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

[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.

I don't know. I mean I know where they are coming from. I think hazing can go too far sometimes which I mean I understand why risk management has to be the way it is. Sometimes though you hear about others houses who let up a little and they seem fine. It's just such a tricky line it seems like to cross.

[NutBrnHair]

I don't think they go "too far," but the thing is, whatever the rules or policies are, they need to be enforced. Just having the written rule is no protection. They must be enforced.

[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?

[Wynter]

Sometimes we go overboard a little, yes. But there's a fine line between protection and overprotection...

[naraht]

True, but most of the time, if it is in the list of "Thou shalt not", then someone has done it and had it go wrong...

Though I do like it when things are expressed in positive terms. For example.
1) Run pledging like the editor of the school newspaper is at your events
2) Run initiation like your National President is there
3) Pledging should take as much time as one of the pledges classes.

[exlurker]

Allegations of hazing at Harvard by Greeks, final clubs, and other organizations:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...ns-at-harvard/

Moderately long article includes some mention of state laws, the policies of at least one GLO, and so on.

[pshsx1]

spam bump

[kateee]

On my campus, we were told we cannot use the nickname "Baby Hooties" because it is name calling and hazing, despite the fact that members in my new members class loved it and used it to refer to our class.

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by kateee

On my campus, we were told we cannot use the nickname "Baby Hooties" because it is name calling and hazing, despite the fact that members in my new members class loved it and used it to refer to our class.

There have been at least three (possibly more) statements/blog posts from different GLOs addressing why new members are not referred to as "baby _____". There's a thread somewhere around GC on this very topic.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AzTheta

There have been at least three (possibly more) statements/blog posts from different GLOs addressing why new members are not referred to as "baby _____". There's a thread somewhere around GC on this very topic.

Here you go: Stop the "Baby" Talk.

[sherrybaby]

I recognize that my experience isn't universal, but I've personally never met a collegian who had a problem with the "Baby" terms. In fact, I much more often hear older actives lament how much they miss being the "babies." I think the vast majority of this spurt of anti-baby sentiment is coming from older alumnae and advisors.

While I do think articles such as the one posted above are well thought out and well written, I have to say that I feel like my feelings about the issue are similar to the way many alumnae feel about the switch from "rush" and "pledge" to "recruitment" and "new member" - overly PC and fixing something that wasn't broken. I recognize I'm in the minority here, but I think it might have to do with my generation - many of us wear bows, dress up in footie pjs, and have no issues with other cutesy things that may be associated with youth.

"Baby thetas" was a term always used endearingly (though not condescendingly, or at least not overtly so) in the same way my older sister might call me her "baby sister" even though I'm 21. It merely meant someone new, someone to guide and mentor, someone to spoil rotten, and someone to teach what being a Theta was all about. My chapter follows our strict hazing guidelines to a T - no new member tests, scavenger hunts, or anything of the like. New members always know that we are a chapter that values them, their safety, and their happiness.

So now, when advisors came out with the no baby mandate, they've been completely ignored. Some actives changed their vocab for the few times we're around advisors, but absolutely no one sees the point of the change, and pretty much everyone finds it ridiculous. All of us still use the term. I feel like this resistance is going to be common when older and younger sorority members are so at odds on the issue.

PS. I promise my username is simply a nod to the song, and has nothing to do with this issue (:

[WhiteRose1912]

Originally Posted by sherrybaby

I recognize that my experience isn't universal, but I've personally never met a collegian who had a problem with the "Baby" terms. In fact, I much more often hear older actives lament how much they miss being the "babies." I think the vast majority of this spurt of anti-baby sentiment is coming from older alumnae and advisors.

When I was a pledge sister, I hated being called a baby penguin. I was 21 at the time and thought it was demeaning. Fortunately I never heard the initiated members refer to me like that--only some of my fellow pledge sisters.

That being said, I have never met anyone else who had a problem with it as a collegian.

[Sciencewoman]

"Baby" has been effectively nipped in the bud at the campus where I advise. A couple groups were starting to use it, and the Director of Greek Life made it a personal mission to eradicate the term. I'm not sure when the term came into use, but I don't like it. I saw bid day pictures of new members wearing pacifier necklaces a couple years ago, and I find that demeaning.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Sciencewoman

"Baby" has been effectively nipped in the bud at the campus where I advise. A couple groups were starting to use it, and the Director of Greek Life made it a personal mission to eradicate the term. I'm not sure when the term came into use, but I don't like it. I saw bid day pictures of new members wearing pacifier necklaces a couple years ago, and I find that demeaning.

This is another problem with it - the level that it's taken to sometimes. What was that one line used about the baby kittens (Thetas) running to their litter box? Yea... that's a little ridiculous.

I was never into "cutesy" things in college. If someone tried calling me a "baby" anything, I'd be completely turned off.

You're trying to attract new members.. not push them away.