The Hazing Tradition

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

I along with others are not really sure about what you are even talking about?

First off you typo worse than I do and that is because of physical problems not intelligence.

Evidently, you have no clue about Social Greek Organizations when you refer to the date of 1657 if that was what your refering to.

If I am guessing, you are full of self importance and do not have a clue of what you are talking about.

You are talking with "some" very knowledgeable people on this site.

You do not seem to be one of them.

Very cromulent observations, sir!

The 1657 reference came from me. I was referring to records of hazing at Harvard college. It's well documented stuff.

At any rate, my observation is that he's trying to compare his religion, or view of a religion, that being Satanism or Luciferianism or some sort of 'ism to Greek culture. He is objecting to the removal of hazing because according to his belief system, hazing is a good thing because it helps us to grow as people, mature, become "enlightened."

I think some of his observations are probably accurate. Despite what we say these days, hazing in its many forms can be used as a great tool for team building, helping people mature, teaching respect, loyalty, etc. That said, he claims the "P.C." crowd has urged the death of hazing.

The trouble I have with this is that really, the reason our various organizations have begun to shun hazing has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. In most cases, the older ladies and gentlemen who are urging the removal of these old traditions were recipients of hazing themselves.

The truth of the matter is that it's a business decision. Our leaders understand that left to their own devices, our collegiate members would eventually cause enough bad things to happen that we'd be sued into non-existence. You can't maintain an organization with 200 chapters and maybe 40 or 50-thousand active members without taking some serious steps to make sure that everyone is safe.

We have a lot of assets, we are a big target, and in the court of public opinion, due to perceptions that we do haze and do commit dangerous acts, we're an easy target for a jury.

Our leadership has had to ask itself whether we'd prefer to have tradition or whether we'd prefer to cease to exist. Having chosen the later, here we are. That's not to say that choosing alternative programs to hazing is a choice which wasn't made because everyone thinks it's nice to be nice to the nice, I'm sure that played a role, but without the money issue, we never would have arrived at that crossroads.

We are where we are. Eventually, hazing will be a memory. The organizations which survive and thrive will have to come up with effective programming to replace those old traditions. Most large nationals have. It's only a matter of time until that's all that's left.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Very cromulent observations, sir!

The 1657 reference came from me. I was referring to records of hazing at Harvard college. It's well documented stuff.

At any rate, my observation is that he's trying to compare his religion, or view of a religion, that being Satanism or Luciferianism or some sort of 'ism to Greek culture. He is objecting to the removal of hazing because according to his belief system, hazing is a good thing because it helps us to grow as people, mature, become "enlightened."

I think some of his observations are probably accurate. Despite what we say these days, hazing in its many forms can be used as a great tool for team building, helping people mature, teaching respect, loyalty, etc. That said, he claims the "P.C." crowd has urged the death of hazing.

The trouble I have with this is that really, the reason our various organizations have begun to shun hazing has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. In most cases, the older ladies and gentlemen who are urging the removal of these old traditions were recipients of hazing themselves.

The truth of the matter is that it's a business decision. Our leaders understand that left to their own devices, our collegiate members would eventually cause enough bad things to happen that we'd be sued into non-existence. You can't maintain an organization with 200 chapters and maybe 40 or 50-thousand active members without taking some serious steps to make sure that everyone is safe.

We have a lot of assets, we are a big target, and in the court of public opinion, due to perceptions that we do haze and do commit dangerous acts, we're an easy target for a jury.

Our leadership has had to ask itself whether we'd prefer to have tradition or whether we'd prefer to cease to exist. Having chosen the later, here we are. That's not to say that choosing alternative programs to hazing is a choice which wasn't made because everyone thinks it's nice to be nice to the nice, I'm sure that played a role, but without the money issue, we never would have arrived at that crossroads.

We are where we are. Eventually, hazing will be a memory. The organizations which survive and thrive will have to come up with effective programming to replace those old traditions. Most large nationals have. It's only a matter of time until that's all that's left.

Co-Sign. Very well posted and said.

[NinjaPoodle]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Very cromulent observations, sir!

The 1657 reference came from me. I was referring to records of hazing at Harvard college. It's well documented stuff.

At any rate, my observation is that he's trying to compare his religion, or view of a religion, that being Satanism or Luciferianism or some sort of 'ism to Greek culture. He is objecting to the removal of hazing because according to his belief system, hazing is a good thing because it helps us to grow as people, mature, become "enlightened."

I think some of his observations are probably accurate. Despite what we say these days, hazing in its many forms can be used as a great tool for team building, helping people mature, teaching respect, loyalty, etc. That said, he claims the "P.C." crowd has urged the death of hazing.

The trouble I have with this is that really, the reason our various organizations have begun to shun hazing has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. In most cases, the older ladies and gentlemen who are urging the removal of these old traditions were recipients of hazing themselves.

The truth of the matter is that it's a business decision. Our leaders understand that left to their own devices, our collegiate members would eventually cause enough bad things to happen that we'd be sued into non-existence. You can't maintain an organization with 200 chapters and maybe 40 or 50-thousand active members without taking some serious steps to make sure that everyone is safe.

We have a lot of assets, we are a big target, and in the court of public opinion, due to perceptions that we do haze and do commit dangerous acts, we're an easy target for a jury.

Our leadership has had to ask itself whether we'd prefer to have tradition or whether we'd prefer to cease to exist. Having chosen the later, here we are. That's not to say that choosing alternative programs to hazing is a choice which wasn't made because everyone thinks it's nice to be nice to the nice, I'm sure that played a role, but without the money issue, we never would have arrived at that crossroads.

We are where we are. Eventually, hazing will be a memory. The organizations which survive and thrive will have to come up with effective programming to replace those old traditions. Most large nationals have. It's only a matter of time until that's all that's left.

Very well stated and very good point (bolded).

[williamsheraton]

I understand your point of view that it s all about money. Personally I don't agree 100% although I can see some truth in what you are saying. It s a bit like saying we are in Afghanistan for oil alone.

Anyway thanks for letting me have my say. For those of you who think I'm nuts or full of bs, don't be too sure of yourselves Delve delve delve and who knows what you may find out...

Kind Regards,
William

[goodie2shoe]

Not to burst everyone's perfect little bubble, but the OP is at least half correct The F.H.C. Society and Phi Beta Kappa (the first two secret societies @ a college) were founded, so that they could talk about issues that weren't allowed to be discussed on campus. The students would meet at taverns to talk about controversial topics. They frequently had to move their meeting place as if they were caught by faculty they would have been kicked out of the college.

Unlike today, where being apart of a sorority or fraternity is about the prestige and is based in some places on how much your family makes, the clothes you wear, and where you vacation.

Secret Societies went against what society believed was acceptable which was why they were underground and "secret societies". To say that the organizations stand for the same thing as when they were founded is definently not realistic. You didn't have rush parties way back when you got a letter inviting you to join the organization the sisters picked you. Sisters didn't have to go around and say "rush ABC."

... I've never found any information to suggest that the secret societies hazed new members when they were founded, but I wouldn't be shocked if I ever came across stories like that, although things were alot more secretive back then and people didn't talk about what happened behind closed doors.