Why Haze!!

[33girl]

What I find most offensive is when policies tell me "you were hazed" even if I did things voluntarily for people and with people because I LIKED them - they just happened to be sisters and I was a pledge.

I bought fries back from Wendy's when I was going there anyway because a sister was sick and craving them. Does that mean I was hazed? I guess I'm not allowed to do something nice for another person.

I stayed up till 3 AM talking with my big - we were so involved in conversation we forgot the time - even though I had to go to class the next morning at 8 AM. I guess I was hazed because I suffered from sleep deprivation.

I drank too much at a mixer and a sister dragged me home and made sure I ate so I didn't get sick from drinking too much. I guess that means she hazed me by making me eat something I didn't want to.

Anyone who really wants to can take the most innocuous things that happen in pledgeship and make them into hazing.

[LXAAlum]

Originally Posted by 33girl

What I find most offensive is when policies tell me "you were hazed" even if I did things voluntarily for people and with people because I LIKED them - they just happened to be sisters and I was a pledge.

I bought fries back from Wendy's when I was going there anyway because a sister was sick and craving them. Does that mean I was hazed? I guess I'm not allowed to do something nice for another person.

I stayed up till 3 AM talking with my big - we were so involved in conversation we forgot the time - even though I had to go to class the next morning at 8 AM. I guess I was hazed because I suffered from sleep deprivation.

I drank too much at a mixer and a sister dragged me home and made sure I ate so I didn't get sick from drinking too much. I guess that means she hazed me by making me eat something I didn't want to.

Anyone who really wants to can take the most innocuous things that happen in pledgeship and make them into hazing.

True, but, your situations all appear to have been "voluntary" on your part, i.e., you weren't "compelled" as a condition of continued membership to do all the nice things you did - it's when it crosses the line that even innocent "errands" etc....can be construed out of context into hazing.

Hazing occurs when the line between brotherly love gets blurred with unbrotherly stupidity....

[33girl]

Originally Posted by LXAAlum

True, but, your situations all appear to have been "voluntary" on your part, i.e., you weren't "compelled" as a condition of continued membership to do all the nice things you did - it's when it crosses the line that even innocent "errands" etc....can be construed out of context into hazing.

Hazing occurs when the line between brotherly love gets blurred with unbrotherly stupidity....

But that's my point. If it is "black and white" someone could say "oh, 33 did this and she is a pledge, therefore she must have been forced and it must have been hazing." That's the problem. It's gotten to the point in sororities that sisters are afraid to be alone with pledges because something could get misinterpreted.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by LXAAlum

True, but, your situations all appear to have been "voluntary" on your part, i.e., you weren't "compelled" as a condition of continued membership to do all the nice things you did - it's when it crosses the line that even innocent "errands" etc....can be construed out of context into hazing.

Hazing occurs when the line between brotherly love gets blurred with unbrotherly stupidity....

My point precisely.

None of this falls under what hazing actually is. It's not grey, but people make it grey, by posting opinions like the one you quoted. It's black and white, because it involves a group's request (or the request of individuals within that group that the person in a subservient position perceives to be important) that a potential new member take some action in order to be held in esteem by the group and/or to gain entrance into an organization. I think request defined as hazing can be explicit, or implicit, either way it's hazing and it's wrong. The problem is people who haze and expect those who are hazed to behave in a certain way fail to consider the fact that some pnms could be chronic worriers who could be distressed by verbal abuse, or that some come to the fraternity/sorority with a bad past, have thought about quitting school, are addicted to alcohol/drugs or perhaps have considered suicide. Even strong and healthy people have limits to which they can be pushed. Add to the fact that many hazing traditions are inherently negligent, and sad consequences such as wrongful deaths become all too likely, especially when binge drinking is involved.

macallan25, I totally disagree with you. Members who haze justify actions that are outside the range of normal human behavior. People who join by allowing themselves to be hazed, crave relationships and acceptance, not primarily because they respond to the organizations particular ideology. Some people allow themselves to be hazed because they find themselves in an unfamiliar surrounding their 1st year in college away from family and childhood friends, so they then seek a feeling of belonging. To these people, enduring hazing rather it's physical and/or mental, beats the pain of loneliness. I'm not saying joining a fraternity or a sorority is wrong, I would be a hypocrite if I said that. But I don't think anyone should have to risk their health in any way, shape, or form.

Also macallan25, because my opinions are different from yours doesn't make them dumb! I don't agree with 99.9% of your posts in many threads that you've posted in, but I don't call them dumb or stupid. Your opinions on OJ are the only posts I've ever agreed with. If you think my opinions are dumb, then you don't have to respond to them.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

My point precisely.

