KsigRc, the problem is that most of the people formulating these policies for the Nationals don't have the knowledge or experience to put together a coherent program. But they don't admit it . . .

Now I'm sure that this doesn't happen in Kappa Sigma, because as we are told, we have the best staff in the Fraternal World, but I am sure that other fraternities run across the problem that the people advocating change don't have the ability or training to put change ideas into a coherent meaningful structure and then train others to use it.

Sororities seem better at farming their programs out to real proffessionals or tapping girls within their system that know how to do this stuff.

However: I would wager good money that they still break down

Yeah, but that ain't the answer either. If Professional Motivational Services (PMS :D) is staffed by people whose only conception of Greek life is Greek life at an SEC school, and they're trying to develop a program for a mostly northeastern, small school sorority, it's going to blow. The key is to bring together people from all different chapters and stages of life.

Bottom line???? Just stop the hazing!!! It serves no purpose whatsoever!

A "pledge" in my sorority is called a "New Member". The word "pledge" is hazing itself. They are PLEDGING, but shouldn't be called PLEDGES. It's time for all of us to get rid of the ladder-systems in our organizations. Time to move forward......... Just stop the hazing and the issue is gone.

Iris

I know that DU had 91 active chapters listed in the 1991 Bairds Manual and has 81 active chapters today. Sig Ep had 254 chapters in 1991 and has 240 today. I don't know if these numbers are represenative of all NIC Fraternities or unusual.

My post on this thread about DU and Sig Ep chapter size should have gone under the Fraternity gaining or losing in size thread. Sorry for the confusion.

What makes you say that? Personally, I don't think that hazing serves a particularly positive purpose, but it definitely serves some sort . . . until we can convince people that they can accomplish the same things w/out hazing that they feel they do with it, then your "bottom line" won't be reached.

Congratulations for eliminating the value-neutral term "pledge" while keeping its verb-form "pledging" . . . but how does this eliminate any sort of ladder system? On an implicit level, it does nothing to accomplish this.

Organizational change is required - not simple shift in pronoun usage. That's my point from earlier (and the point of the thread) - many Nationals set themselves up for hazing on the chapter level due to certain weaknesses in programming suggestions etc. Changing the name from "pledge" to "new member" doesn't prevent the "old members" from treating the "new members" like shit - only respect, intelligent programming, and strong leadership can accomplish that (among other things).

As an aside, all of what you suggested as a desirable outcome can be accomplished while referring to pledges as "pledges" . . . no?

Sure...........I see your point. By no means did I intend to imply that changing the pronoun solves the problem. It's just a start. Yes, you can keep the ol' pronoun and still accomplish the goal. I just don't think that (accomplishing the goal) can be done with hazing around. I agree that programming changes are needed from the inter/national level.

The challenge is that even when/if the HQs and Councils implement changes, that it takes a mindset to really impact change. That mindset has to be there from the organizational level to the chapter member level and everywhere in between.

Old habits die hard. There are many a HQs who have made the strong stand on hazing and have plenty of good programming to back it up, but still have scores of chapter members (and many alumni/ae) who think hazing serves a purpose. My "bottom line" comment was directed toward those members.

Open discussion............isn't it great?

Iris