I cannot speak for your Delta Zeta friend, but wearing my letters has, from the day I pledged, been special to me. Time and experience has made them only more so. My badge, and my crest, are the symbols which I could not wear until initiation, but they don't "prove" my love and devotion to my sorority. That is shown by my support and activity within Gamma Phi, as a pledge, as an active, and today, as an almost 25 yr. alumna.

I fully support any GLO's policies, whether or not they make sense to me, so please understand that I am not advocating that anyone is wrong, or should change.

I am simply approaching this from a logical standpoint. It still seems to me that hairs are being split - Whether or not "Alpha", for example, is written as a Greek letter or the English version, both stand for an element of the name of the group. Most, if not all, groups use the letters themselves because they are the first letter of a secret motto or meaning. So I still don't see why the Greek letters are any more representative of the secret-not-known-until-initiation meaning than the English version - both represent the beginning letter of a word that is not revealed until the member is fully initiated. And then there's FIJI - but that's taking it to an extreme.

Ultimately though, it's like I tell my darling children sometimes - "Because I'm the mom, and I say so!". If your GLO wants the letters reserved for initiated members, then they should be. I do think chapters should follow the national policy.

I'll agree that each GLO should do things the way they see fit, whether it makes sense to me or not.

But, with all the humility I can muster ;), might I suggest that your approach is not a purely logical one, but rather one starting with the ethos of your own organization and using logic to apply that ethos to other organizations, whether the other organizations actually share that ethos or not. You say "I still don't see why the Greek letters are any more representative of the secret-not-known-until-initiation meaning than the English version." But just because you don't see why they are "more representative" of the esoteric teachings of an org doesn't mean that other orgs shouldn't (or can't) reasonably see them as "more representative."

To use my own organization as an example: We were founded in 1898. Our name was The Sinfonia Fraternity, not Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia Fraternity. We began using the Greek letters as early as 1900; by 1910, they had been added to our badge and appeared on our coat-of-arms (as part of the badge in the center of the shield). It was common from early days to sign letters "Fraternally yours, in F, M, A." (Notice the commas that were usually, though not always, included.) Used this way, the letters were taken to refer to what they represent, not necessarily to the Fraternity as such. Although the Fraternity had been informally referred to as "Phi Mu Alpha" for decades, the name was not officially changed until 1946. (Sinfonia remains the accepts "short form" name -- our equivalent of "Gamma Phi," if you will.) We have never referred to brothers as "Phi Mu Alphas," but rather always as Sinfonians; we often, however, refer to "brothers in FMA," again referring as much if not more to what the letters represent as to the Fraternity as such.

Also, because our name includes an English (derived from Greek) word -- "Sinfonia" -- as well as the Greek letters, we almost always write the name of the Fraternity in English. While brothers may use the Greek letters as identifiers on shirts, houses, objects, etc., I've rarely seen the name of the Fraternity written as "FMA Sinfonia." (Yes, I used to have it that way in my sig, although again not so much for the name per se as for what each letter or word means. One of the reasons I got rid of that sig was because it never looked right to me.)

So we do have a history and tradition where the Greek letters are, to us, more representative of what they stand for than the English spelling of the letters. I wouldn't be surprised if Phi Mu (for many years The Philomathean Society) has a similar historical understanding.

And as much as I swore I never would, I use "'Cause I'm the dad" on my kids way too often. :D

ETA: FWIW, the policy that only initiated brothers can wear the Greek letters is not just a policy promulgated by our HQ or followed by some chapters; it's contained in Article XXI, section 4, of our national constitution: "Only Sinfonians in good standing may wear or otherwise display the Greek letters 'ΦΜΑ' or the Fraternity’s Coat-of-Arms. Probationary members may not wear or otherwise display these symbols at any time prior to initiation. A member may not authorize or encourage a non-Sinfonian to wear or otherwise display these symbols."

When I pledged AXiD in 1990, we were not allowed to wear letters. We were given a pledge shirt, which had ALPHA XI DELTA spelled out, with LAMDBA (pledge class) underneath it.

