Cornell to Ban "Pledging" for GLOs

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I do not think that the word "pledging" is simply being used to refer to "new member education" but some specific campus 'traditions.'

For example think of how "pledging" is/was used in some NPHC* contexts. Many of those processes have been banned, altered, etc. The use of the term is probably accurate for the situation, but means a hazing process, not just isolated hazing incidents or a new member education process.

*Not that this is the same thing, just drawing a comparison to word use.

Understandable.

But then.. shouldn't the article be called "Cornell to ban hazing, like they should have done a long, long time ago"?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Understandable.

But then.. shouldn't the article be called "Cornell to ban hazing, like they should have done a long, long time ago"?

No, because they are doing away with pledging in a similar fashion as the NPHC did in 1990. Hazing is already banned at most colleges/universities and illegal in several states.

And pledging is not synonymous with hazing and doesn't have to include hazing. Pledging can involve new member activities that are common in GLOs but are not a formal new member activity. Examples include NPHC "pledges" lining up and marching across campus/off campus (which happened in some undergraduate and alumnae/alumni/graduate chapters). That isn't automatically hazing but it is pledging and is not covered in NPHC sorority's/fraternity's official prospective member/intake activities.

[preciousjeni]

The author explains the difference (pledging v. hazing) in the last paragraph:

Hazing has been formally prohibited at Cornell since 1980 and a crime under New York State law since 1983," he wrote. "But it continues under the guise of pledging, often perpetuated through traditions handed down over generations. Although pledging is explained away as a period of time during which pre-initiates devote themselves to learning the information necessary to become full members, in reality, it is often the vehicle for demeaning activities that cause psychological harm and physical danger.

What I don't understand is why the president didn't just say that groups would be restricted to using the official recruitment/new member education process sanctioned by the inter/national org. No more local traditions permitted.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Understandable.

But then.. shouldn't the article be called "Cornell to ban hazing, like they should have done a long, long time ago"?

*shrug* I have no real opinion on that one way or the other. I've expressed my views on hazing plenty of times. Just saying that banning pledging is a legitimate way of expressing their point and probably understood by the target audience of Cornell GLOs.

They're not mixing things up, just using the local language.