Blindfolds as Hazing?

[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.