For those of you who know my story, we pledged for three months, to be initated the beginning of the next semester (for grades). Well, one week prior to finals, I became sick and had to head home early. I ended up missing out on a few things and ended up not initiating with my class.

Shoot ahead to this past March, when I was initiated via AI into my home chapter (LOVE MY EPSILON NU GALS!). Initiation was especially poingnant for me, because I learned things that meant something so much more than I could have ever understood. I realized that the person who I am, who I have always been, was already so much of who an Alpha Xi Delta woman is and attains to be. It felt so right. I can't explain it any better that that.

After initiation, the collegiates presented me with hand-stitched letters, my first set. They made me put it on over my dress, and took pictures. You cannot imagine what it felt like to wear my letters, so many years later. It's a feeling that I imagine will never lose its novelty.

There is so much confusion on this. Here is an example.

My chapter had a tradition of not allowing new members to wear letters. It wasn't strictly enforced. If a NM went out and bought items with the sorority letters on it, we didn't confiscate it from her or anything. Well, maybe some people in the chapter would have wanted us to or said something to the NM but officially we didn't take any action on that. Basically, our tradition was that during the NM period, no sorority shirts with the letters would be made. We just used the spelled out "Pi Beta Phi" (again, doesn't make a whole ton of sense to me logically either, but whatever). So getting your first letter tshirt and your lavaliere from your big sister was a big deal in my chapter.

Somehow this came up when a consultant came through and she got tense and told us this was NOT Pi Phi policy. She said we could still do the informal traditions of only spelling out the letters, as long as the NM and initiated member tshirts were all the same (they were). So really the only change that came from her visit was the chapter got even less concerned about NMs buying lettered stuff on their own, which given Pi Phi policy was a good thing.

Then, my senior year, we got a new AAC Chair (head advisor). The Chair was new to advising. Let me say that she was GREAT and I loved having her around and we were lucky to get her. But, her chapter as an undergrad had had a VERY strict policy that NMs should not wear letters. OK, so one of the duties of the AAC Chair in Pi Phi is that they conduct NM interviews prior to initiation (I don't think that's giving away too much). During the interviews, a few of the NMs were wearing stitched letter tshirts. The advisor was discreet, but she came to the officers afterwards (I was president at this point) and confronted us about the NMs wearing letters, this was a violation of policy, etc. We had to explain to her that this was NOT a violation and in fact telling them they couldn't wear letters was a violation. Her first reaction was disbelief. Her second reaction, once we convinced her that we were right (it took a while) was "That's stupid." Which is an opinion she's entitled to. But it just demonstrates how much confusion and disagreement there can be even within one chapter about A) what policy is B) what the ideal policy should be.

Re: the comments about most NPC chapters allowing NMs to wear letters and not crests, I've never heard this before. Can anyone provide some evidence for this on a NPC-wide basis? In my view, I can't really see what the difference would be, from a "treating NMs differently is hazing" perspective, between letters and crests. Also, I don't really see NMs jumping at the opportunity to wear tshirts with their crests. Because most people on a college campus would not immediately recognize what the heck their crest even is. But... I'm willing to be convinced of this fact. I've never heard such a thing for Pi Phi.

Our rationale is that the crest as a whole is only fully understood after you go through the initiation ceremony. Whereas our letters have an open meaning (Aspire, Seek, Attain) that anyone can see anywhere. I would assume AST (Active, Self-Reliant, Trustworthy) is the same way.*

And as far as crests are concerned, they used to be a lot more popular when people were still getting screen printed sweatshirts in general. The crest sweatshirts now - at least the ones I've seen - cost SO much for the stitched ones and I think that's why a lot of people don't wear them.

*ETA: I am only speaking for my group as to why wearing letters as a pledge would be OK. I absolutely would not and do not presume to say that any other group should do the same, as I don't know what their letters mean or if they have an open motto that corresponds directly to them. My reason for using the AST example is 1) they were on my campus 2) they used their open motto frequently 3) the open mottos (AST's and ASA's) have the same initials in English as they do in Greek.

