As long as at least one definition of "hazing" is "making pledges do (or expecting pledges to do) something actives are not required to" the periods will get shorter and shorter. That's an easy solution to one facet, and organizations are, in general, open to easy solutions."

When you can require a pledge to learn something; when you can expect her to show her willingness to contribute as well as to receive; when you can expect her to make an effort to get to know something about her sisters, and show something fo herself in the process, you can make better decisions about women you're bonding yourself to for life.

Today's over-reaction to "Oh, no, someone might consider that hazing" has significantly contributed to this. Deferred rush can help, by giving initiated women longer to observe character prior to rush activities, but organizations lose money with deferred rush.

Is the above-stated definition really your organization's rules or is it folklore? As far as I know, basically everyone is reading from the FIPG definition for our official hazing definition. Do NPC groups go beyond that definition officially, or is it more a directive in that if you don't ask pledges to do something actives are not required to do, then you're probably okay?

I can appreciate something Sigma Nu has done with its new member program in creating meaningful programming for new members while trying to retain as much control over the candidate process as possible. Our new member program is available to new members online. That is where they complete their reading and submit feedback. We then have sessions facilitated by alumni and guest speakers about the various subjects in our program. I think our HQ has made a decent attempt at trying to retain some meaningful new member programming while trying to also retain control over the subject matter of that programming.

Right. This policy, if it exists, reminds me a lot of the 'zero tolerance' business we see in our school systems from time to time where the governing body seems incapable of considering that there are degrees of things. Asking a new member to take a test over local and national history is not the same as lineups involving circling the fat, forced drinking and forced calisthenics--and those things should be seen as different.

It would really amaze me if things were as zero tolerance as I believe some think they are as I have found the capabilities, resources and expertise of my NPC counterparts I've dealt with in my years as an alumnus volunteer to be far beyond anything we have ever dreamed of having. That said, considering that level of competence, I can't see why it would be the case, if it is the case, that your respective HQs would place so little value on their alumnae volunteers when it comes to allowing quality and meaningful programming for new members while being able to still avoid true RM problem areas.

Last night on the PBS Newshour, Judy Woodruff interviewed a panel of 6 Virginians about President Trump's Tweets and comments about "****hole countries," and asked if his comments have set a tone whereby "Joe Public" feels free to share what he really thinks.

One of the panelists expressed exactly this view -- she said she thinks these things, but she doesn't say them -- she said what's startling about President Trump is that he says them publicly.

Agree. I would also suggest - and I'm not saying this is true of all parents - that because there is such an environment of helicopter parents who will intervene at the drop of a hat for things that they shouldn't (including things that aren't hazing), that this could contribute to initiating in short order after pledging.

There's a reason why "adjustment disorder" is a real thing among many college students and new grads. Some students are so used to their parents doing everything that they struggle to adjust to life without them and expect to have things done for them without any effort. Again, this isn't all students, but it is a reality today.

I think it's sad. I got so much out of my pledgeship and having to earn it made it all the more meaningful.

Any good policy must go beyond the "if you don't ask pledges to do something actives are not required to do * * *."

To easy for creative college students to get around. For example, from my own long ago experiences, well led and organized pledge classes would haze the actives back.

Right. My father's pledge class got so pissed at their pledge educator that they kidnapped him and actually flew him out to northwest Oklahoma and handcuffed him in his underwear to an oil rig.

Checks and balances.

When I was pledging, my class was required to plan our own fundraiser and take part in our own philanthropy or community service project. We had help from our new member educators, but we essentially did everything on our own - planning and execution. Then we were no longer allowed to do this because it meant we were requiring new members to do things that weren't required of the initiated sisters. However, we can have new members help the initiated sisters plan and attend fundraisers and philanthropy projects in which the rest of the chapter is involved.

I loved participating in those events with my pledge sisters. It gave us ownership over the projects, helped us understand some of the hard work that goes into being an active member, and we simply had fun.

It's crazy to think that something like that could be considered "hazing". But yes, I think organizations are aiming for the unambiguous, all-or-nothing approach.

