Quote:
Originally Posted by adpiucf
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaprez
Our sorority is against hazing, but we want to have the new members do certain things or not be allowed to do some things.
|
That is the classic definition of hazing. |
No, it's not, because the classic definition of hazing includes endangering the physical, mental or emotional health of those involved or subjecting them to embarrassment or humiliation. If it is the classic definition of hazing, then my fraternity and most other GLOs I know of require hazing, because there are certain things they require of probationary members/pledges/new members (e.g., learning about the GLO, tests prior to initiation) and certain things they do not allow PMs/pledges/NMs to do (e.g., wear letters, crests or other symbols, vote in meetings, wear the badge, participate in ritual).
If a particular GLO wants to adopt this definition of hazing, that is certainly its prerogative. But it is way more broad than the classic definition of hazing.
All that said, I agree with others that what the OP is talking about sounds like punishment, not building respect.
Threaded Mode
