Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTess
As long as at least one definition of "hazing" is "making pledges do (or expecting pledges to do) something actives are not required to" the periods will get shorter and shorter. That's an easy solution to one facet, and organizations are, in general, open to easy solutions."
|
Is the above-stated definition really your organization's rules or is it folklore? As far as I know, basically everyone is reading from the FIPG definition for our official hazing definition. Do NPC groups go beyond that definition officially, or is it more a directive in that if you don't ask pledges to do something actives are not required to do, then you're probably okay?
I can appreciate something Sigma Nu has done with its new member program in creating meaningful programming for new members while trying to retain as much control over the candidate process as possible. Our new member program is available to new members online. That is where they complete their reading and submit feedback. We then have sessions facilitated by alumni and guest speakers about the various subjects in our program. I think our HQ has made a decent attempt at trying to retain some meaningful new member programming while trying to also retain control over the subject matter of that programming.
Quote:
When you can require a pledge to learn something; when you can expect her to show her willingness to contribute as well as to receive; when you can expect her to make an effort to get to know something about her sisters, and show something fo herself in the process, you can make better decisions about women you're bonding yourself to for life.
Today's over-reaction to "Oh, no, someone might consider that hazing" has significantly contributed to this. Deferred rush can help, by giving initiated women longer to observe character prior to rush activities, but organizations lose money with deferred rush.
|
Right. This policy, if it exists, reminds me a lot of the 'zero tolerance' business we see in our school systems from time to time where the governing body seems incapable of considering that there are degrees of things. Asking a new member to take a test over local and national history is not the same as lineups involving circling the fat, forced drinking and forced calisthenics--and those things should be seen as different.
It would really amaze me if things were as zero tolerance as I believe some think they are as I have found the capabilities, resources and expertise of my NPC counterparts I've dealt with in my years as an alumnus volunteer to be far beyond anything we have ever dreamed of having. That said, considering that level of competence, I can't see why it would be the case, if it is the case, that your respective HQs would place so little value on their alumnae volunteers when it comes to allowing quality and meaningful programming for new members while being able to still avoid true RM problem areas.