Many moons ago, our Greek advisor (who sucked) pushed for first semester freshmen women to rush "so we can get them before they know better." I definitely think that's part of it.

I only pledged for 6 weeks, but there were also only 35 active sisters to get to know. I can't imagine that would be enough time to get to know the members in a SEC size chapter, let alone feel you were becoming an active part of the chapter and the Greek community. It's like the objective is to get the pledges (and the initiated sisters) so caught up in a whirlwind that you don't have time to think twice (on either side) before initiation.

The things you described would absolutely not be hazing with Sigma Nu, assuming that other aspects of the weren't hazing as defined by the standard FIPG definition. I suppose our national office and legislative assemblies trust our members and advisers enough to know the difference.

And if the answer is "If I told you, I'd have to kill you," I totally understand, but I'm wondering how exactly Alpha Sigma Theta has this rule stating you can't require a new member to do anything different from an initiate legislated.

My interest here is to see whether this is an actual promulgated rule similar in all NPC groups or it is unwritten policy.

Back in the prehistoric days when I was a pledge, one of our requirements for initiation was to put on a party for the initiated members. Since this meant we had to have some cash available, one of my pledge sisters talked to a donut store about giving us donuts. They gave us a ton of stale donuts. We went to all the Greek houses and dorms and sold every last one of them. My best friend and I still laugh about it today.

DaffyKD

But I bet they were still delicious!

Alpha Delta Pi defines hazing, pulled straight from our national bylaws, as "any situation that creates mental or physical abuse, discomfort, embarrassment, ridicule, or harassment, whether on or away from sorority property."


I understand the concerns regarding the shortness of the new member period, but I chafe at little at all the war stories told of "the good ole days" where pledge semesters were longer and pledge classes were expected to do more to earn initiation. The implication is that members these days are somehow not as good as they were before, but I haven't seen anything to back this up besides the occasional undergrad coming on this board and asking if they can change sororities or fraternities. Are we seeing declines in membership retention, either in the new member period and as actives? Are current members not paying their dues and becoming financially delinquent with increasing regularity? Essentially, what negative impacts from shortened new member periods and less responsibilities being placed exclusively on new members are we seeing? From my vantage point, fraternities and sororities across all councils are larger, raising more money for philanthropy and donating more service hours than they ever have before. I can't claim that shortened new member periods and responsibilities caused this growth, but clearly these changes haven't hurt it.


I see the limiting of length of pledge periods and of activities within them as a shifting of risk on behalf of the national orgs, and I don't think it's entirely unwarranted. Here's a quote from an article that references Pi Delta Psi's fraternity lawyer during the sentencing of the national org:

The fraternity’s “Crossing Over” initiation rituals “involved some physicality, but they certainly did not involve the level of physicality, the level of inhumanity, and the depravity of the individuals who are also coming before the court,” he said.

As we've discussed on here, what does "some physicality" mean? Where is that line drawn? While obviously physical hazing and requiring tasks of new members are not equivalent in severity, I can see why national organizations would create an engaging new member experience that does not involve tasks exclusive to new members. It's a reduction of risk in a field that has had so many lawsuits some fraternities have almost lost insurance coverage over it. Then, when a chapter does do something that violates these policies, the national org can cut that chapter loose and say "we have a zero-tolerance policy for what they did and they therefore should not be covered by our insurance".

I don't doubt that the experiences y'all had as new members were educational and rewarding, and I don't feel like I'm being personally attacked in any way, but as the youngest regular poster on here and the only one (that I know of) who went through a modern new member experience I felt compelled to stand up for myself and the incredible fraternity and sorority members my age I know.

Mind blowing: literally days after the Harley Barber story blows up, a student-athlete at Georgia State University drops the n-word on her Finsta. She was suspended from the soccer team and has withdrawn from school after the ensuing backlash.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/201...ended_lea.html

Apologies because this isn't directly GLO related, but illustrative of how NOTHING is kept secret on social media, even Finsta accounts that is only shared with one's closest friends. Not news to any of you all, but another proof point to go along with the Harley Barber incident that can be applied towards chapters' online & social media education.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that at all! Other than the extreme cases like the one we're discussing, I don't think there would be a great purging of new members who were hiding secrets. A few bad apples would have time to openly rot, but it wouldn't be statistically significant. I don't think for one moment that the students coming into GLOs are any worse than their predecessors.

