively, even) without hazing.

[33girl]

MC: that quoting yourself thing works. So much so, that I'm going to do the same thing.

Originally Posted by 33girl

Maybe hazing is illegal, but the definition of hazing is way too broad for it to be taken seriously.

Take other crimes like murder, theft, fraud. You have a set of what each crime entails that pretty much everyone agrees on. For instance, premeditated murder- you plan to kill someone, you carry out those actions, and they are dead. That's premeditated murder. (Don't start on first, second, third degree etc) The average Joe can be selected for a jury and understand that.

Now you get to the definition of hazing. Some people feel it only includes physical abuse. Some people feel it includes calling someone a pledge or asking them to interview active members. Some are in the middle. I don't think we are ever going to have an effective Greek system OVERALL until we come to a clear definition (not the Granny's-nightshirt-covers-everything definition of the FIPG) of what hazing really IS. I know that there are alums (myself included) who are very offended when activities they participated in willingly and joyfully are labeled hazing.

[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.

[adpiucf]

I agree with you, 33, that a Coke Date is not hazing. You likely would not see 2 people in Court over a Coke Date.

"But, Your Honor, she bought me a cola and told me how happy she was to hear I got an A+ on my physics test! Oh the humanity!"

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. We spend an awful amount of time and money producing programs to help our members understand the hazing laws, how to prevent hazing, and the repercussions within the organization if you violate not just the law, but also the by-laws of your own GLO. With education and a good faith effort to behave reasonably and maturely, collegiate members can understand and abide by the hazing laws of their states, and the bylaws of the university and their GLO. Often, the policies of your GLO are even stricter than the state laws. Although it doesn't take a genius to figure out the policies or the law: be respectful of one another.

There's nothing wrong with a Coke Date, on its face. Or a sisterhood walk or ball of yarn to find a sister. When you go to extremes, well, that is where things have a tendency to unravel.

It's a shame that a lot of traditions have been abolished in favor of a zero tolerance stance at hazing. Alumnae remember a lot of fun that they feel the collegians are missing out on. Almost every older alum would argue that the shorter pledge period designed to reduce the temptation of hazing has resulted in higher membership attrition rates.

But the sororities (and to some extent, the fraternities) are doing these things to stay one step ahead of the law --they are trying to cut off their liability for Susie Sorority's stupidity at taking that Coke Date one step too far.

If the members could present reasonable alternatives, propose amendments to these bylaws at convention and/or demonstrate better decision making at the collegiate level, I am sure these would turn around.

Most of the collegiate members demonstrate great maturity and good decision making. I know it is preaching to the choir that it is the very loud minority of poor decision making that ruins it for the current collegiate members. If there were a better way to police those members, we'd likely see a big difference.

[DGTess]

I don't appreciate the psychoanalysis. It's one thing for you not to understand me. It's another to try to state my beliefs.

I said I no longer support the greek system in universities. They've become less than they should be.

Disappearing, keeping my mouth shut, not pointing out inconsistencies, not working to get people to think about what I see as hypocrisy, and playing rah-rah-cheerleader are not ways to make things happen. They're the way things have degenerated as they have. They're a (small) part of the problem - students who can't act as adults because they aren't permitted to. That translates into graduates (read: workers) who can't act as adults either.

I've never denied that I understand the differences between large houses and small, and between 30 years ago and now. I'm pointing out that the changes have not all been for the good, and that blanket rules are frequently ludicrous. What worked well for my chapter won't work for all. But I also refuse to believe that a six-week pledge period somehow gives you time to make a decision for life.

If you couldn't get to know all your sisters in five months, what makes you think someone can now in six weeks? If you had to memorize things about 100+ people just for the sake of memorization, you had a choice to make -- was it worth it to you? Obviously you thought so.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by DGTess

I said I no longer support the greek system in universities.

Where should the greek system be if not in a university setting? High schools? Corporations?

I really don't understand... Please elaborate and help me understand what you're suggesting.