Plegdes wearing letters???

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

You could trade out individual schools and states in there. I'm pointing out that it's kinda ridiculous for any organization to say that new members can wear letters but not the crest or that new members can wear the crest but not the letters. Why restrict them at all if the concern is that restrictions equal hazing? Do you see what I'm saying? My issue is not at all with the NPC itself. As I've said before, the definitions of hazing across the board are completely out of control.
There have been many intelligent responses in this thread addressing the question of GLOs and the reasoning behind the use of crests, letters and badges. If you still find other GLOs' policies "ridiculous" then all I can say is you must not get it. You cannot pretend that you know why a GLO has the policy they do unless you address it to HQ, and as I wrote earlier, it may just be that the GLO says "Because we say so." Good enough for me. I will admit to be perplexed by what I see as a logical inconsistency in some other GLOs' policies, but I would never dream of calling them "insane" or "ridiculous". Maybe this is an example of "stay in your lane".

For as long as Gamma Phi has been in existence, the badge has been restricted to initiated members. I don't know that in 1874 their concern was hazing. Most GLOs got crests a little later, but again, the restriction to initiated members predates modern concern with hazing.

Hazing is really not the point. There are many threads on GC that discuss hazing, and really there is no sense rehashing it here. Having been a part of the depositions of a case involving a fraternity at UT that resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars being paid to the plaintiff, I fully understand why liability issues have resulted in GLOs being strict regarding hazing. Some of the definitions are taken right out of the state legislation - so it's not even the GLOs who are always behind it.

I loved scavenger hunts as an undergraduate. But from a cost/benefit standpoint, it makes far more sense NOT to have them and risk exposing the GLO to possible liability. In a perfect world you could trust all the active members of a college org. to use common sense, but we don't live in a perfect world.

Perhaps you truly don't understand what I and others have written, and if that's the case I don't know that anyone else could do a fuller job of explaining it. If they can, I wish they would.


They don't (at least not that I know of) but isn't it hazing that they don't? I said in the future I foresee it getting to the point where NPC organizations along with the rest of Greek Life will have to immediately initiate interests and dismantle the entire concept of pledging. That's the only way to avoid hazing if one of the key definitions of hazing is "deprivation of privileges granted to other members."

I think the concerns regarding hazing have been addressed pretty well, and I really don't think the NPC will ever be initiating new members right away. NPC history over the last 20 years is very telling. I think fraternities have struggled more with it lately, with various results and levels of success. The "privileges" addressed in that definition are usually understood to be things like making new members only use the back door.

Do you know of an example where this definition has been applied to crests or letters? I'd be interested in knowing the outcome of it.




That's an odd thing to say.

Just my take after re-reading your posts.