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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by AGDee

The vast majority of these rules, especially things like the scavenger hunts, are set by our insurance companies. We have to have liability insurance and they dictate these things. The inter/national organizations don't have a lot of choices with these rules.

Ten years ago, I would have said that they were too strict. Then I saw the budget for Pre-Clamp-Down and Post-Clamp-Down.

The bottom line is, for an inter/national organization, you have no choice. You have to do without "fun" things in the name of the GLO, and pay for insurance that sounds ridiculous. Each time you disobey these rules, you may as well say, "I'm in the mood to raise dues by $100/month per brother or sister," because that's what you're talking.

When you hear alumnae say how little they paid for dues compared to what active members pay now, it all comes down to insurance.

[33girl]

It's not about going without "fun." It's about groups going so overboard with CYA measures (and often egged on by the insurance companies, who couldn't care less about the overall health of the GLO as long as they get their $$) that members come out of pledgeship with little to no knowledge of their group's history, operations or policies. Case in point: the huge amount of GC posts on "can I quit my sorority and pledge somewhere else?"

I mean, at this point, let's call a spade a spade and initiate people when we give them their bid, then educate them as members. It seems to be the only way to get around the asinine "hazing" accusations. If we end up having to terminate scores of people who turn out to be crappy members AFTER they know our ritual and have damaged the health of the chapter, well hey, no biggie.

Real hazing - beating, forced drinking, mental anguish - obviously hasn't been legislated away by all these rules or insurance policies. Just look at the U of Alberta thread. If all this has been done and there are STILL groups hazing in that manner, it's not very effective IMO. It's completely failed to send a message or make the students understand why it's wrong.

As far as alcohol goes, most of the problems would be completely eradicated if states were given back their right to allow drinking (fully or partially) at age 18.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

It's not about going without "fun." It's about groups going so overboard with CYA measures (and often egged on by the insurance companies, who couldn't care less about the overall health of the GLO as long as they get their $$) that members come out of pledgeship with little to no knowledge of their group's history, operations or policies. Case in point: the huge amount of GC posts on "can I quit my sorority and pledge somewhere else?"

You'd need to know whether that happened prior to anti-hazing laws and in what frequency.

What things could my chapter, for example, have done that would have been considered 'hazing' yet would have actually made me a better member? Why do those activities actually mean that people learn shit about anything?

I mean, at this point, let's call a spade a spade and initiate people when we give them their bid, then educate them as members. It seems to be the only way to get around the asinine "hazing" accusations. If we end up having to terminate scores of people who turn out to be crappy members AFTER they know our ritual and have damaged the health of the chapter, well hey, no biggie.

If you have to haze to get "good" members, you're only going to get people who value hazing.

Real hazing - beating, forced drinking, mental anguish - obviously hasn't been legislated away by all these rules or insurance policies. Just look at the U of Alberta thread. If all this has been done and there are STILL groups hazing in that manner, it's not very effective IMO. It's completely failed to send a message or make the students understand why it's wrong.

Without looking at the actual rate of the occurrence of those incidents this is a very flawed statement. "It hasn't completely solved the problem so we should get rid of it completely" doesn't make much sense. You'd have to show that there's been no effect or an increase to incidents of hazing to effectively make this point.

As far as alcohol goes, most of the problems would be completely eradicated if states were given back their right to allow drinking (fully or partially) at age 18.

States can make that choice at any time. They choose not to in exchange for $$$$. They have 'their right' fully intact.

Also if you think lowering the drinking age would magically change the drinking culture in America, I think you're being rather short-sighted. Binge drinking is accepted as normal for college students of age or not. Making it legal gets around only the legal issues, not the health, safety, or hazing ones.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You'd need to know whether that happened prior to anti-hazing laws and in what frequency.

Considering I'm talking about the people who are in college now, umm, yeah, that would be AFTER the nonhazing laws.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

What things could my chapter, for example, have done that would have been considered 'hazing' yet would have actually made me a better member? Why do those activities actually mean that people learn shit about anything?

I have no idea what your chapter did, before or after you pledged, so how can I even answer that? I can only speak for my own org and say there is definitely less knowledge of history and policy than there used to be.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Without looking at the actual rate of the occurrence of those incidents this is a very flawed statement. "It hasn't completely solved the problem so we should get rid of it completely" doesn't make much sense. You'd have to show that there's been no effect or an increase to incidents of hazing to effectively make this point.

I didn't say to get rid of it. I said that AS WRITTEN, anti-hazing legislation hasn't been as effective as it should be, in exchange for what GLOs have had to give up. They need to say "X is wrong, Y is wrong" and give specific examples, not BS like "anything that causes physical or mental anguish." Hell, if I have a hemmerhoid, sitting in a chapter meeting for an hour & 1/2 is "physical anguish."

Originally Posted by Drolefille

States can make that choice at any time. They choose not to in exchange for $$$$. They have 'their right' fully intact.

Also if you think lowering the drinking age would magically change the drinking culture in America, I think you're being rather short-sighted. Binge drinking is accepted as normal for college students of age or not. Making it legal gets around only the legal issues, not the health, safety, or hazing ones.