None of this falls under what hazing actually is. It's not grey, but people make it grey, by posting opinions like the one you quoted. It's black and white, because it involves a group's request (or the request of individuals within that group that the person in a subservient position perceives to be important) that a potential new member take some action in order to be held in esteem by the group and/or to gain entrance into an organization. I think request defined as hazing can be explicit, or implicit, either way it's hazing and it's wrong. The problem is people who haze and expect those who are hazed to behave in a certain way fail to consider the fact that some pnms could be chronic worriers who could be distressed by verbal abuse, or that some come to the fraternity/sorority with a bad past, have thought about quitting school, are addicted to alcohol/drugs or perhaps have considered suicide. Even strong and healthy people have limits to which they can be pushed. Add to the fact that many hazing traditions are inherently negligent, and sad consequences such as wrongful deaths become all too likely, especially when binge drinking is involved.

macallan25, I totally disagree with you. Members who haze justify actions that are outside the range of normal human behavior. People who join by allowing themselves to be hazed, crave relationships and acceptance, not primarily because they respond to the organizations particular ideology. Some people allow themselves to be hazed because they find themselves in an unfamiliar surrounding their 1st year in college away from family and childhood friends, so they then seek a feeling of belonging. To these people, enduring hazing rather it's physical and/or mental, beats the pain of loneliness. I'm not saying joining a fraternity or a sorority is wrong, I would be a hypocrite if I said that. But I don't think anyone should have to risk their health in any way, shape, or form.

Also macallan25, because my opinions are different from yours doesn't make them dumb! I don't agree with 99.9% of your posts in many threads that you've posted in, but I don't call them dumb or stupid. Your opinions on OJ are the only posts I've ever agreed with. If you think my opinions are dumb, then you don't have to respond to them.

It would seem then that the only way not to haze (per your definition which is something you apparently just made up) is to not have new members.

My collegiate chapter shows up to football games in shirt and tie -- sometimes coat and tie. Do you think that new members, pledges, feel maybe just a tiny bit of peer pressure to also show up in shirt and tie? Do you think they might be asked to change clothes if they didn't? Yes and yes.

That's hazing to you? It is under your definition. That said, I've never heard of anyone in the history of the world being charged with hazing for activity such as that.

My collegiate chapter emphasizes social graces, good manners and etiquette. We teach our new members how to act, how to treat women with respect, etc. When they're at formal, do you think new members feel like they're under a bit of a microscope when it comes to how they treat their dates? Do you think they will be corrected if they do something wrong? Might that correction (done in a polite, nice way) create some "mental discomfort"? Yes, yes and yes.

So now, according to your newly minted definition, and perhaps my own organization's insanely vague definition, teaching etiquette and expecting members and new members alike to exhibit good manners is hazing.

In order to be initiated, our new members are required to reach a certain GPA. The GPA they are required to reach is different from that which is required to remain a member. Is requiring that new members get good grades hazing? Again, you'd be the only person in the history of the world to think that, so choose your answer carefully.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It would seem then that the only way not to haze (per your definition which is something you apparently just made up) is to not have new members.

My collegiate chapter shows up to football games in shirt and tie -- sometimes coat and tie. Do you think that new members, pledges, feel maybe just a tiny bit of peer pressure to also show up in shirt and tie? Do you think they might be asked to change clothes if they didn't? Yes and yes.

That's hazing to you? It is under your definition. That said, I've never heard of anyone in the history of the world being charged with hazing for activity such as that.

My collegiate chapter emphasizes social graces, good manners and etiquette. We teach our new members how to act, how to treat women with respect, etc. When they're at formal, do you think new members feel like they're under a bit of a microscope when it comes to how they treat their dates? Do you think they will be corrected if they do something wrong? Might that correction (done in a polite, nice way) create some "mental discomfort"? Yes, yes and yes.

So now, according to your newly minted definition, and perhaps my own organization's insanely vague definition, teaching etiquette and expecting members and new members alike to exhibit good manners is hazing.

In order to be initiated, our new members are required to reach a certain GPA. The GPA they are required to reach is different from that which is required to remain a member. Is requiring that new members get good grades hazing? Again, you'd be the only person in the history of the world to think that, so choose your answer carefully.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Per cheerfulgreek's definition of hazing there really is no point of having pledge classes......because you'll probably be hazing them all the time and not even know your doing it because, evidently, everything is hazing: studying, learning about the fraternity, learning how to dress and act like a gentleman, etc. etc. etc.

...and for the record CG, I never said you were dumb or that your post was dumb. I said that the idea that a pledge shouldn't have any say or comments on the conduct of his actives in an alleged hazing incident is dumb.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by macallan25

This is exactly what I was thinking. Per cheerfulgreek's definition of hazing there really is no point of having pledge classes......because you'll probably be hazing them all the time and not even know your doing it because, evidently, everything is hazing: studying, learning about the fraternity, learning how to dress and act like a gentleman, etc. etc. etc.

...and for the record CG, I never said you were dumb or that your post was dumb. I said that the idea that a pledge shouldn't have any say or comments on the conduct of his actives in an alleged hazing incident is dumb.

Just today I was at a job interview. Both of the interviewers were women.
Both of them commented on how it was rare to find and see a man stand up when a woman walked into a room.

True, my parents taught me that. However my Fraternity reinforced it.
And I was taught it , not hazed.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by macallan25

This is exactly what I was thinking. Per cheerfulgreek's definition of hazing there really is no point of having pledge classes......because you'll probably be hazing them all the time and not even know your doing it because, evidently, everything is hazing: studying, learning about the fraternity, learning how to dress and act like a gentleman, etc. etc. etc.

