NMs in letters.

[FleurGirl]

Originally Posted by aephi alum

I guess we haze too, as our new members aren't allowed to wear letters...

I guess I see where this might be percieved as hazing, although I don't really see it that way. We just always get bid day shirts with "Kappa Kappa Gamma" written out in script rather than getting our letters on them, and usually girls won't go out and buy letters until after they are initiated. Almost all of them get their first letter shirt from their big unless a family member or friend gets them for them if they're a legacy. If they do get letters before initiation we won't ask them not to wear them, but we just don't give them letter shirts until later. 99% of the time this results in NMs not wearing letters.

[33girl]

ChioLu did say "per OUR national HQ." If Chi O nationals want to classify that as hazing, they're more than welcome. They're not saying it is hazing for anyone else.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

ChioLu did say "per OUR national HQ." If Chi O nationals want to classify that as hazing, they're more than welcome. They're not saying it is hazing for anyone else.

No, I get that, but I have some trouble with it to be honest. On one hand, I'm all for the rule of look to what your state/campus/org define as hazing and follow that without worrying what other orgs say.

But on the other hand, I think that if an org prohibits something like NMs wearing letters because it's "hazing," the only logical conclusion is that, in that org's opinion, anyone else that follows a different path is allowing or, worse, mandating hazing. Hazing has become a foggy enough (and sometimes way overbroad) concept without adding this layer of confusion. It's really not too hard to see it playing out on a campus: "OMG, you don't let your NMs wear letters?! That's hazing!" We've seen it play out that way at GC.

I have absolutely no problem with an org saying "It is our policy to allow all NMs to wear letters from the moment they become NMs because we don't want differences between NMs and initiated members," just as I would hope no one would have a problem with my fraternity having the policy it does for us. But I don't think it's helpful when an org adds "because it's hazing," and I think that presents potential problems for other orgs.

My $0.02.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, I get that, but I have some trouble with it to be honest. On one hand, I'm all for the rule of look to what your state/campus/org define as hazing and follow that without worrying what other orgs say.

But on the other hand, I think that if an org prohibits something like NMs wearing letters because it's "hazing," the only logical conclusion is that, in that org's opinion, anyone else that follows a different path is allowing or, worse, mandating hazing. Hazing has become a foggy enough (and sometimes way overbroad) concept without adding this layer of confusion. It's really not too hard to see it playing out on a campus: "OMG, you don't let your NMs wear letters?! That's hazing!" We've seen it play out that way at GC.

I have absolutely no problem with an org saying "It is our policy to allow all NMs to wear letters from the moment they become NMs because we don't want differences between NMs and initiated members," just as I would hope no one would have a problem with my fraternity having the policy it does for us. But I don't think it's helpful when an org adds "because it's hazing," and I think that presents potential problems for other orgs.

My $0.02.

Right, if anything that differentiates NMs is hazing, does that mean new member meetings are hazing, too?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, I get that, but I have some trouble with it to be honest. On one hand, I'm all for the rule of look to what your state/campus/org define as hazing and follow that without worrying what other orgs say.

But on the other hand, I think that if an org prohibits something like NMs wearing letters because it's "hazing," the only logical conclusion is that, in that org's opinion, anyone else that follows a different path is allowing or, worse, mandating hazing. Hazing has become a foggy enough (and sometimes way overbroad) concept without adding this layer of confusion. It's really not too hard to see it playing out on a campus: "OMG, you don't let your NMs wear letters?! That's hazing!" We've seen it play out that way at GC.

I have absolutely no problem with an org saying "It is our policy to allow all NMs to wear letters from the moment they become NMs because we don't want differences between NMs and initiated members," just as I would hope no one would have a problem with my fraternity having the policy it does for us. But I don't think it's helpful when an org adds "because it's hazing," and I think that presents potential problems for other orgs.

My $0.02.

I'd rather agree that it should be clarified as 'hazing and activities that can lead to hazing' or something along those lines. The prohibition against wearing letters isn't necessarily hazing but can and has been used that way in the past so XYZ has banned it. Like scavenger hunts.

[Senusret I]

There is hazing.

And then are are pledging/intake violations. Or whatever your org may call it.

One is a crime. The other is a rule violation.

That's the way I see it.

[Splash]

Friend on another campus is a DZ and during the week they get their bigs, they got lettered shirts, so I would say DZ is allowed?

[katydidKD]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

There is hazing.

And then are are pledging/intake violations. Or whatever your org may call it.

One is a crime. The other is a rule violation.

That's the way I see it.

It's unfortunate that isn't the way everyone sees it (no sarcasm.) Would make a lot more sense if orgs could be hit with a pledging violation for things that aren't criminal, but also not acceptable (e.g., not letting NM's wear letters, which is hazing in my org).

[katydidKD]

Originally Posted by honeychile

So, with all the Never-Evers, what do you do with old items with your letters or crest on then? How do you stop something like this:

Oh my!!! I pass mine down, but ones that are damaged and unable to be passed down i cut up. I think i got that idea from working in retail (where you cut up damaged product) that way it doesnt wind up on someone.

[Splash]

Hahahaha that's hilarious and yes I would feel the same if it were my letters

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by katydidKD

retail (where you cut up damaged product) that way it doesnt wind up on someone.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Personally, I just don't care that much if a homeless person ends up in my letters instead of going without.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Personally, I just don't care that much if a homeless person ends up in my letters instead of going without.

That operates under the assumption that the options are either A) letters or B) without.

The issue isn't even about homeless people, specifically, but about nonmembers wearing letters. When people donate or sell letters to nonmember entities or throw letters away, anyone can get them.

As for homeless people, I have seen homeless people wearing NPHC sorority and fraternity letters and symbols. When able to do so, NPHCers sometimes give the people items to replace the NPHC letters and symbols.