[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.