Don't Want To Haze

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by adpiucf

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.

[amIblue?]

Talk to your advisers! They likely will have some constructive, non-hazing type of things that can help!

[33girl]

Let's ask first off if the sorority is local, regional, or NPC. The NPC's/individual NPC groups' definitions of hazing are far broader than those of many schools who support local chapters - and that's who they need to answer to.

[Gamma Xi Phi]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Quoted for emphasis and truth.

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Just to clarify, these types of things are not considered hazing in most NPC groups. However, you will find that such things as not using the front door, not using the main staircase and having to use one specific staircase, being served last at a meal, having phone/door duty when members don't have it, etc are the types of things I believe she was talking about as many NPC groups considering those things demeaning and therefore hazing.