And I think the pace of "new membership" is insane. New college students trying to adjust, keep their grades up, get to know their sisters, having to learn enough about their sorority to pass any tests they may have, along with fundraisers, mixers, homecoming, etc. is just whacked, imo.

While I was happy to see my daughter initiated and not have to wait, she was one busy girl!
Obviously, lowering risk is still very much warranted. I totally get the NEED to end hazing, but it is still going on in some orgs.

I was amazed when I learned 7 out of 8 sororities on my daughter's campus initiate within 6-10 weeks. Hazing was my guess, as they are no longer "pledges", no longer wear their pins, etc.

I was NOT hazed in any way, neither was my daughter. But I loved wearing my ribbon, then my pledge pin, and I loved my pledge experience. We were "kidnapped", but it was just for a fun sleepover. I think we had more time to bond as a pledge class and that was important.

There are pros and cons.

I agree with APhi2KD that no-one is saying that members these days aren't as good as those in days gone by. Not so.

Let me explain what I meant when I said we had "earn" membership. We did have to "earn" initiation because back then you had to make a baseline GPA in order to be initiated. If you didn't make that GPA after 1st semester, you had one more semester to make it. If you didn't make it after two semesters, you were de-pledged.

I do believe a longer pledgeship allows for a deeper experience. Everything from our ribbon pinning, then getting pledge pins, pledge retreats, weekly pledge meetings, weekly formal dinners, etc. - enabled us to get to know our pledge sisters and actives more fully because they took place over many months. That was possible even in a large chapter (mine had 165 girls, big for the late 70's at a Greek-competitive campus) because of the time frame.

On another but related note - is immediate initiation a Panhellenic rule? Or can sororities make their own decisions?

I don't think any NPC has literal immediate initiation. It is just very, very, extremely difficult to depledge someone unless there are really obvious and glaring reasons. And the one size fits all, nationally mandated pledge programs don't make it any easier to see those reasons.

I don't know of any that are immediate initiation either.

Maybe it was easier to de-pledge someone back in the day - our chapter based it on not making one's grades for two semesters - as well as any super serious standards violations which we never, thankfully, had and I think that's still grounds for de-pledging or even de-activation as we've seen with the Alabama member.

From an academic standpoint, I can understand de-pledging since if someone can't make a 2.0 either semester, then they've got bigger things to handle. Even with this low bar, there were usually 2 or 3 girls who didn't make it - usually from being on their own the first time and not knowing how to manage their time. As I mentioned, my chapter only de-pledged one girl for this in my four years as a member. It was very rare.

And I knew a girl from my hometown whose chapter de-pledged her (also when initiation was 2nd semester) because she was so wild - I mean wild beyond wild - that it became a very serious standards issue. She was given the opportunity several times to clean up her act, but never did. That I can understand and support too.

In my teeny-tiny chapter (25 women total) I only remember depledging one person. She, over the course of several weeks, proved herself nearly unable to tell the truth about anything. I'm not sure we would have been as certain if our pledge period had been only 6 weeks, even with that small a chapter.

I was initiated less than a year ago and I just wanted to hop in and say that I agree with you. I don't mean to invalidate or lessen anyone else's experience, but I find nostalgia is an easy trap to fall into. Everything seems better in hindsight. While I also understand concerns about the shortness of the new member period, I really do think there are ways to combat the supposed lack of knowledge recent initiates have. MY chapter required us to basically memorize every fact about Kappa Delta in order to pass. In another chapter on my campus, the VP of education walked out of the room before the exam began and told them to Google anything they couldn't remember. I feel that I know a GREAT deal about Kappa Delta both nationally and within my chapter. My friends in that other chapter do not, even though our new member periods were the same length.