I looked briefly, and I am not able to find anything written as of now that says “new members can wear letters”. But why does something have to be written to be understood? Do you need someone to write down that you should take a shower in the morning? No. You just do it, because that’s what should be done.

So… while there is no clear definition concerning this, I will try and explain my take on this.

First of all, our hazing policy mentions 3 categories of hazing. The second 2 discuss harassment and emotional and physical harm. But the first one reads:

• Subtle/evasive – actions which violate the values, purposes, and ideals of Alpha Sigma Tau.

It goes on to read:

The senseless act of hazing not only creates liability risk for the chapter and the entire sorority, but also hinders the development of friendships that are the basis of sisterhood.

How do you help your new members develop friendships with the group if they are not allowed to be visibly associated with it?

As breathesgelatin said, who wears the crest on their t-shirts? Nobody, really. But the crest is a special symbol that represents the ideals of your organization in a way that only initiated members can fully understand. Same with the initiated member badge. These are things that are acquired with the completion of a new member program. But your letters define you as a member of the organization, whether you’re a brother/sister or a new member who just went through their first ceremony. The actual letters on a page mean very little. If you were to see the letter “alpha” or “A”, it would be very insignificant. Even a few of them together… AST. In theory, these letters mean something to me. But to other people, they may be just 3 random letters together. Essentially, your letters simply identify you as part of one organization as opposed to another. They "name" your organization. But look at your crest. Anyone can see that there are symbols and words that most likely have meaning, but obviously only to those to whom they have been explained.

I mean, how do you create a new Greek organization? What is the first thing people do? Or at least the easiest thing they do? They chose letters. There is no process to it, except figuring out which sets of letters have already been taken. And then you put those letters on a t-shirt. It’s not hard. It means very little if you have nothing to back it up.

As 33girl said, like ASA (and many other Greek organizations), AST has an open motto. "Active, Self-Reliant, Trustworthy". And I hope our new members would know and understand this and display these personality traits. (I mean, this is the first thing we teach them!) This motto is the meaning of our letters, and anyone, including non-Greeks, can know that. And if they didn’t display these characteristics, they wouldn’t have become new members in the first place.

The point of being in a brotherhood/sisterhood is to welcome new members, to make new friends, and to form life-long connections. It’s not to make people feel like outsiders by denying them something as basic as wearing the letters that associate them with that organization.

By participating in activities associated with the organization. If wearing a shirt/jacket/etc is the only way that a person can build a connection with my GLO, I don't want him in.

All organizations don't have open meanings for their letters. So, just like with the crest, there is a special meaning behind the letters that only full members would know and understand.

You're speaking from the perspective of being a member of your organization, and that's fine as far as your organization goes. But you're new here. If there's one lesson to be learned above all others at GC, it's that all GLOs, despite their many similarities, are different. What may be true of your organization is not necessarily true of other orgs.

Two examples: You say, "But your letters define you as a member of the organization, whether you’re a brother/sister or a new member who just went through their first ceremony." That's may be true of your org, but it's not true of mine. In mine, our letters identify us as initiated brothers. Again, you have to remember that the idea that "new members" are equal to initiated members in most every way except having gone through initiation is common in the NPC now, but it is not common outside the NPC.

Also, I can assure you that my letters mean a great deal to me, and much more than "in theory" or as "letters on a page." My letters do not represent an open motto as is the case in some orgs. (Though take a look at Fiji, where the letters do represent an open motto and yet there are very strict guidelines on how the letters can be displayed.) We do not know what they mean until initiation. I'm not saying that your letters don't mean a great deal to you, but the idea that the letters "simply identify" us as part of one organization rather than another is completely foreign to our understanding of our letters. In fact, we would stress exactly the opposite -- that our letters don't just identify the group we belong to but signify something much deeper.

We do not make probationary members feel like outsiders by not allowing them to wear our letters, but we also do not act like they are brothers yet when they are not. It's fine by me that your sorority allows its new members to wear letters, but it is pretty presumptuous of you to assume that anyone who does things differently is wrong.

