I agree. I was also thinking along the lines of:
"Well Officer, they really wanted me to kill them. Really wanted me to drive both drunk and stoned. At over 200 mph through school and hospital zones. At high Noon. On the opposite side of the road. In reverse. And I agreed with him that I should so. So I am free to go, correct?"
And could I please have all of my weapons back? I am in a bit of a rush to get to my Pledge meeting.:D;)

Almost every fraternity related death that I've heard of or read about was the result of abusive drinking. That said, we need have any character-building activities that involve drinking. I really don't think someone is going to 'flat line' from being pushed outside of their comfort level by activities that are comparable to their sports practice in high school.

The very idea that someone can be arrested for allowing you to do something you want to do seems down right fascist. Under the logic of the current hazing laws pledges shouldn't be allowed to compete in intramurals, seeings as the running would put them under physical stress in the name of the fraternity.

The majority of the sorority and fraternity related injuries and deaths that I'm talking about have nothing to do with abusive drinking.

But the rest of this is redundant because the other threads have talked the "choice" that hazing victims perceive that they have even in binge drinking incidents. Consent makes sense in theory so a lot of people understand where you are coming from, bowsandtoes, but consent doesn't operate the same way in practice.

Why don't you secede? :cool:

I know of at least one fraternity that I named above that is planning on doing this in the not so distant future (5-10 years). Stockpiling money, readying alumni, etc. My fraternity is not in the position to do so, but could if given 15-20 years.

Interesting, thinking of changing the name and everything? Are they a part of one of the ones that has a deep southern legacy. Would they want to lose that?

We've discussed this before. Repeatedly. Changing the name wouldn't be too difficult. The chapter I mentioned before also has been changing it's ritual for awhile bit by bit in so that it already does not reflect nationals. It's alumni from the last 30 years don't know the nationals ritual.

...if they were part of nationals with a deep southern legacy...why would it matter? What does nationals have to do with it? Nationals are inconsequential. It's the chapter that matters. Nationals is only good for insurance and for some chapters, even that may become economically unimportant.

I don't think my nationals are bad enough to secede from. It wouldn't be worth losing the name. We have one guy that nobody likes that comes around once a semester, thats it.

[QUOTE=Elephant Walk;1631250]
...if they were part of nationals with a deep southern legacy...why would it matter? What does nationals have to do with it? Nationals are inconsequential. It's the chapter that matters. QUOTE]

That's an interesting perspective. Not so with my org. For us, our national legacy and history is of great significance as our name. We would not readily let that go.

I realize this.

But what does "national legacy" mean? It's not you. It's not even your chapter. It seems something to not have pride in, as it's not yours.

Are you proud to be an American (assuming that you are American--though it seems that I have read something that you wrote which suggests otherwise, at least I think that was you); or are you proud to be insert your state here. Would being a insert the name of your state here even mean the same thing outside of the context of an American nation.

Similiarly, would your chapter be what it is without the national organization? My chapter would not. We would not exist without the initiative of the national body to expand, and the national body would not have existed without the vision of our founders.

Everything our chapter does contributes to the national legacy along with the efforts of every other chapter; conversely, the national body shapes in many ways the goals of the chapter. We are all different, but we are all so much more the same, which is why every woman who pledges AKA is my soror, not just the ones who come into the organization via my chapter.

:) Say that!

Our sororities supercede all chapters and individuals but yet they are "ours."

You make good points, but imagine a different scenario from one of our prospectives. You love your chapter and are proud of your national organization. But one year at a national meeting the big brass reveal that the organization is taking a new direction, one of which you might now approve. Your protests are not enough to overrule the decision and nationals continues down a path of which you do not approve. What do you do?

The only real choices you have are to a) secede and go local or b) continue on with nationals, but ignore them for the most part and distance yourselves. We're seeing chapters take option b more and more frequently as various fraternities such as Sig Ep, Lambda Chi, and SAE implement programs to reform chapters. Its happening slowly but I think in the next 20 years you will see a majority of chapters either go local or more likely, be shut down. That, or the nationals will bend to alumni pressure and stop forcing these programs on chapters.