...and for the record CG, I never said you were dumb or that your post was dumb. I said that the idea that a pledge shouldn't have any say or comments on the conduct of his actives in an alleged hazing incident is dumb.

macallan, I wouldn't consider this hazing. Of course pledge classes have to be held in order to learn about the organization and to prepare for sisterhood/brotherhood, but when it interferes with academic work, or when binge drinking starts, or when someone is beaten, paddled or made to do anything where his/her health is effected in a negative way, then that's when we have a hazing problem on our hands.

About the "dumb" comment, I guess I misunderstood you. I'm sorry.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It would seem then that the only way not to haze (per your definition which is something you apparently just made up) is to not have new members.

My collegiate chapter shows up to football games in shirt and tie -- sometimes coat and tie. Do you think that new members, pledges, feel maybe just a tiny bit of peer pressure to also show up in shirt and tie? Do you think they might be asked to change clothes if they didn't? Yes and yes.

That's hazing to you? It is under your definition. That said, I've never heard of anyone in the history of the world being charged with hazing for activity such as that.

My collegiate chapter emphasizes social graces, good manners and etiquette. We teach our new members how to act, how to treat women with respect, etc. When they're at formal, do you think new members feel like they're under a bit of a microscope when it comes to how they treat their dates? Do you think they will be corrected if they do something wrong? Might that correction (done in a polite, nice way) create some "mental discomfort"? Yes, yes and yes.

So now, according to your newly minted definition, and perhaps my own organization's insanely vague definition, teaching etiquette and expecting members and new members alike to exhibit good manners is hazing.

In order to be initiated, our new members are required to reach a certain GPA. The GPA they are required to reach is different from that which is required to remain a member. Is requiring that new members get good grades hazing? Again, you'd be the only person in the history of the world to think that, so choose your answer carefully.

Making what up?! How in the hell can I make up an opinion?!

I said hazers justify actions that are outside the range of human behavior. I hardly would classify what you posted, hazing.

[jon1856]

Everyone is coming up with all sorts of definitions and POVs.
Perhaps one should take some time to read the following definitions-not based on law per se just common sense:
http://www.stophazing.org/mythsandfacts.html
http://www.hazing.cornell.edu/myths.html
http://www.stophazing.org/definition.html
http://www.insidehazing.com/definitions.php

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by jon1856

not based on law per se just common sense:

What's the point of reinforcing the grey area of "common sense?"

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

Making what up?! How in the hell can I make up an opinion?!

I said hazers justify actions that are outside the range of human behavior. I hardly would classify what you posted, hazing.

Really? Try looking at your own definition of hazing:

It's black and white, because it involves a group's request (or the request of individuals within that group that the person in a subservient position perceives to be important) that a potential new member take some action in order to be held in esteem by the group and/or to gain entrance into an organization. I think request defined as hazing can be explicit, or implicit, either way it's hazing and it's wrong.

I described each of those scenarios to fit within your offered definition. Perhaps it's not so "black and white" after all?

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Perhaps it's not so "black and white" after all?

o.k. Kevin, maybe it's not, but I think you have an understanding of what I classify as hazing.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I think request defined as hazing can be explicit, or implicit, either way it's hazing and it's wrong. The problem is people who haze and expect those who are hazed to behave in a certain way fail to consider the fact that some pnms could be chronic worriers who could be distressed by verbal abuse, or that some come to the fraternity/sorority with a bad past, have thought about quitting school, are addicted to alcohol/drugs or perhaps have considered suicide. Even strong and healthy people have limits to which they can be pushed. Add to the fact that many hazing traditions are inherently negligent, and sad consequences such as wrongful deaths become all too likely, especially when binge drinking is involved.

So basically, everything is hazing and everything any Greek group does has to be geared to coddle the weakest member.

The thing is - Greek membership IS NOT EASY. Has it occurred to you that if someone's a chronic worrier that sitting through hours of membership selection as a sister isn't exactly going to be the best thing for her? Should someone who can't handle being around alcohol at all really join a fraternity who doesn't overindulge but does offer alcohol at their parties? Someone who's suicidal should work that out with a psychiatrist or a counselor at the student center - NOT expect a group of 18-22 year olds to help him/her through it just because he/she is a pledge. 18-22 year olds shouldn't be doing that.

Pledgeship is training for active brotherhood or sisterhood. If you find out during pledgeship that it's not for you, you can quit. Greek life is not for everyone, and it's time we stopped pretending it is.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Pledgeship is training for active brotherhood or sisterhood.

Eh--that's always our response but we know that much of the stuff isn't really training in that sense. Some of it is a rite of passage for the sake of a rite of passage and often a power differential effect. That works until it is taken too far.

Real training for active membership includes giving "pledges" assignments like program ideas and implementations. Teaching "pledges" how to interact with their future brothers and sisters--since they won't be running errands forever. But lo and behold that type of training can still be hazing if it is outside of the national organization's intake guidelines and the aspirants can't say "no" and still be treated the same as someone who says "yes."