T-shirt club

[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.

[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.

Since my class, that chapter has worked diligently to eliminate hazing from its programming, and it is the strongest chapter on campus, either men's or women's. I think the two are correlated. Is it easy to have both--no, because it requires creativity and a dogged commitment to standards and to recruiting the right women.

You can set expectations without hazing. You can have high standards without hazing.