Plegdes wearing letters???

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Actually, the hazing laws are often much more limited than GLO or university hazing policies. Hazing laws establish criminal violations that must give people reasonable notice of what conduct is prohibited. In my state, for example, it doesn't meet the legal definition of hazing unless actual physical injury occurs. (And I stand to be corrected, but I'm not familiar with any federal laws defining or criminalizing hazing; so far as I know, that's left to the states.)

GLO and university policies, on the other hand, are drafted with civil liability in mind, so they are typically likely to be more broad.

Maybe I should have prefaced that with "in my experience." I've noticed that (Texas) hazing law tends to leave too much open for interpretation. Several GLOs (NIC, NPC, NPHC, and NALFO) that I've run into have been concerned because simple things incorporated into their programs have to be stopped/re-evaluated because they don't want to run into trouble with "well, that coooould be considered hazing" violations.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Several GLOs (NIC, NPC, NPHC, and NALFO) that I've run into have been concerned because simple things incorporated into their programs have to be stopped/re-evaluated because they don't want to run into trouble with "well, that coooould be considered hazing" violations.

Right, but (following your lead) in my experience, that concern stems from the threat of civil liability, where the criminal definition given in state law wouldn't necessarily apply.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by fantASTic

You know...as a national staff member, you may want to consider whether you REALLY want to keep going on about how hazing issues are insane and ridiculous.

Hazing issues are a serious consideration. Hazing laws and regulations are my problem for the following reasons (among other things):

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Several GLOs (NIC, NPC, NPHC, and NALFO) that I've run into have been concerned because simple things incorporated into their programs have to be stopped/re-evaluated because they don't want to run into trouble with "well, that coooould be considered hazing" violations.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Right, but (following your lead) in my experience, that concern stems from the threat of civil liability, where the criminal definition given in state law wouldn't necessarily apply.

We do this dance around the law trying to decide how far is too far. Even the organizations that have the tightest regulations can still come under fire when a good lawyer gets on the case. The vagueness causes utter confusion and insecurity.

While I understand what you're saying about litigious societies, it's worth saying that as a GLO member, we are obligated to hold the standards Nationals sets for us - and while we can disagree with them, as a national staff member I'd expect you to support them so as not to give the wrong idea.

Where have I said that I/we shouldn't support the standards our organizations set for us? I'm even MORE cognizant of risk management issues because of my specific position on the board.

Because of the differences in laws and regulations across states, college/universities and individual organizations, we end up creating policies that contradict other organizations' policies, which only serves to reflect badly on Greeks as a whole.

There's no consistency in all of this and we're placing blanket bans on things that don't need to be banned for fear that we'll get hit with a lawsuit. I fear there's no room for logic anymore. My organization is in this hot mess with the rest of y'all.

ETA: I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but lawsuits are brought against Greek orgs constantly but the cost of going to court is often more than the cost of settling out of court, so Greeks are paying out the behind for stupidity. You say "hazing" and the pockets spew forth riches.

[fantASTic]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Where have I said that I/we shouldn't support the standards our organizations set for us? I'm even MORE cognizant of risk management issues because of my specific position on the board.

Because of the differences in laws and regulations across states, college/universities and individual organizations, we end up creating policies that contradict other organizations' policies, which only serves to reflect badly on Greeks as a whole.

There's no consistency in all of this and we're placing blanket bans on things that don't need to be banned for fear that we'll get hit with a lawsuit. I fear there's no room for logic anymore. My organization is in this hot mess with the rest of y'all.

ETA: I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but lawsuits are brought against Greek orgs constantly but the cost of going to court is often more than the cost of settling out of court, so Greeks are paying out the behind for stupidity. You say "hazing" and the pockets spew forth riches.

That, to me, is very clearly disagreeing with your RM policies.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by fantASTic

That, to me, is very clearly disagreeing with your RM policies.

You didn't say anything about agreeing. There are A LOT of things in life I don't agree with that I support and uphold (e.g. unconstitutional seat belt violations). And, I'm not making any suggestions that my sorority change its policies as they are in place to protect us.

[fantASTic]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

You didn't say anything about agreeing. There are A LOT of things in life I don't agree with that I support and uphold (e.g. unconstitutional seat belt violations). And, I'm not making any suggestions that my sorority change its policies as they are in place to protect us.

I used the word 'support'. To me, that means agree, at least publicly, that your RM policies are sound. And yes, I saw your last sentence - but it's posts like these that allow collegians to say, "well...OFFICIALLY it's against the rules, but National Staff Member X said they're stupid. I agree!"

That's how you are coming across.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by fantASTic

I used the word 'support'. To me, that means agree, at least publicly, that your RM policies are sound. And yes, I saw your last sentence - but it's posts like these that allow collegians to say, "well...OFFICIALLY it's against the rules, but National Staff Member X said they're stupid. I agree!"

That's how you are coming across.

I'm not seeing it. Perhaps it's a difference of culture between our organizations. I'm speaking very generally and haven't mentioned the specific policies of my organization. Regardless, collegians are more than welcome to disagree with national mandates as long as they abide by them. My confidence in the intelligence/judgment of the membership of my organization would suffer if someone honestly came to me and said, "I saw you disagreed with such-and-such policy on Greek Chat so I figured you'd let me get away with such-and-such." I'd still love her, but I'd refer her to the National Standards Committee.