[23136] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] definitions of hazing, etc
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Charles Brace)
Thu Nov 7 16:48:21 2002
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:48:17 -0500
Reply-To: Charles Brace <brace347@HOTMAIL.COM>
From: Charles Brace <brace347@HOTMAIL.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Brothers</P>
<P>I agree with Rashid in that the definition of hazing is rather "hazy" (pardon the pun). Unfortunately, any definition that is proffered is going to provide a grey area. I've spoken a few times on risk management and when asked a question on where the line is, i usually respond, if you question the appropriateness of the activity, then it's probably not a good idea to do it.</P>
<P>when it comes to pledging, we must remember that anything that we ask the pledges to do must (1) be related to the education of the pledge, (2) be related to the fraternity and its purpose, and (3) be an activity that an active brother would be voluntarily willing to participate in. I admit, that even this definition of an acceptable practice is open to a wide variety of problems. but it is a start.</P>
<P>i agree, for example, that branding has absolutely no part in a pledging process. It does not pass my three part test. i don't see how branding would be related to any education process, even a rigorous one. i also don't see how it is related to the purpose of the fratenrity (does a brand further either leadership, friendship, or service?). the only prong that could be satisfied is that the actives would be willing to do it (for example, a chapter where all of its brothers are branded is evidence -- although not conclusive evidence -- that the actives would be voluntarily willing to participate).</P>
<P>i think that the branding issue is one that is very clear. it is the practices that are in the "grey zone" that cause problems.....</P>
<P>let's take the scavenger hunt example.......</P>
<P>i am aware of a number of chapters that include scavenger hunts in their pledging process. however, i have yet to find one that i would consider hazing. scavenger hunts vary depending upon what is required of the pledges to find......for example, a hunt that i like the idea of is a "service scavenger hunt" -- where the pledges go out and do specific service projects. this type of hunt i think would easily pass my three prong test.....</P>
<P>a scavenger hunt that crosses the line would be one where the pledges are asked to do illegal tasks, or put themselves in harms way.</P>
<P>but what about a hunt that does not require illegal activity and is completely safe, but is just a hunt for random objects having nothing to do with the fraternity....basically, a hunt for the sake of a hunt. This would not pass my three part test because, while the brothers might be wiling to participate, it has nothing to do with the education and the purposes of the fraternity.</P>
<P>what i am trying to say is that there is a lot of grey area when it comes to pledging activities and hazing......it usually comes down to common sense.........unless we go to a standardized process previously suggested (which i DO NOT agree with) there will always be a grey area. -- i think that the individual qualities and programs that each chapter has makes our fraternity unique, it fosters new ideas and new ways to do things. if we were to go to a standard policy, it would take an act of convention to change the process. this effectively would create a stale process that is unable to change to meet the needs of the chapter and the pledge class</P>
<P>therefore, chapters should be permitted to make the pledging process as demanding or as easy as they choose (so long as they are not hazing).....a difficult process does not equal a hazing process......there are pros and cons to both a difficult and and easy process....each chapter must weigh these pros and cons to establish a program that suits that chapter.</P>
<P>finally, we should not attempt to judge another chapter's pledging process unless we know exactly what that other chapter does. we must also remember (and i know that this is very hard) that just because another chapter pledges differently doesn't mean that they are hazing. </P>
<P>if we want to learn from each other, and possibly improve our respective processes, we must be willing to listen to chapter's with different -- even radically different -- pledging programs. Eventually, you may disagree with another program, but the idea is that you disagree because that program would not work for your chapter.</P>
<P>hopefully i've provided some insight into the matters that have been coming across the listserve recently.</P>
<P>in LFS</P>
<P>--chuck brace</P>
<P>LD Coordinator, Section 89</P>
<P>Alum., Pi Chi Chapter (Duquesne Univ.)</P>
<P>Honorary, Phi Chapter (Syracuse Univ.)<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV>_______________________________________________________ </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Charles Brace, B.A., B.S.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV><A href="mailto:brace347@hotmail.com">brace347@hotmail.com</A>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Juris Doctor Candidate, Syracuse University </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Alpha Phi Omega, National Service Fraternity
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Section 89 -- Leadership Development Coordinator
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Pi Chi Chapter (Duquesne Univerity) -- SPC '97
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Phi Chapter (Syracuse University) -- Honorary -- S '02
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Add photos to your messages with <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMTEN/2021">MSN 8. </a> Get 2 months FREE*.</html>
