Do you think your organization's risk management policies go overboard?

[AGDee]

I'm surprised I haven't said this in this thread yet, because I think it every time I read it...

The vast majority of these rules, especially things like the scavenger hunts, are set by our insurance companies. We have to have liability insurance and they dictate these things. The inter/national organizations don't have a lot of choices with these rules.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I'm surprised I haven't said this in this thread yet, because I think it every time I read it...

The vast majority of these rules, especially things like the scavenger hunts, are set by our insurance companies. We have to have liability insurance and they dictate these things. The inter/national organizations don't have a lot of choices with these rules.

This.

[Zeta13Girl]

Personally I think its kind of funny that two of the service fraternities on my campus are able to do more than we are with our new members ie: sister visits, scavanger hunts...etc.

At 6 years old my parents started having scavanger hunts at our birthday parties. twelve years later and I'm a legal adult and its not safe for me to do a scavanger hunt either as a new member or an initiated sister??? hmmm...

All activities must be optional for new members, but as an initiated sister the same optional activities are mandatory for me??? hmmm....

[Zeta13Girl]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I'm surprised I haven't said this in this thread yet, because I think it every time I read it...

The vast majority of these rules, especially things like the scavenger hunts, are set by our insurance companies. We have to have liability insurance and they dictate these things. The inter/national organizations don't have a lot of choices with these rules.

pretty please if I sign a waiver that I won't sue or press charges can I go on a scavanger hunt. LOL!

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by AGDee

The vast majority of these rules, especially things like the scavenger hunts, are set by our insurance companies. We have to have liability insurance and they dictate these things. The inter/national organizations don't have a lot of choices with these rules.

Ten years ago, I would have said that they were too strict. Then I saw the budget for Pre-Clamp-Down and Post-Clamp-Down.

The bottom line is, for an inter/national organization, you have no choice. You have to do without "fun" things in the name of the GLO, and pay for insurance that sounds ridiculous. Each time you disobey these rules, you may as well say, "I'm in the mood to raise dues by $100/month per brother or sister," because that's what you're talking.

When you hear alumnae say how little they paid for dues compared to what active members pay now, it all comes down to insurance.

[33girl]

It's not about going without "fun." It's about groups going so overboard with CYA measures (and often egged on by the insurance companies, who couldn't care less about the overall health of the GLO as long as they get their $$) that members come out of pledgeship with little to no knowledge of their group's history, operations or policies. Case in point: the huge amount of GC posts on "can I quit my sorority and pledge somewhere else?"

I mean, at this point, let's call a spade a spade and initiate people when we give them their bid, then educate them as members. It seems to be the only way to get around the asinine "hazing" accusations. If we end up having to terminate scores of people who turn out to be crappy members AFTER they know our ritual and have damaged the health of the chapter, well hey, no biggie.

Real hazing - beating, forced drinking, mental anguish - obviously hasn't been legislated away by all these rules or insurance policies. Just look at the U of Alberta thread. If all this has been done and there are STILL groups hazing in that manner, it's not very effective IMO. It's completely failed to send a message or make the students understand why it's wrong.

As far as alcohol goes, most of the problems would be completely eradicated if states were given back their right to allow drinking (fully or partially) at age 18.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

It's not about going without "fun." It's about groups going so overboard with CYA measures (and often egged on by the insurance companies, who couldn't care less about the overall health of the GLO as long as they get their $$) that members come out of pledgeship with little to no knowledge of their group's history, operations or policies. Case in point: the huge amount of GC posts on "can I quit my sorority and pledge somewhere else?"

You'd need to know whether that happened prior to anti-hazing laws and in what frequency.

What things could my chapter, for example, have done that would have been considered 'hazing' yet would have actually made me a better member? Why do those activities actually mean that people learn shit about anything?

I mean, at this point, let's call a spade a spade and initiate people when we give them their bid, then educate them as members. It seems to be the only way to get around the asinine "hazing" accusations. If we end up having to terminate scores of people who turn out to be crappy members AFTER they know our ritual and have damaged the health of the chapter, well hey, no biggie.

If you have to haze to get "good" members, you're only going to get people who value hazing.

Real hazing - beating, forced drinking, mental anguish - obviously hasn't been legislated away by all these rules or insurance policies. Just look at the U of Alberta thread. If all this has been done and there are STILL groups hazing in that manner, it's not very effective IMO. It's completely failed to send a message or make the students understand why it's wrong.

Without looking at the actual rate of the occurrence of those incidents this is a very flawed statement. "It hasn't completely solved the problem so we should get rid of it completely" doesn't make much sense. You'd have to show that there's been no effect or an increase to incidents of hazing to effectively make this point.

As far as alcohol goes, most of the problems would be completely eradicated if states were given back their right to allow drinking (fully or partially) at age 18.

States can make that choice at any time. They choose not to in exchange for $$$$. They have 'their right' fully intact.

