Can anyone explain why you're so opposed to deferred rush? We have it at Miami University, which has a very competitive recruitment, and it works really well. I'm honestly curious.

I don't think it's so much the deferred rush that's the problem -- it's the fact that the administration is forcing the Greek system to accept a decision that doesn't address the problems they're trying to correct. It's the same as if the university responding to risk management problems by mandating that all Greek houses must be painted blue. There's nothing wrong with a blue house, but it doesn't have anything to do with risk management problems, so why shouldn't the sororities and fraternities be allowed to choose what color to paint their houses? ;)

Switching to deferred recruitment can cause financial disaster in a chapter. If you're used to budgeting for 50 new members in the fall semester, then you expect those 50 members to be paying monthly dues for 7-8 months. With deferred, they will only pay dues for 3 months, which can be a huge difference.

The housing situation on some campuses can make a big difference too. In the case of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor has a serious housing shortage. Freshmen live in dorms and the rest of the campus lives in off campus apartments and houses. People sign leases in January which take effect in September. This would mean that freshman are signing leases to live in apartments or houses before recruitment is even done and long before they are initiated. This can pose a problem because that means the next fall, you'll only have juniors and seniors to fill a house. These are also the members who are most likely to qualify to live OUT of the house because they're studying abroad, doing internships, student teaching out of town, etc. When you have to fill a 50, 60 or even 70 bed house, that can be a real problem. Some sororities have 2 year live in requirements, which would also mean you had to live in both your junior and senior years. Typically, it would have been sophomore and junior years that women would live in.

But, I would agree that a part of it is the principle of the thing. Not all people who die of alcohol poisoning or hazing are freshman. There is no research to show that deferred recruitment leads to less risk management problems. In fact, the last person to be hospitalized at the U of Mich in a hazing incident was a spring '04 rushee who wasn't being initiated until September. Why do administrations seem so convinced the deferred recruitment will change anything?

Dee

I vote for blue houses. I think it will solve all problems, similarly to a magic wand that Harry Potter uses. Actually, i don't think they had risk management issue at Hogwarts so therefor the better solution would be to teach every one magic.

Okay, seriously. THe one thing i could see as positive to deferred rush, is that people who did not think of going greek could/might consider it. I know at my school we had lots of women at informal in spring and I think that a lot of those women did not find a place to fit in and thought that greek life would be a way to find the social life they want.

NOw, as far as Risk Management, I think that taking a semester to get to know women could help if the sororities want to "pledge" women who do not drink and can use the 1st semester to see what girls do on saturday nights with their free time. But i still think the blue houses would solve all the problems in the universe, maybe that is part of the math formula in hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Just a thought.

I am the biggest deferred rush cheerleader on earth and I'm opposed to this because like Heather said, they're doing it for the wrong reasons.

As far as Dee's housing argument, of course you'll have a budget crunch the first year you go from one to the other - that's why they let you know in advance. The housing shortage sounds like something the school overall needs to fix and it shouldn't get tied up with whether first semester or deferred rush is better for that campus. (I know, easier said than done) Ideally housing shouldn't be tied up with rush at all...people should go Greek for the friendships and opportunities not for a place to live.

Because all orgs should be able to make those decisions independently of an administration.

-Rudey

Doh! Maybe I should read the entire thread before I respond. ;)

On many campuses, fraternity recruitment is year round. As such, these campuses have some sort of a structured rush at the start of each semester.

Now I'm not sure if Colorado's IFC practices this, but if they do, then getting rid of "Fall Rush" for the fraternities may impact their numbers dramatically.

Edited for spelling.

Then the rub comes in that it Will Impact the GLOs in question.

As someone mentioned, it comes down to a School Dictating.

Granted there have been problems at C U but it is not only Greeks, it is the whole system.

C U let everything go to Hell in a handcart, and The Greeks became the whippng Group.

But, also, the Greeks have left the door open for it.:(

Right on target, Tom. The CU greeks are the scapegoat - I'm sure there is enough of a drinking problem on the rest of the campus to make the greeks pale by comparison, but, the Greeks are a GROUP, and that makes them an easy target, and easy to regulate, even if resorting to draconian measures.

Greeks need to wake up and become what they set out to be: a step above - be the example, not the scapegoat.

Precisely.

This whole mess almost makes me glad we don't have a chapter there anymore.

If we did, I'm sure I'd be into this up to my armpits.

Maybe I'm too skeptical, but I can't help wondering about the U. of Colorado fraternities' stated position. For example, a couple of days ago the Daily Princetonian had an article about that school's discussions about possibly having deferred rush:

. . . Kerry Willoughby '05, a Pi Beta Phi member and former president of Princeton's Panhellenic Council, suggested late last month moving rush to November as a compromise.
When told about it, [Dean] Deignan welcomed the idea.
But some students and administrators doubted that Greek organizations would delay rush. Rush is timed, they said, to capitalize on freshmen's social inexperience.
The former fraternity president agreed that the goal of holding it early in the term is to attract as many freshmen as possible.
"I really enjoyed my fraternity experience. But in leadership positions, you formulate strategies where you want to get to kids early and influence their opinions because you want to build your organization," he said. "You could say it's manipulative."

Yes, I know that Colorado and Princeton are somewhat different :) , but I can't help thinking there's a lot of truth -- applicable to both schools -- in the quote about "freshmen's social inexperience" and early rush being "manipulative."

Princeton article is at:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/arc...ws/12888.shtml

If, and that is a big Word, Greeks would show that they are bigger in GPA, Campus Participation, Chairty Events and less in the big partys, they would not be where they are today.

Deffered rush is not a neccesity if all of the above was true.

True, trying to get new incoming Frosh is easier than if they can and do join other organizations before joining Greeks.

Dollars can only go so far, True?

Yes, but not all of that is necessary Tom. Greeks have no obligation to justify the worth of their existance . . except to themselves.

They certainly don't need to prove themselves to administrators.

I think that in one sense, we do. We put out there publicly that ABC is devoted to "these certain values." We sell that in recruitment. Therefore, we do have to "prove" that we're living up to those values we said we would. If we don't, then the organization's worth is diminished in the eyes of the very community that our organization has chosen to be a part of (the college campus).

And I'm also going to disagree with what Rudey said about deferred recruitment ("Because all orgs should be able to make those decisions independently of an administration"). We (organizations) exist on college campuses by the willingness of the host institution. Our organizations have it written in their governing documents that chapters will only be opened on college campuses (with the exception of alumni chapters). Since we've chosen to operate only on college campuses, the organizations cannot operate totally seperate from the college administration. It's a partnership by choice. (Notice, however, that I'm not saying that the administration should dictate every single thing the orgs do...nor should the orgs dictate everything the administration does in regards to student organizations. Partnership is the ideal situation). There are some campuses where deferred recruitment is the best decision...there are some campuses where it's not the best decision.

It sucks when any authority figure (administration or HQ) comes along and says "Do this because I said so." I understand CU Greek's reactions to this. I'd rather have everyone come to the table and say "Here's the problem. What you've been doing in the past isn't workig anymore. We've got to come up with a different solution." And then come up with a different solution. This is why I always tell Greeks to figure out how to change things before it's figured out for you. Because it will be figured out for you, and if you don't step up and do something about it first, you may not have a chance to complain about the outcome.

PsychTau