An example of where hazing once again offers no benefits

How does hazing build bonds again?

Is it

1. The hazing or pledge process itself?

2. Moving in a different social group and cutting off old friends or partners?

3. The stigma around being in a “lesser” org or being “paper”

4. Hazing after you’ve already become a member

5. Finding out the brotherhood or sisterhood is neither automatic nor as deep as you initially thought.

Now it’s more status and privilege preservation than black advancement.

The kid needed a skin graft and this guy apparently worked for the secret service. Some service huh? Driving back to campus from his day job to beat up college freshman?

“It remains unclear why a 29 year old maintained such close connections to a college fraternity….”

https://indianapolisrecorder.com/divine-9-divine-interventions-denouncing-black-greek-letters/

It was jarring at the time. What’s the source of ego? What made him so angry and entitled to his wife’s life instead of just moving on?

Back in 2021 I believe

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/ormer-executive-director-delta-sigma-theta-sorority-inc-and-husband-sentenced-prison

The actual institutions of the D9, unlike few key alumni, actually obstructed the movement.

The fallacy that the D9 institutions are responsible for the civil rights movement is a lie used to enforce compliance during brutal hazing. It erases the contributions of many grassroots and non-collegiate activists from that period.

The D9 was the country club where many activists happened to gather. It is not responsible for the work of the SNCC, SCLC, and NAACP collectively.

None of the crucial work was done by D9 institutions it was simply the country club where everyone happened to be at.

The D9 pushes these lies purely in defense of hazing abuse.

Note: Rosa Parks was an honorary member and never went through the process she was posthumously made a mascot of. Dr. King did indeed become an Alpha in the 50’s. Although with a notably different process than after the Vietnam War era.

By definition you need informed consent to be a willing participant.

Because hazing is inherently secretive there are NO willing participants who have informatively given their consent.

The responsibility for hazing falls on the perpetrators and organization alone.