Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
Yeah because the question is whether they can decline without any negative consequences.
|
Not exactly, the law seems to add that the forced activity must endanger the physical health or safety of the student. It then goes on to enumerate thigns which definitely violate the Act. An interview (or whatever) under most conditions under
this particular Act is fine. This is a pretty weak anti-hazing statute. That said, I'm not licensed to practice law in Wisconsin, so this isn't legal advice. While this particular Act doesn't look applicable to the situation described here, I very well could be wrong.
Quote:
|
On that note, what I call "legalized hazing" is so common and normative in so many non-GLO aspects of societies. I understand why GLOers get confused about what is and is not appropriate. That's why they should defer to policies and the law rather than "common sense."
|
We've had the discussion on this forum a lot of times -- the word "hazing" carries such varying definitions from group to group that it's darn near meaningless. In many cases, groups describe hazing (in part) as something which might cause "mental discomfort." WTF is that? Or better, WTF isn't that?
Am I to understand that the only physically exerting activity for initiation into this group is curling? As in the Olympic sport?
+1000 Internets for weirdness, but what's the issue there?
When you say someone can technically decline something, you have to be realistic about whether declining will result in the same rights, responsibilities, and treatment as those who don't decline.
Hybrid Mode
