Blindfolds as Hazing?

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by PANTHERTEKE

I don't think the risk of injury is increased when you are blindfolded (ok yeah, maybe you'll trip over a rock or something but nothing out of the ordinary). I think not being able to tell what is going on around you and what is being done or could be done to you is the real risk.

My guess here is that the "risk" of injury - aside from obvious physical maladies, is mental. Depriving someone of their senses can be viewed as hazing. It may cause fear and therefore, intimidation.

Now, when I was in high school, I went on a retreat called "Emmaus". It was the thing to do for Catholic students. Anyway, we had something called the "trust walk", wherein the student who has not been on the retreat before is blindfolded, and two other students who have "made their trip to Emmaus" guided the new person.

It was scary, but fun, because it made you trust the people you were with. There were rules, however. No bumping into trees and stuff. Yeah, it was outside. The worst thing we did to the new kids was to pretend we were crawling under a bush, so all three of us had to get on the ground and crawl. But we were supervised by many chaperones and Catholic guilt, and no one could leave the designated area.

[SOPi_Jawbreaker]

I think the risk management issue comes into play when the people who aren't blindfolded do stupid things...like "Let's drive all swervey to scare the pledges" and end up getting into a car accident.

[Kevin]

My guess here is that the "risk" of injury - aside from obvious physical maladies, is mental. Depriving someone of their senses can be viewed as hazing. It may cause fear and therefore, intimidation.

This line of reasoning is scary. The pledge voting process itself causes fear that they will not "make the vote," ergo intimidation, ergo hazing by your definition.

Using your logic, I can say that just about anything is hazing.

Sensory deprivation is (in my opinion) proper used correctly, for example:
1) Trust exercises -- what organization would characterize going to a ropes course as being "hazing"? If there's still sanity, not one. Ropes courses routinely employ trust exercises, such as the "trust fall."

2) Team building: Sigma Nu's LEAD program actually has a module in which communication and teamwork are examined. In doing this, all of the participants are blindfolded except for a "leader" and an "observer." The participants have no idea what they're blindfolded for. The leader is handed a bucket of legos and a plan. He then dumps the legos out and instructs the participants as to how to build the project (the leader can't touch the legos) while the observer takes notes. That is programming directly from on-high for Sigma Nu.

3) Ritual.

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This line of reasoning is scary. The pledge voting process itself causes fear that they will not "make the vote," ergo intimidation, ergo hazing by your definition.

Using your logic, I can say that just about anything is hazing.

Sensory deprivation is (in my opinion) proper used correctly, for example:
1) Trust exercises -- what organization would characterize going to a ropes course as being "hazing"? If there's still sanity, not one. Ropes courses routinely employ trust exercises, such as the "trust fall."

2) Team building: Sigma Nu's LEAD program actually has a module in which communication and teamwork are examined. In doing this, all of the participants are blindfolded except for a "leader" and an "observer." The participants have no idea what they're blindfolded for. The leader is handed a bucket of legos and a plan. He then dumps the legos out and instructs the participants as to how to build the project (the leader can't touch the legos) while the observer takes notes. That is programming directly from on-high for Sigma Nu.

3) Ritual.

Hence the reason why I use the words "can be viewed as hazing" and "may cause fear and therefore, intimidation". I am not advocating or discouraging the activity itself. I am simply stating why people may view it as hazing. If you read my entire post, you will have seen the example in which blindfolding was used as a trust exercise, under supervision.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ree-Xi

Hence the reason why I use the words "can be viewed as hazing" and "may cause fear and therefore, intimidation". I am not advocating or discouraging the activity itself. I am simply stating why people may view it as hazing. If you read my entire post, you will have seen the example in which blindfolding was used as a trust exercise, under supervision.

Why do legal adults need supervision?

So now, according to you, "supervision" cures all? I'd be more comfortable with replacing the word "may" with "is calculated to." I don't think there should be such a thing as unintentional hazing. Otherwise, you have this amorphous moving target of a definition which fails to adequately inform collegiate members as to whether they are breaking the rules.

[ree-Xi]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Why do legal adults need supervision?

So now, according to you, "supervision" cures all? I'd be more comfortable with replacing the word "may" with "is calculated to." I don't think there should be such a thing as unintentional hazing. Otherwise, you have this amorphous moving target of a definition which fails to adequately inform collegiate members as to whether they are breaking the rules.

Dude, why are you contesting me? MY EXAMPLE was that of high school students participating in a trust exercise in a supervised, closed area. And yes, there SHOULD be supervision of some sort, if people's eyes are being covered. Supervision does not have to be an administrator or what not, but someone appointed to monitor the safety of the participants.

I said that blindfolding MAY have hazing implications because it MAY cause discomfort or injury, intended or not. Unintentional hazing would be something that was done that may have UNINTENTIONALLY caused somoneone pain, discomfort, anguish, etc. That is, you did not intend to scare someone by doing x, y, or z, but they freaked out.

As far as using real candles (from another post), many groups strictly prohibit open flames of any kind. Yes, they use fake candles.