Also if you think lowering the drinking age would magically change the drinking culture in America, I think you're being rather short-sighted. Binge drinking is accepted as normal for college students of age or not. Making it legal gets around only the legal issues, not the health, safety, or hazing ones.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You'd need to know whether that happened prior to anti-hazing laws and in what frequency.

Considering I'm talking about the people who are in college now, umm, yeah, that would be AFTER the nonhazing laws.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

What things could my chapter, for example, have done that would have been considered 'hazing' yet would have actually made me a better member? Why do those activities actually mean that people learn shit about anything?

I have no idea what your chapter did, before or after you pledged, so how can I even answer that? I can only speak for my own org and say there is definitely less knowledge of history and policy than there used to be.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Without looking at the actual rate of the occurrence of those incidents this is a very flawed statement. "It hasn't completely solved the problem so we should get rid of it completely" doesn't make much sense. You'd have to show that there's been no effect or an increase to incidents of hazing to effectively make this point.

I didn't say to get rid of it. I said that AS WRITTEN, anti-hazing legislation hasn't been as effective as it should be, in exchange for what GLOs have had to give up. They need to say "X is wrong, Y is wrong" and give specific examples, not BS like "anything that causes physical or mental anguish." Hell, if I have a hemmerhoid, sitting in a chapter meeting for an hour & 1/2 is "physical anguish."

Originally Posted by Drolefille

States can make that choice at any time. They choose not to in exchange for $$$$. They have 'their right' fully intact.

Also if you think lowering the drinking age would magically change the drinking culture in America, I think you're being rather short-sighted. Binge drinking is accepted as normal for college students of age or not. Making it legal gets around only the legal issues, not the health, safety, or hazing ones.

Binge drinking is accepted as normal because that's all these students have ever known. Would it magically change in a year? No. Would it change over time? Yes. It took time to get where it is. When I was in college, 21 shots for your 21st birthday and drinking the amounts of hard alcohol current college students drink just wasn't normal. Nowadays it's a rite of passage. If those students had had time to drink like jackasses when they were younger (and often under their parents' roof) they might be a little saner about it when they came to college. Everyone is going to be stupid at first. Better to be stupid in an environment where you're going to get called on it rather than someplace where you're on your own to do whatever you want.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Considering I'm talking about the people who are in college now, umm, yeah, that would be AFTER the nonhazing laws.

The point was, you don't know whether the numbers of ignorant people have changed or not.

I have no idea what your chapter did, before or after you pledged, so how can I even answer that? I can only speak for my own org and say there is definitely less knowledge of history and policy than there used to be.

It was a hypothetical. Why can't you teach these things without hazing? How is it that some of us figure it out just fine?

I didn't say to get rid of it. I said that AS WRITTEN, anti-hazing legislation hasn't been as effective as it should be, in exchange for what GLOs have had to give up. They need to say "X is wrong, Y is wrong" and give specific examples, not BS like "anything that causes physical or mental anguish." Hell, if I have a hemmerhoid, sitting in a chapter meeting for an hour & 1/2 is "physical anguish."

I think the use of the word "anguish" is key. And that would fall under a medical excuse for chapter for most people. if you make specific examples - "no scavenger hunts"- people get around them by holding "go and find things" events. Every would-be hazer goes and looks to check if paddling with a paddle is prohibited, but using a shoe is OK!

Binge drinking is accepted as normal because that's all these students have ever known. Would it magically change in a year? No. Would it change over time? Yes. It took time to get where it is.

Why would it change 'back' to the way things were? How are you going to convince people to allowe 18 year olds to drink when you've acknowledged that it would not create an instant change, and in fact would probably make things worse, even if it was only temporary.

When I was in college, 21 shots for your 21st birthday and drinking the amounts of hard alcohol current college students drink just wasn't normal. Nowadays it's a rite of passage. If those students had had time to drink like jackasses when they were younger (and often under their parents' roof) they might be a little saner about it when they came to college. Everyone is going to be stupid at first. Better to be stupid in an environment where you're going to get called on it rather than someplace where you're on your own to do whatever you want.

I'd think the first night at college would turn into a rite of passage instead. (How ever did I make it through life without ever being drunk or being hazed or making any of these other rites of passage that are so 'important') Many of today's college students do drink like jackasses under their parents' roof and that really hasn't fixed the problem either. "Everyone" isn't stupid.

I think America's attitude toward's alcohol is fucked up, but lowering the drinking age won't magically solve the problem and it puts alcohol into high schools. (you know, legally, instead of illegally where it already exists).

[33girl]

A specific example would be "No physical contact: this includes paddling, hitting, shoving, pushing" and so forth. That's the POINT. You say what it actually is, not just the title of the thing.

Congratulations on making it through college on a plane above everyone else. Although that really doesn't answer any of the questions we are discussing.