U of Alabama Suspends All Fraternity "pledging" Activity

[sunshine13]

Wow! I'm applying to this school for next year. Does anybody know if any of the sororities are under investigation or are suspended from pledging acitivites? Thank You!

[Titchou]

No. It was the 7 mens' groups named in the articles...

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Titchou

But it also represents one for MLB and the NFL. And to allow NPHC groups to brand and not allow "bows and toes" for IFC ones is a hard sell - to the undergrads and the insurance companies. You can't an 18 year old male that it's not OK in an IFC group because of "unfunded" liability and then tell him it's OK to be branded by an NPHC group. It makes no sense. The basic issue is that it is demeaning. And that's why it's wrong - not because it's going to cost big whoop dee do U a bag of cash,

NPHC as a governing body does not allow, nor does it condone branding.

Branding is done by those individual members who choose to do so. Much like getting a tattoo.

[naraht]

Different types of hazing have different levels of Risk *and* different levels of risk relative to what they are asked to do every day. At one end of the scale is the public Rookie Baseball hazing. For the Washington Nationals, one thing in the Rookie Hazing is wear women's clothes on the train trip from DC to New York.

As for NPHC Branding (as well as branding in the Philippines), I can't see that being done by those who aren't full members of the Organization. For example, I *truly* pity someone getting an Omega brand who isn't a full member of Omega Psi Phi...

[Titchou]

Full members can still be hazed. The threat of retribution is enough for it to be considered hazing - and that covers all sports/bands/fraternal organizations/etc. IFC and NPC do not condone hazing but it still exists.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Titchou

Full members can still be hazed. The threat of retribution is enough for it to be considered hazing - and that covers all sports/bands/fraternal organizations/etc. . . .

That depends on what legal, campus or organizational definition one is talking about. Some definitions define hazing to include any prohibited acts done either as a condition to initiation or continued membership. If I recall correctly, the NPC definition does this.

But some other definitions of hazing only cover acts done as a condition of initiation. I know of some state criminal laws on hazing that only extend that far.

There is no single, universal definition of hazing. While there are certain things that everyone would identify as hazing, there are other things where the application of different policies will yield different answers. Chapters need to be concerned with the laws of the state they are in, the policies of the campus they are on and the policies of their own GLO.

[Titchou]

Just because there isn't a law against it doesn't make it right. What would our founders think about all this? Really.

[MysticCat]

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.

[Titchou]

I was not necessarily directing that at you, MysticCat. I'm appalled that most here think in terms of the damage and liability to the university rather than the psychological - and possible physical - damage to the young people involved. Have any of you heard Mary Ann Callais, Theta Phi Alpha, talk about living your ritual? She's awesome - and it's an awesome talk. That's what I am talking about. How does any behaviour - hazing or just otherwise wrong- perpetuate your ritual? It doesn't.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Titchou

I was not necessarily directing that at you, MysticCat. I'm appalled that most here think in terms of the damage and liability to the university rather than the psychological - and possible physical - damage to the young people involved. Have any of you heard Mary Ann Callais, Theta Phi Alpha, talk about living your ritual? She's awesome - and it's an awesome talk. That's what I am talking about. How does any behaviour - hazing or just otherwise wrong- perpetuate your ritual? It doesn't.

Gotcha.

Along those same lines, it drives me nuts when I hear hazing referred to as "ritual[s]." I see that in news stories all the time. It leads non-Greeks to think that when we talk about ritual, we're talking about hazing.

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Gotcha.

Along those same lines, it drives me nuts when I hear hazing referred to as "ritual[s]." I see that in news stories all the time. It leads non-Greeks to think that when we talk about ritual, we're talking about hazing.

^^^^^^^This!

[Giddy]

Ummm... we must be reading totally different threads. The university took action because of its CONCERN for students who were pledging. My reference to "unfunded liabilities" was to acknowledge that concerns for individual students ALSO represent a risk to the university writ large.

I have no dog in this fight. But some of the comments here are frankly ridiculous. If this blog doesn't "get" that what happened at UA is serious or that there's danger that the Greek System is becoming a pariah -- then maybe you don't visit sites like TFM or Greek Rank. Much of the commentary is pretty shocking. It reflects poorly on the attitudes and behavior of GS members. Period. UA has drawn a line.

[Titchou]

True, it does represent a risk to the university - but a much smaller one than to the individuals, IMO. You weren't the only one to mention the possible cash outlay by the university but I personally think the damage done to the young men in question and to the reputations of these fraternities in particular and the Greek System in general is due a lack of understanding of the meaning of their ritual. If they lived it, these things would not happen - anywhere. And that's the more important thing - in my estimation.