Quote:
Originally Posted by Titchou
Just because there isn't a law against it doesn't make it right. What would our founders think about all this? Really.
|
Where did you get that from what I posted? There are lots of wrong things that aren't hazing. It's no different from saying that all homicides are not murder. No need to overdramatize by wringing hands over what our founders would think.
My state's criminal law defines hazing as "to subject another student to physical injury as part of an initiation, or as a prerequisite to membership, into any organized school group, including any society, athletic team, fraternity or sorority, or other similar group." N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-35. By this definition, a full member can't be hazed, because the definition only applies to those becoming members. He or she can be assaulted or otherwise wronged in some way, but not hazed. By contrast, under my fraternity's policies, a collegiate member or even an alumnus member can be hazed.
It seems to me that the word "hazing" gets thrown around a lot as a general term for anything wrong, sometimes (often?) getting applied to things that some laws and organizations do not classify as hazing. The point is not whether an act is right or wrong. The point is whether it is hazing. I think we need to show care in flatly stating that "
x is hazing," when various policies or laws can disagree on whether
x actually is hazing. But whether it's hazing or not,
x can still be wrong.
Hybrid Mode
