Is this sort of hazing normal?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by excelblue

Both those events are official and are openly discussed with campus and nationals.

Also, I just realized that I worded (1) a bit weirdly: in our case, pledges were told there's going to be a couple hours of intense physical activity in advance. I'm just saying that if it had been some surprise without consent, it'd be hazing.

The idea is that the intent of the event is to build bonding by having the pledges (and participating brothers) support each other and push their limits. We make sure they're well-hydrated and stop the activity if anyone looks like they're actually being pushed too far for their own safety.

The main issues are really about risk management and perception. Despite being well-intentioned, someone could still get hurt. Also, if a random person sees us doing this (often wearing letters), chances are, they'll assume it's hazing.

Now that you've clarified, yes this is hazing. Just because you warn someone that they'll be hazed, doesn't make it no longer hazing.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by excelblue

Both those events are official and are openly discussed with campus and nationals.

Then I guess things are fine as long as the dialogue remains open and things are carefully handled.

Unfortunately, there are individuals and chapters who have gotten in trouble for doing things that the school and local/regional/national body were fully informed about. Things can change and schools and local/regional/national body change their minds about something they previously approved of. That includes schools and local/regional/national bodies having selective memory and acting as though they never approved of something.

Originally Posted by excelblue

I'm just saying that if it had been some surprise without consent, it'd be hazing.

The idea is that the intent of the event is to build bonding by having the pledges (and participating brothers) support each other and push their limits. We make sure they're well-hydrated and stop the activity if anyone looks like they're actually being pushed too far for their own safety.

This is not the formula used to determine whether something is hazing.

"Pledge" consent does not mean it is not hazing and "pledges" have minimal power through which they can truly control the outcome. There are a lot of bonding activities that are technically hazing and that includes bonding activities that can cause mental and physical harm. Giving "pledges" water and stopping if they are pushed too far does not make it nonhazing. Schools and GLOs are not buying this logic that members try to use.

Originally Posted by excelblue

Despite being well-intentioned, someone could still get hurt. Also, if a random person sees us doing this (often wearing letters), chances are, they'll assume it's hazing.

You all need to rethink this and be careful with whom you share this information until you rethink this.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Ultimately it is up to excelblue's chapter's school and GLO to determine whether what they do is hazing.

This, but add state law to the mix. What some groups consider hazing, others do not. What matters is what your GLO, your campus and your state law think.

Originally Posted by excelblue

Both those events are official and are openly discussed with campus and nationals.

Also, I just realized that I worded (1) a bit weirdly: in our case, pledges were told there's going to be a couple hours of intense physical activity in advance. I'm just saying that if it had been some surprise without consent, it'd be hazing.

If your campus and HQ are cool with it, I'm not going to argue.

But I do think it bears repeating that under most definitions of hazing I am familiar with, consent is not a defense -- if an activity is otherwise considered hazing, then it's hazing regardless of whether the pledge consents or not. I'm just guessing, but my guess is that your campus and HQ are okay with what you're doing not because the pledges consent but because you have structured it in a way that, to use the definition Kevin gave earlier, your are not "recklessly or intentionally endanger[ing] the mental health or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation."

[DrPhil]

This is where it gets sketchy and excelblue's chapter, school, and GLO need to be careful. If something happens, his chapter may be thrown under the bus. His chapter needs to protect its neck.

[Greek_or_Geek?]

Originally Posted by excelblue

The idea is that the intent of the event is to build bonding by having the pledges (and participating brothers) support each other and push their limits. We make sure they're well-hydrated and stop the activity if anyone looks like they're actually being pushed too far for their own safety.

So you and your brothers are trained medical professionals who can immediately ascertain that a pledge has been "pushed too far" and can provide emergency treatment?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Now that you've clarified, yes this is hazing. Just because you warn someone that they'll be hazed, doesn't make it no longer hazing.

Agreed. I misread it earlier as "brothers worked out and some pledges joined them", like morning P90X time or something.

Really, what would this activity hope to accomplish?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Agreed. I misread it earlier as "brothers worked out and some pledges joined them", like morning P90X time or something.

Really, what would this activity hope to accomplish?

Preventing the pledges from becoming a bunch of fatasses. Some fraternities take this VERY seriously.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

to use the definition Kevin gave earlier, your are not "recklessly or intentionally endanger[ing] the mental health or physical health or safety of a student for the purpose of initiation."

Yeah. So under the Oklahoma statute, if blue's chapter is forcing pledges to do extreme calisthenics, that's going to be at least reckless unless they take some real CYA steps like requiring all new pledges to get physicals prior to the extreme physical activity. Even then, it'd be really iffy to the point where I'd definitely veto the activity.

Forced calisthenics are a particularly risky activity. Imagine you have a member with an undiscovered heart condition and they have a full-on cardiac arrest in the middle of your activity.

These things aren't forbidden (mostly) because of some high-minded moral code. These things are forbidden because your national and local leaders don't want to be sued into oblivion for allowing members to negligently harm other members.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

These things aren't forbidden (mostly) because of some high-minded moral code. These things are forbidden because your national and local leaders don't want to be sued into oblivion for allowing members to negligently harm other members.

Yep.