hazing

So the school defines "hazing" as "the moment group leaders do not participate in an activity with new members." This should have been made more clear and well-known on campus. I for one had no idea.

Here I thought the definition of hazing had something to do with "intimidation and emotional abuse," "[p]sychological torment and coercion," and the fact that "[b]oth the perpetrators and victims of hazing are damaged by the process."

I don't buy their slippery slope argument. You might be able to slip into serious hazing starting from minor hazing (some torment/coercion), but to argue a slippery slope from technical "hazing" without any torment/coercion/damage at all is a bit of the stretch.

Perhaps now that students know the college's technical definition of "hazing," groups can avoid accusation of "hazing" on technicality.

[edit]
Since the school's broad (and vague) definition of hazing covers basically every group on campus, the enforcement of the hazing rule can (and necessarily) become arbitrary.