Do you think your organization's risk management policies go overboard?

[APhi4Ever]

No, I don't believe so. I believe the rules are there for a reason.

[ThetaPrincess24]

I think what is considered hazing may go overboard a bit (for example giving the new members a test before initiation--who the founder's are, our colors, listing the greek alphabet, chapters on campus, etc. is now considered hazing), but I support our risk management policies 100%.

[Scattered504]

While I definitely agree with the reason for why we have risk management policies, I do think some things are overboard. I think if you look at what qualifies as hazing or a risk management violation for a fraternity or sorority, you'll see a huge double standard as to what other campus groups can do. I have done countless things at work (I work for the University), at student leadership retreats (sponsored by the University), and in non-Greek student groups that would get me in trouble if our chapter did the exact same activity, simply because we are Greek.

I agree with having the bases covered when protecting from litigation, but there is a point where Greeks are held to a much stricter standard than anyone else.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Scattered504

While I definitely agree with the reason for why we have risk management policies, I do think some things are overboard. I think if you look at what qualifies as hazing or a risk management violation for a fraternity or sorority, you'll see a huge double standard as to what other campus groups can do. I have done countless things at work (I work for the University), at student leadership retreats (sponsored by the University), and in non-Greek student groups that would get me in trouble if our chapter did the exact same activity, simply because we are Greek.

I agree with having the bases covered when protecting from litigation, but there is a point where Greeks are held to a much stricter standard than anyone else.

Don't we claim to hold our members to a higher standard? We are selective organizations and every one of our organizations' purposes, creeds, mottos, visions, etc. pertain in some way to strengthening our ideals and character. If we don't walk the walk, we shouldn't talk the talk.

[knight_shadow]

I agree that a lot of things are overboard, but it's the way it is because when Greeks had some leeway, they went overboard.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I agree that a lot of things are overboard, but it's the way it is because when Greeks had some leeway, they went overboard.

I think it's a combination of this and the fear every business and organization has these days...lawsuits.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

I think it's a combination of this and the fear every business and organization has these days...lawsuits.

Well, that's a given. Other campus groups wouldn't be absolved of liability if they went overboard with their requests. The difference is that they typically don't take it to that point.

Ex. Catholic Student Organization might do a scavenger hunt to welcome its newest members. It's unlikely, though, that they'll have 100 items on the list and require that the items be located at 1:00am. Unfortunately, many (older) Greeks couldn't be trusted to use common sense.

[exlurker]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

. . . Unfortunately, many (older) Greeks couldn't be trusted to use common sense.

Some of the newer Greeks veer away from common sense once in a while, or so I've heard.

Isn't President Levin at Yale supposedly chatting (or going to chat) with a few folks about a possible lapse not too long ago, for instance?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by exlurker

Some of the newer Greeks veer away from common sense once in a while, or so I've heard.

Isn't President Levin at Yale supposedly chatting (or going to chat) with a few folks about a possible lapse not too long ago, for instance?

Which proves the point. If "we" continue to fuck up royally we're never getting our curfew extended, or the keys to the car back.

And as long as people have the attitude that you have to earn your letters with literal blood, sweat and tears, we're going to continue to fuck up.

[Kevin]

Not to put words in 33's mouth, but I don't think she's talking about hazing as being hazing per se, i.e., causing extreme physical or mental anguish. She's talking about how hazing has been so broadly defined as it can mean just about anything.

I agree. Our respective new member programs are not very good insofar as teaching history, etc. Some organizations can't even administer tests.. because that'd be "hazing" according to them.

So I guess the answer to your question "Why is it so difficult to just not haze?" is pretty simple--it's too damned hard to know what is hazing and what isn't.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not to put words in 33's mouth, but I don't think she's talking about hazing as being hazing per se, i.e., causing extreme physical or mental anguish. She's talking about how hazing has been so broadly defined as it can mean just about anything.

I agree. Our respective new member programs are not very good insofar as teaching history, etc. Some organizations can't even administer tests.. because that'd be "hazing" according to them.

So I guess the answer to your question "Why is it so difficult to just not haze?" is pretty simple--it's too damned hard to know what is hazing and what isn't.

It is not difficult not to haze. Orgs generally have a pretty clear policy on the matter. As well as NM programs. The point is, what exactly about hazing or "hazing" would make new members actually learn history? How are the two related? (Something beyond tests).

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It is not difficult not to haze. Orgs generally have a pretty clear policy on the matter. As well as NM programs. The point is, what exactly about hazing or "hazing" would make new members actually learn history? How are the two related? (Something beyond tests).

I think we've answered this question in this thread before.

Here's another example:
When I was young, I remembered things for my classes by doing things like making songs and doing jumping jacks while reciting things. I still remember some of these things 20 years later.

The same applies to GLO chapters that utilize such methods to give prospectives other ways to learn and remember information. Not every GLO chapter does things because they are trying to be dominant and mean to "pledges." Some of them really thing they are being helpful and creative. Is this considered hazing for many organizations? Yes. Will it always be reported? No. Why not? Because members and even many prospectives find it harmless and useful. Until? Someone doesn't want to do it, someone gets hurt doing it, or members begin to go too far with it.

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

Speaking for the women I know (both in my chapter and others on my campus/local campuses) just about everyone knows what is and isn't hazing, as we're all taught the definition. If they don't, it's because they didn't listen/read. As you said, regardless of how they feel about whatever activity, they still don't act like it doesn't fall under the definition of hazing.

Yep. There are exceptions where something really seemed harmless and nonhazing but that was based on perception (or other contextual factors). That's also a risk that members take when they knowingly do things that aren't part of the official membership process.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I think we've answered this question in this thread before.

Here's another example:
When I was young, I remembered things for my classes by doing things like making songs and doing jumping jacks while reciting things. I still remember some of these things 20 years later.

The same applies to GLO chapters that utilize such methods to give prospectives other ways to learn and remember information. Not every GLO chapter does things because they are trying to be dominant and mean to "pledges." Some of them really thing they are being helpful and creative. Is this considered hazing for many organizations? Yes. Will it always be reported? No. Why not? Because members and even many prospectives find it harmless and useful. Until? Someone doesn't want to do it, someone gets hurt doing it, or members begin to go too far with it.

Oh it's certainly been discussed before. But, while putting things to song, or reciting them repeatedly can certainly help people remember them, I don't really see why being required to do so while doing forced physical exertion is actually helpful. Teach the NMs a song to learn the Greek Alphabet? Sure.

And you're right, not every type of hazing is coming from a mean spirited place. But there's no way for a national organization to effectively police that, nor for the legal system to craft a law that allows the "ok" stuff without allowing for the harmful, degrading, and otherwise pointless stuff as well.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And you're right, not every type of hazing is coming from a mean spirited place. But there's no way...for the legal system to craft a law that allows the "ok" stuff without allowing for the harmful, degrading, and otherwise pointless stuff as well.

Doesn't intent come into play with most laws though?

[DrPhil]

This has to do with how organizations train members and prospective members. I can only speak for what Delta does. Members aren't just "thrown in with the wolves" and prospective members are given more than just an anti-hazing policy. Even with just Delta's Anti-Hazing policy, it is pretty straight forward in that it encompasses a lot but members generally know what is and is not hazing. Members can think what they are doing is harmless or beneficial but they typically don't claim they didn't know it is considered hazing. They may not agree with it being called hazing but they know that it is.

Delta's new member program is designed to teach history and develop sisterhood and service with no real need for hazing.