^^^ Great post.

Well said!!!!! http://www.pushupstairs.com/images/e...xtra3/appl.gifhttp://www.pushupstairs.com/images/e...xtra3/appl.gifhttp://www.pushupstairs.com/images/e...xtra3/appl.gifhttp://www.pushupstairs.com/images/e...xtra3/appl.gifhttp://www.pushupstairs.com/images/e...xtra3/appl.gif

I never said that my organization is the same as all the rest. breathesgelatin had said that they heard most NPC chapters allow new members to wear letters and not crests, and was apparently confused by this. She wanted evidence of it. She asked what the difference would be in not allowing the new members to wear the crest, but allowing them to wear letters. So I attempted, without any written evidence, to explain that based on my organizations rules, policies, and procedures.

And when I say that your letters identify you as part of an organization… that’s to say… the Greek letters are just that… letters. When you create an Greek organization, you put together 2 or 3 of those letters, and they mean very little when there’s nothing to back them up. Now, clearly a hundred years of history, at least in AST’s case, gives more meaning to those 3 letters. But to someone who isn’t part of my organization, even other Greeks, it’s essentially meaningless.

And in agreeing with 33girl, similar to ASA, we have an open motto that we expect our new members to embrace. I never said that every org has one and that’s what their letters stand for.

But like other orgs, we have meanings to our letters that we learn after initiation, but we feel that our new members reflect the sorority as much as initiated members do, and therefore, can wear letters. It's AST’s view that when you go through your first ceremony to become a new member, you’re a part of the sisterhood, and that entitles you to wear them. This is what we do to begin to integrate our new members into our organization. And when they're intiated, like I said, they can also wear the crest.

Everyone talks about their own organizations on here. Is this suddenly not allowed?

We all love to talk about our orgs. Just understand that if you do so in the context of a continuing discussion of many GLOs your comments may in turn be commented on - and try not to take things personally. :)

You missed the point. We weren't trying to tell you not to talk about your organization. The issue is that you're coming off as a "If you don't do it the way my sorority does it, it's WRONG!" kind of person.


Again, maybe that's the way YOUR sorority's letters were chosen, but you are not the official rep of Greek life. This may not be the case for everyone.

So if I decided to walk around wearing AST letters, would that be OK? Since I'm someone who's not part of your organization?

Well, sorry if that's how I came off. Not my intention at all.

And you're missing my point about the actual letters, and choosing them, and needing history to make them important... so I'm not going to attempt to explain that further

And by saying that my letters are "meaningless" to other people, is to say that they don't know anything about my organization. My letters mean little to you because you're not part of my organization. Just like yours mean little to me. Do I understand that your letters are important to you and that they mean something, yes. Because I'm part of a Greek organization I understand that. But I couldn't tell you one thing about your organization, so when I look at them, all they are is printing on a shirt. And that's not insulting your organization, that's simply your take on why a new member can't wear letters.

Of course it's allowed. It's encouraged and welcome. But look at what you said:
If you had said something like, "our letters define us as members whether one is a sister or not," it would be clear you're talking about your organization. But when you say "your letters . . . whether you're a brother or not," I'm not going to interpret your comments as limited to AST. Likewise with this:
If you just mean your organization, then don't phrase it like you're talking about GLOs in general.

Then there was this:
If you're talking about AST's approach to integrating new members, then why mention "the point of being in a brotherhood"?

This is why your post came across to me (and, I think, others) as a commentary on GLOs in general, and why it came across as suggesting that GLOs that do things differently from the way you describe are, for lack of a better word, "wrong."

No, I get what you're trying to say. While this may have been the case with several organizations, it's not wise to assume that this is the way all organizations do it. Unless you're a founder yourself, you really don't know what went into choosing letters.

That's not where I was going with that. Like MysticCat's organization, wearing letters is something reserved for brothers of my organization. If you don't know the history of my organization and the meaning/significance of our symbols and ritual, you are not a brother. Therefore, you can't wear letters.