I am also wary of the notion, often brought up by fraternity men on my campus who question the new member process for sororities, that a new member experience without hazing cannot possibly "bond" people together. I think this is a sad misunderstanding of the difference between healthy bonding and the psychological phenomenon of trauma bonding - no matter how minor this trauma may seem to someone who "earned it" more. One of my closest friends from summer camp is currently being treated for PTSD because of hazing she experienced in her varsity sports team in high school - hazing I'm sure many people would justify as her "earning" her position as a member of the team. But I would much rather follow seemingly arbitrary rules about transportation or mandatory events than have one of my sisters psychologically impacted by how our new member process made her feel. We give up some things to gain others.

Old broad here who has spent many years advising chapters. It is not yearning for the "good ol' days" we base our opinion of the current abbreviated pledge period on, but the fact that initiation is no longer worked for; short pledge, excuse me, new member periods, showering the new members with gift, after gift, after gift, makes for members who don't fully appreciate the gift of membership. Heck,many of them don't fully know the history of the org. they were just initiated into! It should be looked on as a privilege, but many these days look on initiation as an entitlement. And please understand that earning initiation does not necessarily mean hazing.

We were told that the shortened new member period was, in part, inacted to help cut down on hazing, yet we still see chapters on probation or closed for hazing. If I had a vote, I would vote for a semester long "new member" period. It would allow the new members to learn more in-depth history of their sorority and chapter, as well as allow them to fully understand the obligation they were about to undertake, but would give them more time to decide if sorority life was for them, and would allow the chapter more time to get to know the new members and determine whether they were worthy of the gift of membership.

That's ridiculous. If they're hazing as part of their new member experience and discussing it openly with non members.... well, the first rule of fight club applies. Joking aside, I don't think most fraternities haze anymore. A not insignificant minority still do, but our national organizations (mostly) have spent years trying to eradicate the practice.

All of this. Ideally, I'd like to see (for my own organization):

1. At least a 10-week new member period.
2. More education on the history of Greek life, as well as AST.
3. In addition to anti-hazing, alcohol awareness, and sexual assault and abuse programming, hold educational sessions - maybe presented by a professional or experienced alumna - geared toward leadership, time management, etiquette (business or otherwise), study skills, resume building, etc.
4. Team-building exercises and activities. It could be something as simple as doing one of those hour-long escape rooms together.

And ultimately, I'd like to see organizations give chapters a little more leeway in building a new member program that fits them and their circumstances. Maybe it would require submission to and approval from national officers to keep everyone in check. But I don't think the short, simplistic, gift-filled new member programs are doing chapters any favors.

It depends on whether your organization is about forming lifelong bonds or whether they are into operating revenue neutral, campus adjacent glorified dorms.

I know we're all just spouting anecdotes here, but by the definitions of hazing we've mentioned every single fraternity I ever encountered was doing it at Clemson. Every single one I knew someone in (which was most but admittedly not all, although several of the ones I didn't know anyone in were closed for risk violations), from the lowliest "bottom tier" chapter to the most prestigious ones. Not all of them were engaging in all forms of hazing at once, but I could give a dozen examples and not run out. I have zero faith that hazing is not still commonplace, especially at schools where it's an entrenched part of the culture.

And that attitude hockeyfan mentioned that without hazing, a chapter is worthless is still very, very common at the schools I've been at and know people from. If you don't have some sort of "process", and that phrase is left vague intentionally, then you're not a "real" fraternity. I've seen this for IFC, NPHC, commuter schools through Alabama itself. I don't think that's gone away.

In my experience... same.

NM Periods should prepare them to be Members. 6-8 weeks of being showered with gifts and 6-8 chapter meetings is not it. Members are generally filled with loads of required activities, committees, socials, etc. NMs that were "optional" for everything but NM meetings don't have a clue as to what they're in for as a full member. Then people quit because it's more time consuming and stressful than they realized.

I'll add my anecdote here: I remember when I was in college talking to a young lady in a sorority about what her pledgeship entailed. She didn't even learn the Greek alphabet.

"What exactly did you do, then?" I asked.

She smiled sheepishly and said "They gave us gifts...?"

