Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTess
As long as at least one definition of "hazing" is "making pledges do (or expecting pledges to do) something actives are not required to" the periods will get shorter and shorter. That's an easy solution to one facet, and organizations are, in general, open to easy solutions."
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Is the above-stated definition really your organization's rules or is it folklore? As far as I know, basically everyone is reading from the FIPG definition for our official hazing definition. Do NPC groups go beyond that definition officially, or is it more a directive in that if you don't ask pledges to do something actives are not required to do, then you're probably okay?
|
When I was pledging, my class was required to plan our own fundraiser and take part in our own philanthropy or community service project. We had help from our new member educators, but we essentially did everything on our own - planning and execution. Then we were no longer allowed to do this because it meant we were requiring new members to do things that weren't required of the initiated sisters. However, we can have new members help the initiated sisters plan and attend fundraisers and philanthropy projects in which the rest of the chapter is involved.
I loved participating in those events with my pledge sisters. It gave us ownership over the projects, helped us understand some of the hard work that goes into being an active member, and we simply had fun.
It's crazy to think that something like that could be considered "hazing". But yes, I think organizations are aiming for the unambiguous, all-or-nothing approach.
Threaded Mode
