Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