For my local organization at the time I was in college (I don't know how much they may have changed policy in the time since I graduated - I keep in contact with them but not in regards to things like this) we were not allowed to wear or display letters until after initiation. Not because we hadn't earned them. But because until initiation we weren't considered members. Only members of the sorority could wear letters, and we were still considered to be, for lack of a better term, aspiring members. At least, that is how I interpreted it.

When the more PC terms came about, we struggled quite a bit with what to call our pledges, because we didn't like the term 'new member' as that didn't embody what our pledges were. They weren't new members, not yet. To us, new members were those sisters who had most recently been initiated, not those ladies who had most recently received bids.

At one point when it came up for discussion about wearing letters, we decided to allow Taus (pledges) to wear the recruitment shirt for the recruitment that they joined under. They participated in that recruitment, so it seemed fair to acknowledge their participation. I'm not sure how logical that may seem to others, but it worked for us.

I thought I would toss in the example as yet another reason to withhold letters until after initiation, one which has absolutely nothing to do with hazing.

I am a Delta Zeta at Shepherd University. The sorority cannot say we are not allowed to wear letters , but out of respect we did not wear them until we were initiated. It can be considered hazing to tell members they are not alllowed the letters,

:rolleyes: not at you but at the broad definition of hazing.

For real!

I don't care what hazing law says. If you're not a member of my organization, you're not wearing my letters.

And THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is where the real issue comes in. In NPCs, it is a generally accepted rule that new girls are new MEMBERS. Members is the key word in that sentence. In other organizations, this is not true - your pledges or aspirants or whatever the heck you call them are NOT members.

If someone doesn't know the full scope of your (general you) organization and what everything means, I don't see how they can be viewed as members. Giving someone the perks of being in your organization when they don't understand it is a bit odd.

Not wrong, just different.

I think it all depends on how you define "member". There are stages of membership in many GLOs. Some define some of the stages as non-member stages, some don't. NPCs consider their "pledges" as members from day one - other GLOs don't consider their "pledges" as members at all, but as aspiring members.

I think it is a bit odd to have someone who is sort of a member, but not really - it's kind of like being a "little" pregnant. To me, you either are or are not. You don't "know" what you know about the baby at 8 months when you are only 6 weeks along, but at both stages, you are pregnant.

The ole "different strokes" cliche.:)

Right. That's what fantASTic was saying. I get it, but it's different.

LOL @ being a little pregnant. I was thinking of it like an engagement/marriage. Yes, there's obviously a bond there if you're married. Yes, you can try to behave like you're married. But you don't get the "perks" of marriage and can't really say you've experienced "married life" until you're actually married.

ETA:

They're not sort of members -- just non-members ;)

Soooo - I'm a non-member, too. How are they different then me - They are aspiring members? Seriously, what do you call them?

That's exactly the point I was trying to make in my post *about my local organization TLS*, why we never used the 'new member' terminology when the word 'pledge' was dropped *at the time I was in college*. In a way they were still potential new members, even though they had been given a bid. Potential members, prospective members, aspiring members, etc. But not members, and therefore not 'new' members.

ETA - in our case, after we stopped calling them pledges, we called them Taus.

*Edited again to specify the organization and the time frame, since as I mentioned in the first post I do not know what the exact current policy is.

You might want to specify ( again - I know you did in your original post) that you are not referring to Gamma Phi Beta, which does indeed refer to what were "pledges" as "new members"(www.gammaphibeta.org) , but to Tau Lamda.

We call them aspirants.

Sorry, I should have specified again so there wouldn't be confusion. :o Definitely I was only referring to TLS, since that is the organization that I had first hand knowledge of in college.

I was confused at first, then went back and re-read your previous post - it was clear to me, but since you list Gamma Phi first in your signature . . . :)

So to tally up based on my question:

NPCs that allow new members to wear letters but not the crest (or maybe it would be better to say display the crest):

AEPhi
ASA
AST

Ones that allow letters and crest:

Pi Phi (never heard anything differently anyway)

Anyone else want to contribute to this list? I had never heard about the letters-not-crest thing and find it fascinating.

