Why Haze!!

[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?"

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

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

Well, I do not know if you took the time to read all or even any of the links.
So for common sense:
All chapters operate under the following:
1) Their National laws, rules and regulations.
2) Their schools rules and regulations including anti-hazing and Student Code of Conduct.
3) Any and all local, State and National laws, rules and regulations.

And we all know that all of those are different every where.

So here are some links from a rather large Southern School covering most, if not all, of the above:
http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/eve...Memorandum.pdf
http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/eve...memorandum.php
http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/sjs/conduct.php
http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs.../app/appf.html
http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/gle...n-Summer05.pdf
http://www.stophazing.org/laws/tx_law.htm

Now there have been posters in many of the threads here in RM that have indicated that the hazing goes on at the "upper tier chapters" and no one cares. Well:

PENALIZED ORGANIZATIONS

In accordance with

Texas Hazing Statute requirements, the following list of organizations have had hazing penalties enforced within
the last three years:

Phi Kappa Psi

Penalty issued February 7, 2006 (Cancelled through

February 6, 2007; Suspended through February 6, 2008; Probation
through February 6, 2009).
• Lambda Phi Epsilon Penalty issued December 20, 2005 (Cancelled
through December 19, 2011; Suspended through December 19, 2012;
Probation through December 19, 2013).
• Sigma Phi Omega Penalty issued September 15, 2005 (Suspended
through December 31, 2005; Probation through December 31, 2006).
• alpha Kappa Delta Phi Penalty issued April 25, 2005 (Suspended
through April 25, 2006; Probation through April 26, 2007).
• Sigma Alpha Epsilon Extended probation.
• Kappa Alpha Order Penalty issued December 14, 2004 (Cancelled
through December 31, 2006; Suspended through December 31, 2007;
Probation through December 31, 2008).
• Pi Lambda Phi Penalty issued December 9, 2003 (Probation
through December 5, 2004).
• Sigma Chi Penalty issued April 26, 2004 (Cancelled through May
31, 2007; Suspended through May 31, 2008; Probation through
December 31, 2008).
• Sigma Alpha Mu Penalty issued December 7, 2001 (Suspended
through February 15, 2002; Probation through 2003). Penalty issued
December 2002 (Cancelled through December 31, 2004; Suspended
through December 31, 2005; Probation through December 7, 2007.
• Alpha Phi Alpha Penalty issued April 16, 2001 (Cancelled through

December 31, 2003; Probation through December 31, 2004).

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Well, I do not know if you took the time to read all or even any of the links.

My point (since your links were about nonlegal definitions and debunking myths):
There should be few hazing definitions and policies based on "common sense" because what is "common sense" to me isn't "common sense" to everyone. Everything should be based on the legal definition, wherever it comes from.

True Story:
Years ago, I had a fraternity member say to me "you've never loved an organization or appreciated it until you've almost died for it." That stupid stuff makes complete sense to him and a lot of people. They would consider that pledging and not hazing and judge others' love for their organization based on that. Call them crazy but they call us crazy.

[bowsandtoes]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Phi Kappa Psi

Penalty issued February 7, 2006 (Cancelled through

February 6, 2007; Suspended through February 6, 2008; Probation
through February 6, 2009).

• Lambda Phi Epsilon Penalty issued December 20, 2005 (Cancelled
through December 19, 2011; Suspended through December 19, 2012;
Probation through December 19, 2013).
• Sigma Phi Omega Penalty issued September 15, 2005 (Suspended
through December 31, 2005; Probation through December 31, 2006).
• alpha Kappa Delta Phi Penalty issued April 25, 2005 (Suspended
through April 25, 2006; Probation through April 26, 2007).
• Sigma Alpha Epsilon Extended probation.
• Kappa Alpha Order Penalty issued December 14, 2004 (Cancelled
through December 31, 2006; Suspended through December 31, 2007;
Probation through December 31, 2008).
• Pi Lambda Phi Penalty issued December 9, 2003 (Probation
through December 5, 2004).
• Sigma Chi Penalty issued April 26, 2004 (Cancelled through May
31, 2007; Suspended through May 31, 2008; Probation through
December 31, 2008).
• Sigma Alpha Mu Penalty issued December 7, 2001 (Suspended
through February 15, 2002; Probation through 2003). Penalty issued
December 2002 (Cancelled through December 31, 2004; Suspended
through December 31, 2005; Probation through December 7, 2007.
• Alpha Phi Alpha Penalty issued April 16, 2001 (Cancelled through

