Quote:
Originally posted by Adelie
It comes down to a legal issue, really. NPC regulated that telling a new member (new = non-initiated person going through the pledging period of education) that they can NOT wear the organization's letters is considered "hazing".
But legally.... it is considered hazing.
|
Not to put too fine a point on it, but no, it would not be considered hazing "legally," unless by "legally" you mean legal with respect to NPC rules (although even that seems a stretch based on the wording of the NPC policy). But telling new members that they can't wear letters is not hazing by any legal definition I've ever heard of.
Just my opinion, and not trying to criticize any other org's policies, but it seems to me that if it's hazing to tell new members that they can't wear letters, then it's also hazing to say that they can't wear the badge. What's the difference? It would seem arbitrary to say that "until you're initiated you don't know the meaning of the badge" because until you're initiated you probably don't know the meaning of the letters either.
I think perhaps the more critical distinction is the definition of "member." NPC, as best I can tell, has made the decision to treat new members, for most intents and purposes, as full members. Most fraternities I know of (including mine, but not including all fraternities, I realize) do not treat probationary members (our term), pledges, candidates, or whatever they may call them as full members. That comes at initiation, and until initiation, one cannot wear the insignia of the org, including letters.
Ah well. It would be a boring world if we all did everything alike.
Threaded Mode