» GC Stats |
Members: 330,995
Threads: 115,704
Posts: 2,207,358
|
Welcome to our newest member, JerrySom |
|
 |

06-23-2011, 01:24 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2002
Location: A dark and very expensive forest
Posts: 12,737
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl
ChioLu did say "per OUR national HQ." If Chi O nationals want to classify that as hazing, they're more than welcome. They're not saying it is hazing for anyone else.
|
No, I get that, but I have some trouble with it to be honest. On one hand, I'm all for the rule of look to what your state/campus/org define as hazing and follow that without worrying what other orgs say.
But on the other hand, I think that if an org prohibits something like NMs wearing letters because it's "hazing," the only logical conclusion is that, in that org's opinion, anyone else that follows a different path is allowing or, worse, mandating hazing. Hazing has become a foggy enough (and sometimes way overbroad) concept without adding this layer of confusion. It's really not too hard to see it playing out on a campus: "OMG, you don't let your NMs wear letters?! That's hazing!" We've seen it play out that way at GC.
I have absolutely no problem with an org saying "It is our policy to allow all NMs to wear letters from the moment they become NMs because we don't want differences between NMs and initiated members," just as I would hope no one would have a problem with my fraternity having the policy it does for us. But I don't think it's helpful when an org adds "because it's hazing," and I think that presents potential problems for other orgs.
My $0.02.
__________________
AMONG MEN HARMONY
18▲98
|

06-23-2011, 01:36 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ILL-INI
Posts: 7,220
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
No, I get that, but I have some trouble with it to be honest. On one hand, I'm all for the rule of look to what your state/campus/org define as hazing and follow that without worrying what other orgs say.
But on the other hand, I think that if an org prohibits something like NMs wearing letters because it's "hazing," the only logical conclusion is that, in that org's opinion, anyone else that follows a different path is allowing or, worse, mandating hazing. Hazing has become a foggy enough (and sometimes way overbroad) concept without adding this layer of confusion. It's really not too hard to see it playing out on a campus: "OMG, you don't let your NMs wear letters?! That's hazing!" We've seen it play out that way at GC.
I have absolutely no problem with an org saying "It is our policy to allow all NMs to wear letters from the moment they become NMs because we don't want differences between NMs and initiated members," just as I would hope no one would have a problem with my fraternity having the policy it does for us. But I don't think it's helpful when an org adds "because it's hazing," and I think that presents potential problems for other orgs.
My $0.02.
|
Right, if anything that differentiates NMs is hazing, does that mean new member meetings are hazing, too?
|

06-23-2011, 06:35 PM
|
GreekChat Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,593
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
No, I get that, but I have some trouble with it to be honest. On one hand, I'm all for the rule of look to what your state/campus/org define as hazing and follow that without worrying what other orgs say.
But on the other hand, I think that if an org prohibits something like NMs wearing letters because it's "hazing," the only logical conclusion is that, in that org's opinion, anyone else that follows a different path is allowing or, worse, mandating hazing. Hazing has become a foggy enough (and sometimes way overbroad) concept without adding this layer of confusion. It's really not too hard to see it playing out on a campus: "OMG, you don't let your NMs wear letters?! That's hazing!" We've seen it play out that way at GC.
I have absolutely no problem with an org saying "It is our policy to allow all NMs to wear letters from the moment they become NMs because we don't want differences between NMs and initiated members," just as I would hope no one would have a problem with my fraternity having the policy it does for us. But I don't think it's helpful when an org adds "because it's hazing," and I think that presents potential problems for other orgs.
My $0.02.
|
I'd rather agree that it should be clarified as 'hazing and activities that can lead to hazing' or something along those lines. The prohibition against wearing letters isn't necessarily hazing but can and has been used that way in the past so XYZ has banned it. Like scavenger hunts.
__________________
From the SigmaTo the K!
Polyamorous, Pansexual and Proud of it!
It Gets Better
|
 |
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|