Hazing creates a sense of unity

[Kevin]

There have been members here who have expressed their opinions that the hazing in their chapters brought their chapters and their pledge classes together.

It is said that hazing keeps pledge classes together (a higher ratio of pledges become initiates). Is this usually the case? Was this your experience?

It is said that hazing teaches respect. If you were hazed, was this your experience? If not, did you learn respect in some other way?

If you participated in any group that hazed, what benefits did you see? What disadvantages?

[LPIDelta]

I was hazed and it did not make me respect the actives or my fellow new members--in fact, a majority of my class resented the way the actives treated us, dividing the entire organization, even after we were initiated.

Maybe it is different for men. I have come to believe that there are ways to accomplish unity and respect without fear or other less positive tactics. Genuine respect is earned--it cannot be created artifically. True unity comes about from mutual respect and learning about one another.

[KatieKate1244]

I wasn't hazed, but I know of other groups that have hazed both on my campus and on other ones. For the most part, I've seen hazing bring those groups together. However, I've also seen it the other way around. One group that comes to mind has lost a considerable amount of pledges due to hazing.

I guess it all comes down to the personality of the group. One group took it very seriously, and another group, while they did it, didn't care if you didn't want to do whatever.

I have come to believe that there are ways to accomplish unity and respect without fear or other less positive tactics. Genuine respect is earned--it cannot be created artifically. True unity comes about from mutual respect and learning about one another

That's absolutely correct. While hazing may be fun (to some), and may bring people togehter, I do think it causes more damage than good.

[Tom Earp]

An Excellent Point!

We as a Chapter of LXA recently been rebuilding as some may know from other Posts.

We have and were the first to decide that Hazing was not allowed. This was at A General Assembly that was decided By The Brothers who were Delegates.



As I mentioned above, the Re-Building Of My Chapter and The Recruitment hinged on this fact.

During Recruitment, We accepted some New Associates who were "Pledges" of other GLOs on campus. They left those GLOs for Hazing and came to us.

I have ment many of these Young Men and they are outstanding and I am Proud to say, They Will Become Brothers of LXA Ap. 8th.

Hazing today is Passe' and should be.

If We Associate a Member, then We should feel and treat them as We would want to be treated.


I am sorry, but if anyone feels that way of Hazing, I would never want to be a Member of Your Organization.

[UKTriDelt]

I'll start off by letting everyone know that my chapter in NO way hazes. I don't know of any sororities that do haze, but I know men that have been hazed (not necessarily at UK) and I speak from what I know about them.

A positive that I see coming out from hazing is that it really separates out those who really want to be there from those who are in it for the wrong reasons. The things that they went through were worth it for the ones that wanted to be in the fraternity, and gave them something to laugh about later on.

[Kevin]

Do you think that hazing is becoming frowned upon more because it's culturally obsolute or because it's too expensive in terms of insurance, lawsuits, etc. for our respective organizations to allow it to continue?

It doesn't seem like many organizations placed a very high priority on hazing when it was at its zenith 20+ years ago. I don't mean to be cynical, but could it be that the only reason we're even talking about this has nothing to do with the human tragedy, the danger, etc. and everything to do with the financial survival or our respective institutions?

[Texan85]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Do you think that hazing is becoming frowned upon more because it's culturally obsolute or because it's too expensive in terms of insurance, lawsuits, etc. for our respective organizations to allow it to continue?

It doesn't seem like many organizations placed a very high priority on hazing when it was at its zenith 20+ years ago. I don't mean to be cynical, but could it be that the only reason we're even talking about this has nothing to do with the human tragedy, the danger, etc. and everything to do with the financial survival or our respective institutions?

If I had to pick, it would be the latter. I think that because of all of the no hazing policies by GHQ, and by the campus that you are at makes it an unfavorable practice.

Second to that I have been told hazing comes from post WWII and the marines and soldiers coming back on the GI Bill, so I think its starting to take root in the new milenium that it is just an archaic practice.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Texan85

Second to that I have been told hazing comes from post WWII and the marines and soldiers coming back on the GI Bill, so I think its starting to take root in the new milenium that it is just an archaic practice.

That certainly contributed to a new rise in hazing, but hazing has been around a lot longer than that.

[Tom Earp]

I beleive hazing was in practice from the inseption of GLOs and is not based on the men/women who returned from WWII. They had seen enough hurt/blood shed and I am sure were not up to having to be hazed by a group of kids who did not fight in this war.

I know that at the two schools I attended, the men on GI Bill help build dorms at one school and the stadium at the other one. Doesn't sound like hazing would come from them.

When West Point was founded, the new plebes had to ride cannon barrels with a team of horses running with the cassions.

Beating, making a new member drink in excess is a way to make a stronger member of any GLO would steer me away from them.