I know D Phi E at least at my campus lets their pledges wear letters.

Only initiated Kappa Deltas may wear the crest. This is because our badge is the center of our crest, and only initiated members may wear the badge.

Here's where I'm intrigued. If, as has been said in this thread, new members are members and, therefore, can wear letters, why can't they wear the badge or crest? Isn't that hazing too?

Many GLOs use the badge and crest as the symbol of a member who has gone through initiation. Therefore, a member who has not gone through initiation cannot wear them.
As an analogy, only Boy and Girl Scouts who have completed the requirements to earn certain badges or awards may wear them. All members may wear the uniform - only those who have gone through, for example, the Eagle Scout or Gold Award ceremonies may wear those symbols on their uniforms.

Exactly.

LOL at a little bit pregnant. But here's why I'm not sure that analogy fits, at least for some groups.

There is a corrollary to fantASTic's observation that the crux is whether the new girls and guys are considered members or not. That corrollary is this: As has been observed in other threads, for those orgs who consider the new kids "members," it is generally assumed that, barring something drastic or their own choice to disaffiliate, they will be initiated. In other words, the decision to offer them a bid is essentially the decision to initiate them down the road.

Conversely, in many if not most of the groups that do not consider the new kids "members" (or full members), the decision to offer a bid is simply that -- the decision to pledge someone. Toward the end of the pledge period (or whatever it may be called), there is another vote on whether to initiate. Granted, bids may usually be offered with the assumption that everyone who pledges will make it to initiation (although some GCers have said that's not the case with their groups), but the point is that the organization reserves the right, after observing the pledge during the pledge period and getting to know him better, to say "Sorry, but we're not going to initiate you" or "Sorry, but you need to wait until the next go-around for initiation."

We use the term "probationary members" for that reason. We offer a bid and pledge a guy (we still use the term pledge as a verb) because we believe we see in him what we're looking for to be part of our chapter, and we pledge him with the expectation that he will be initiated. But until the end of the probationary member period, when the chapter votes to initiate him and then actually does initiate him, he is only a provisional member.

And SWTXBelle, I'll refrain from commenting too much on your Boy and Girls Scout analagy, where Scouts have to earn the right to wear certain insignia. :p:D

It's the other way around, for AEPhi. Our new members cannot wear letters (per national policy) but our new member pin is the crest with the Greek letters removed.

I know, I know. I debated with myself about using it - but you'll note that I didn't use the dreaded "earn". Let me just say (as you know, MC) there is more to the Scouting awards than just fulfilling requirements a, b and c. Those awards are honours in that you also have to have recommendations (I've written quite a few for both Gold Award and Eagle Scouts!) and demonstrate a certain level of character that is hard to measure objectively.

I'd argue that it's the same for many GLO memberships. I steer clear of the word "earn" because it, right or wrongly, suggests hazing. But there are requirements which have to be met - usually a new member education program, a minimum g.p.a., and the subjective character issue. The crest and badge are the outward and visible sign (of an inward and spiritual grace - whoops. wrong org!) of having met the requirements to considered a fully initiated member.

Actually, that suggests an even better analogy. In many Christian churches, you are considered a member upon baptism. It is not until you have gone through a confirmation class and had the bishop lay hands upon you during the rite of confirmation that you are a full-vested member of the church. There are, if you will, levels of membership. You are a member at baptism - but you have godparents who help you in learning what you need to know to be able to function as an adult member of the church upon your confirmation.

My point is that withholding the badge and crest from new members until they have met the criteria for being an initated member is not hazing.

The way things are going with the NPC and hazing, I foresee that the entire recruitment/education/initiation process will have to undergo an overhaul where women are initiated on bid day and have a brief orientation process. That's the only way to truly abide by the insane hazing guidelines where pledges have to have equal rights to full members. The only reasonable solution is to have no pledges.