December 31, 2003; Probation through December 31, 2004).

Those 'penalties' really don't do anything. At the worst, the chapter just leaves IFC, but that doesn't really affect much. SAE couldn't have parties at the house for awhile but those were extreme circumstances, they're fine now.

[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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

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

Yep. As quoted above, I understand perfectly.

Your hazing policy is just about as dangerously ambiguous and gray as what most schools and organizations have as their own hazing policies.

I like my state's definition of the word:

1. "Hazing" means an activity which recklessly or intentionally endangers the mental health or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation or admission into or affiliation with any organization operating subject to the sanction of the public or private school or of any institution of higher education in this state;

2. "Endanger the physical health" shall include but not be limited to any brutality of a physical nature, such as whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the elements, forced consumption of any food, alcoholic beverage as defined in Section 506 of Title 37 of the Oklahoma Statutes, low-point beer as defined in Section 163.2 of Title 37 of the Oklahoma Statutes, drug, controlled dangerous substance, or other substance, or any other forced physical activity which could adversely affect the physical health or safety of the individual; and

3. "Endanger the mental health" shall include any activity, except those activities authorized by law, which would subject the individual to extreme mental stress, such as prolonged sleep deprivation, forced prolonged exclusion from social contact, forced conduct which could result in extreme embarrassment, or any other forced activity which could adversely affect the mental health or dignity of the individual.

I think that Oklahoma's hazing policy (full statute at 21 O.S. 1190) is a lot more clear than what we find with most of our organizations.

You might find "endangers the mental health or physical health" part to be ambiguous, but note that the standard applied there is that the action has to be at least reckless. That essentially forecloses the study hall/etiquette/dressing up examples I provided above as being hazing, which I still think that following your definition and many of our organizations' definitions, those things could be hazing.

Aside from all that, what you really ought to pay attention to is that the state of Oklahoma's definition and your own are two different things. It follows that what you might call hazing, the state of Oklahoma would not. That is what essentially proves the point that the definition of hazing is not a "black and white" issue as you so hotly contend.

The situation here is this: What is or is not hazing ultimately depends on the definition employed by the group or individual making that determination. What is and is not hazing is not always readily identifiable.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yep. As quoted above, I understand perfectly.

Your hazing policy is just about as dangerously ambiguous and gray as what most schools and organizations have as their own hazing policies.

I like my state's definition of the word:

[/font][/size][/font]
I think that Oklahoma's hazing policy (full statute at 21 O.S. 1190) is a lot more clear than what we find with most of our organizations.

You might find "endangers the mental health or physical health" part to be ambiguous, but note that the standard applied there is that the action has to be at least reckless. That essentially forecloses the study hall/etiquette/dressing up examples I provided above as being hazing, which I still think that following your definition and many of our organizations' definitions, those things could be hazing.

Aside from all that, what you really ought to pay attention to is that the state of Oklahoma's definition and your own are two different things. It follows that what you might call hazing, the state of Oklahoma would not. That is what essentially proves the point that the definition of hazing is not a "black and white" issue as you so hotly contend.

The situation here is this: What is or is not hazing ultimately depends on the definition employed by the group or individual making that determination. What is and is not hazing is not always readily identifiable.

o.k. but isn't what you posted in the smaller font similar to what I covered in my definition of hazing? How is my definition any different?