I do not think I would find any glee in those or any other forms of degredation appealing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Texan85

Second to that I have been told hazing comes from post WWII and the marines and soldiers coming back on the GI Bill, so I think its starting to take root in the new milenium that it is just an archaic practice.

I doubt that.

Go to your next convention and ask one of the grey-hairs that question. I don't know one way or the other, but I would have to assume that hazing has been around a long, long time.

My fraternity was founded in 1869, essentially in response to (and against) the hazing and other morally objectionable practices which were being perpetrated by the forerunner organization of ATO. Hazing was alive and well in 1869. It has deep roots in the american educational system. I have no reason to believe it slackened off on its own between 1869 and WWII.

[Tom Earp]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Do you think that hazing is becoming frowned upon more because it's culturally obsolute or because it's too expensive in terms of insurance, lawsuits, etc. for our respective organizations to allow it to continue?

It doesn't seem like many organizations placed a very high priority on hazing when it was at its zenith 20+ years ago. I don't mean to be cynical, but could it be that the only reason we're even talking about this has nothing to do with the human tragedy, the danger, etc. and everything to do with the financial survival or our respective institutions?

As I Posted above and In answer to Your further Questions, it is a combonation of Both!

Who wants to Be Harrassed/Hazed. and who wants Isurance to go Up?


One Word=Idiots is all I have to say!

[Beryana]

Originally posted by Heather17
I was hazed and it did not make me respect the actives or my fellow new members--in fact, a majority of my class resented the way the actives treated us, dividing the entire organization, even after we were initiated.

As I am from the same local and pledge class as Heather, I just wanted to add that the hazing also did not bring us any closer together as new members or with the actives. In some instances there was almost a hostility towards some of us by the actives about some things - or all of us with regards to the school tradition of other groups kidnapping the various pledge classes. Some of the hazing was still within the school's regulations ('pledging hours' if you will).

Hopefully things on campus have changed in the past 12 years - especially since there is now a college panhellenic.

Sarah

[LPIDelta]

Originally posted by ktsnake
I don't mean to be cynical, but could it be that the only reason we're even talking about this has nothing to do with the human tragedy, the danger, etc. and everything to do with the financial survival or our respective institutions?

That is cynical and I find it almost disturbing that anyone would argue that we only care about treating other people with dignity because of the liability or financial concerns.

I'm curious--Isn't one instance of someone getting hurt, or humiliated, or killed, enough to take action without regard to legal ramifications? Liability is not my major concern with hazing--making everyone feel welcome in my organization and treating people with dignity is. I would hope others feel the same way.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Heather17
I'm curious--Isn't one instance of someone getting hurt, or humiliated, or killed, enough to take action without regard to legal ramifications? Liability is not my major concern with hazing--making everyone feel welcome in my organization and treating people with dignity is. I would hope others feel the same way.

Well, I'm sure it would be by today's standards. Do you think we made it through the 60's without killing any pledges?

I doubt it.

We made it through those days, yet anti-hazing policies didn't start really popping up until sometime in the 80's (maybe late 70's).

Anti-hazing laws didn't come about until much later (someone correct me if I'm factually mistaken).

(ETA: I'm in NO WAY promoting hazing, I'm simply trying to spark a decent discussion).

[AGDee]

I took a young man to the ER after his skull was cracked open on a car doorjamb during his Hell Week in 1985. He had been triple blind folded, driven in a car for hours on end while being forced to do shots every few minutes. When he was told to get out of the car, he was slow and uncoordinated because he was so drunk, so an active brother yanked him out of the car by the rope around his neck (which held a pillow case on) roughly. The next morning, when he woke up, his roommate came and got me because he was bleeding out of his ear. He never regained full hearing. It caused a huge rift in his fraternity because he was treated so badly by some of the brothers. He went through with his initiation (I don't think I would have), but he never ended up feeling comfortable there and pretty much stopped being active after his big brother graduated, about a year after he was initiated. I don't think that situation created any unity.

Same fraternity, the next semester. Instead of blind folding the guys, they made them do shots in a line up and threw food at them if they didn't answer questions correctly. One of them was hit in the eye with a piece of egg shell which pierced his eye. He was permanently blinded in that eye. He chose not to initiate. This incident also caused a huge rift among the brothers. Was this man not dedicated because he didn't want to be part of a fraternity that permanently injured him?

While it is true that people who experience a trauma together often feel united (as I feel especially close to the co-workers who watched 9-11 unfolding with me), that is not the only way to build unity, nor is it the best way.

I could never respect someone who treated me poorly. As an earlier poster said, respect is earned by giving respect, not by intimidating someone into respecting you. That is fear, not respect. It is bullying. It builds resentment and it makes people want to hurt someone else as they have been hurt.