Binge drinking is accepted as normal because that's all these students have ever known. Would it magically change in a year? No. Would it change over time? Yes. It took time to get where it is. When I was in college, 21 shots for your 21st birthday and drinking the amounts of hard alcohol current college students drink just wasn't normal. Nowadays it's a rite of passage. If those students had had time to drink like jackasses when they were younger (and often under their parents' roof) they might be a little saner about it when they came to college. Everyone is going to be stupid at first. Better to be stupid in an environment where you're going to get called on it rather than someplace where you're on your own to do whatever you want.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Considering I'm talking about the people who are in college now, umm, yeah, that would be AFTER the nonhazing laws.

The point was, you don't know whether the numbers of ignorant people have changed or not.

I have no idea what your chapter did, before or after you pledged, so how can I even answer that? I can only speak for my own org and say there is definitely less knowledge of history and policy than there used to be.

It was a hypothetical. Why can't you teach these things without hazing? How is it that some of us figure it out just fine?

I didn't say to get rid of it. I said that AS WRITTEN, anti-hazing legislation hasn't been as effective as it should be, in exchange for what GLOs have had to give up. They need to say "X is wrong, Y is wrong" and give specific examples, not BS like "anything that causes physical or mental anguish." Hell, if I have a hemmerhoid, sitting in a chapter meeting for an hour & 1/2 is "physical anguish."

I think the use of the word "anguish" is key. And that would fall under a medical excuse for chapter for most people. if you make specific examples - "no scavenger hunts"- people get around them by holding "go and find things" events. Every would-be hazer goes and looks to check if paddling with a paddle is prohibited, but using a shoe is OK!

Binge drinking is accepted as normal because that's all these students have ever known. Would it magically change in a year? No. Would it change over time? Yes. It took time to get where it is.

Why would it change 'back' to the way things were? How are you going to convince people to allowe 18 year olds to drink when you've acknowledged that it would not create an instant change, and in fact would probably make things worse, even if it was only temporary.

When I was in college, 21 shots for your 21st birthday and drinking the amounts of hard alcohol current college students drink just wasn't normal. Nowadays it's a rite of passage. If those students had had time to drink like jackasses when they were younger (and often under their parents' roof) they might be a little saner about it when they came to college. Everyone is going to be stupid at first. Better to be stupid in an environment where you're going to get called on it rather than someplace where you're on your own to do whatever you want.

I'd think the first night at college would turn into a rite of passage instead. (How ever did I make it through life without ever being drunk or being hazed or making any of these other rites of passage that are so 'important') Many of today's college students do drink like jackasses under their parents' roof and that really hasn't fixed the problem either. "Everyone" isn't stupid.

I think America's attitude toward's alcohol is fucked up, but lowering the drinking age won't magically solve the problem and it puts alcohol into high schools. (you know, legally, instead of illegally where it already exists).

[33girl]

A specific example would be "No physical contact: this includes paddling, hitting, shoving, pushing" and so forth. That's the POINT. You say what it actually is, not just the title of the thing.

Congratulations on making it through college on a plane above everyone else. Although that really doesn't answer any of the questions we are discussing.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

A specific example would be "No physical contact: this includes paddling, hitting, shoving, pushing" and so forth. That's the POINT. You say what it actually is, not just the title of the thing.

Congratulations on making it through college on a plane above everyone else. Although that really doesn't answer any of the questions we are discussing.

With your example you could not hug your sisters, nor shake hands, etc. There's no way to craft that kind of law, that's why courts exist in the first place. But you neglect to address the point about whether hazing (or 'hazing') actually creates members who know more, or just creates more hazers. Unless the NPC or NIC (or anyone) have done studies about member knowledge before and after hazing, none of us can really say whether it's hurt or helped or something in between. I challenge your assumption that somehow members know less now or would know more if they could be hazed. Frankly I think we'd just have fewer members and it wouldn't be the 'good ones' who stayed.

And as far as drinking goes -My point, you missed it. People treat hazing like a rite of passage too. "I did it, so you do it." But it's not necessary, no more so than 21 shots must be used to celebrate your 21st. But just as laws have not removed all hazing, legalizing drinking for all college students will not remove binge drinking.

You started by stating that states needed 'their rights' back, then backpedaled to "well they'd learn at home" and now you decided to make it about my sarcastic comment rather than "the questions we are discussing."

The assumption that every college student is going to be stupid is part of the problem. The expectation has been created, too many kids try to live up to it.

But again you neglected to respond to how precisely you'd sell lowering the drinking age when your own expected response would be increased stupidity until 'things change' at some unspecified future date. It's not happening, right? Same thing with hazing, you can't sell it that way either.

Why is it so difficult to just not haze? (It's not.) Even if some of the rules are annoying, or excessive for your individual chapter, it's not much different from following the speed limit because it's the limit. Just because you can drive 80 'safely' doesn't mean you should, or that the cops are going to be ok with it because they know you. Just because your chapter can 'handle' hazing behaviors without crossing the line doesn't mean you should.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.