This is exactly it. I was not hazed, but I most certainly WORKED. I knew after my pledge period this organization was going to be something that took a lot of time. It wasn't my high school Quill and Scroll chapter.

Hockeyfan's post kind of proves all our points - she goes straight to hazing as if there were nothing in between that and 6 weeks of gifts. Again, I was not hazed, and never had fraternity men telling me my "process" wasn't hard enough - in fact, we had fraternity men express concerns in the other direction when a pledgemistress went a bit off the rails. Men and women do bond differently, but not that differently.

Also, dang, Kevin. Lol.

So here's what I haven't heard--I haven't heard anyone from an NPC org state that the 'ol rule about not being able to require new members to do anything differently from initiates as being something actually written down anywhere. If you're following the FIPG guidelines, there are plenty of activities new members could do which are not hazing. You just have to work within those guidelines.

I've heard it this way from a fraternity friend of mine: women's recruitment is difficult, but their new member process is easy. Men's recruitment is easy, but their new member process is difficult. How many times do we tell PNMs that they should stick with recruitment even when they get cut from chapters they love, because they'll find their home? I'm sure these fraternity pledges are hearing something similar when faced with pledge tasks.

I've seen a difference in membership retention and involvement once initiated when a new member is treated like a china doll versus like an adult. New members who are given so many gifts and told they can just cheat on new member exams or miss meetings are often rudely awakened when they are initiated and need to buy a shirt for every philanthropy, need to come to not only chapter but recruitment, makeup ritual, workshops, and philanthropy. That's why I'm glad my chapter is very up front about what the expectations for membership are during recruitment, so that girls know what they're getting themselves into if they join a chapter. Yes, we love our new members and give them gifts for big little week and would never haze them, but the new member process is about learning about your new sorority, not just getting gifts and likes on your instagram. There needs to be a balance.

Individual members being thrown out of their fraternity or sorority for misconduct is nothing new. Although 30 years ago nationals rarely (if ever) came in and eliminated the memberships of everyone in an entire chapter. So I'm talking about members being thrown out for individual conduct. I suspect that thirty years ago (other than nonpayment of dues) most adverse membership actions for fraternities and sororities typically involved, without going into detail, some type of alleged sexual misconduct. This happened fairly often and to even long-time active members who did not conform the then cultural norms.

It is clearly a different world now and the reasons for ejecting active members are very different. My question, for those who are in a position to know, is this:

Do you see a greater number of ejections of initiated members for individual misconduct now than say thirty years ago when pledging was a longer process?

I remember people being thrown out of fraternities and sororities back in the day, although it was usually for something egregious. Like one of our cheerleaders got thrown out of her sorority for running naked from her date's car to her sorority house.

Neither.
From what I've been told, it was about university administrations pushing to shorten the pledge period as a way to deter hazing.
Never mind that sororities rarely have hazing issues, and that all sororities forbid hazing. College administrators lump all Greeks - men and women - together.
That is, so I'm told, we now have the three-syllable "recruitment" for the single syllable "rush," "new member" instead of "pledge" and short new member periods that barely expose members to history, policies, and procedures instead of thoroughly grounding them.

This is what saddens me. I know one poster thought "earning" membership sounded like younger members aren't "as good" as those from decades ago, but as many have posted, it's not. It's about earning membership through learning the responsibilities of membership, bonding with your pledge and active sisters over time, making your grades, going through the "day-to-day" of your pledge-ship, not just the "thrill of six weeks and boom! you're initiated." It was also about finding out if membership really was for you so you could de-pledge versus de-activate.

I wonder what retention rates are these days because everything is so fast and many young women might not be as fully aware of what membership entails -- through no fault of their own, but through the changes of how things are done now. I think that's when members and parents stress about membership costs and time invested in events that houses participate in to a degree I never saw during my chapter days. No wonder some moms post here about their concern of their daughters achieving good grades.

I'm sorry that today's members aren't getting the full immersion via a longer pledge-ship and for many/most, just a lot of fanfare before initiation. I liken that to dating a guy for six weeks versus six months. How well can you know and appreciate him in such a short time? Some might think that's a silly comparison but I like it. It speaks to our "instantaneous" society where things can be gotten fast and often without the investment that would be best for the long run.

There are, no doubt, many outstanding younger members these days, so to any younger members reading this, I am not saying that there aren't. But some things do make for a richer experience and there's no substitute for time, in my experience and opinion.

^^^VERY well said....

I am new to this site and with a daughter heading to college in the fall, so I'm just starting to get a feel for how things work these days WRT recruitment, and the pledge period (whatever that is called now). Back in my day (yes, you see I used the word "old" in my name), pledging was long and difficult. There were study halls, meetings, required pledge events, education, etc. A lot of these activities were fun, mind you, but still required whether you found them fun or not. You kept your grades up because you sure didn't want to have to wait to get initiated the following school year. It was a privilege to finally become a fully initiated sister after months of pledging. It was a very somber, very serious event. It sounds like now the whole process is so watered down that it's more like joining a club and paying your dues. This all makes me very sad to think that members potentially do not feel the same amount of sincerity in their sisterhood as they did years ago.

As far as the original post about this girl...how positively mortifying for her sorority. And I do agree that a longer "getting to know you" period would help to weed out some of the trash before they become initiated members!

I do not see this as a reflection on Alpha Phi, which is a stellar organization. It could easily have been your sorority, OldFlDDD, or mine, or honeychile's, or carnation's, or ... you get my drift. As I posted earlier, we all take turns in the hot seat. I actually see it as a reflection on all of Greek Life. We are lumped together, and we all suffer when something like this occurs.

Nor do I see this young woman (or any other troubling members) as trash. People, to me, are not trash. It is clear that "conduct unbecoming" applies here, and membership selection is not a perfect process. We don't have any crystal ball to consult to see who might be problematic (and how I wish we did!). My fellow alumnae who are advisors and have stayed active in their sororities over the years can attest to what I'm about to say. As an advisor for a large chapter, I kept in mind that a certain percentage of the group was going to have some sort of challenge which would impact the group. That might be too much drinking, eating disorders, depression, difficulty with time management, poor scholarship, too much time at the fraternities, and so on. Remember these are still undeveloped brains with questionable maturity. The influences of social media and the speed of life (the information superhighway) on their lives are nothing like what I went through (back when God was a baby). This young woman was extremely reckless (not to mention cruel, heartless, arrogant, foul-mouthed, and racist) and the consequences of her recklessness are going to be with her for a very long time. I'd like to think she feels ashamed, but I'm a pragmatist.

Personally, the shortened new member period is not at all to my liking. What NYCMS wrote expresses many of my thoughts. Direct observation reveals that the new members have little to no understanding of the tenets of membership. Ritual seems to be an odious obligation which is poorly implemented instead of being at the core of the sorority's functioning and purpose. Finally, my respect to Chi Omega for sticking to their guns and not initiating until after their new members have made grades.

I've always found it interesting that there was the one holdout and no other organizations thought, "Hey, it's still working for them." As far as I can tell, Chi Omega doesn't have any more or less risk management issues than the other NPC groups. And considering how many members and active chapters they have, that certainly counts a little extra, in my opinion.

I'd be curious to know what their retention rates look like before and after initiation and how they compare to other NPC orgs.

I would have to track down information from when I was active 10+ years ago to see what was written down. All I know is that we had handed down to us instructions that stated we were not to include anything in our new member program that wasn't outlined by our national organization. They indicated we could get approval for additional activities, but we were told by a nearby chapter who made an attempt that they found the process difficult, and ultimately, they ended up just stepping in line with the new guidelines.

Now, maybe something has changed. But in knowing how a handful of chapters have operated since, I can't see that any of them are including additional programming or required events for only the new members within the six-week program (aside from their weekly new member meetings and an exam).

Yes, hear, hear to Chi Omega. I knew there was one national organization that held out for 2nd semester initiation.

My pledgeship - and all the sororities on my campus - went from Bid Day in late August to early/mid-March, almost 7 months. I was in a large chapter but because of that amount of time, I knew every single member by the time I was initiated - not necessarily well, but I did know their name and a bit about them. That's what time enables!