If that is what you really think-OK.:confused::eek:

@ bows: I do understand that perspective to an extent (I am young in my organization), and I think that most organizations have this sort of internal conflict happening at any given moment.

I don't, however, think that any chapter in my sorority would withdraw rather than staying and continuing to advocate for change within the org. (Here, I am talking about any sort of change, not just change related to pledging/hazing/MIP.)

I think that there is a fundamental difference in terms of perception of chapter relationship to national (or in our case international is correct) body. There is no Theta Omega chapter without Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. At least that is my understanding.

Undergraduate chapters get over it.

When I was an undergad, I would've never thought it appropriate for a chapter to attempt to override the national organization. One major reason why I joined Delta was because I have love for Delta as a national entity. It is through my chapter that I was able to reach Delta and initially bond with Sorors. However, to remove Delta just because we disagree with something is ridiculous as far as BGLOs in general are concerned. Attempting to become a local would definitely not be received well. LOL. Not at all.

So one's Chapter would go from being part of a National Group Organization to being a small, local, eating and drinking club with a side order of let us ignore all rules, laws, and codes of conduct?
And if I were thinking of going to your school (which BTB was not and never has been on my radar) just what would make me interested in even talking to you?

And please do not even bring to the table anything about money.
Perhaps that is not fair as most likely that is what is going to be needed to cover
bills for damages and law suits.

In regards to Elephant Walk's take on fraternities at the U of A, I have to say I doubt very seriously any U of A alumna would support going away from their national group. There is too much tradition and name recognition, financial support, etc tied up in those groups. Once SAE chose to disaffiliate with national (just an example) the SAE alums would withdraw support. I don't think SAE wants to lose, for example,the CEO of Alltel's financial support and I can almost guarantee someone like that would not support the break.

Also, on the note of strong southern chapters being pulled. The Sigma Nu chapter at the U of A was strong for many years and after a series of incidents were pulled from campus. They are back now and in a new house, but were definitely pulled. They have a strong and influential alum base but were still pulled - it can happen.

I'm not sure how influential our chapters at LSU, Mississippi State and Vanderbilt were, but all have been recently booted and recolonized.

Same goes for our Kansas chapter which has been in existence (and was historically a really good house) for a long time. I really can't see alumni bases full of politicians and the leaders of our business, legal and medical fields supporting and contributing to a withdrawal from their national just so their chapter could continue to participate in illegal activities.

I may be off base here, but that whole argument just doesn't sound at all plausible to me.

Rather than quote anyone I'll just try to give a general reply. The changes I'm talking about for the most part go beyond hazing, alcohol, etc. With Sig Ep the Balanced Man program has completely change the entire structure of chapters. They do things that we fervently do not agree with. However, as you mentioned we are still deeply tied to the history of Sig Ep, both at our school and nationally. In this case, it is nationals that is breaking away from that tradition and history. Ideally, I wouldn't want to break away from nationals or have nationals come down on us, I was just remarking that's the direction things seem to be headed over the past several years.

I also feel like this particular problem doesn't pertain to sororities as much, since much of it stems from the risk management issues that are prevalent w/ fraternities. Many of these programs were designed to combat the negative 'frat boy' stereotype, one that we all know is completely false and unfounded in the first place.

But one that gets continued by the deeds, words, activities and actions of a few.:o:(:mad:

Perhaps, but I don't see a few bad apples as justification to start hacking off branches.







By the way, that metaphor worked perfect.

You would be very, very surprised with what I know, then. There have been secession feelings within many chapters at UofA. Many don't have the means to do it, but some will and have the alumni supporting them. It will be years and years before it happens, but it is happening. Regardless, I plainly stated that it's not an option on this campus....yet.

Originally Posted by bowsandtoes http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/im...s/viewpost.gif
I also feel like this particular problem doesn't pertain to sororities as much, since much of it stems from the risk management issues that are prevalent w/ fraternities. Many of these programs were designed to combat the negative 'frat boy' stereotype, one that we all know is completely false and unfounded in the first place.


From a sorority standpoint, I do think that we can relate to this...National(along with panhellenic) made many, many changes in procedures, rituals, etc several years back (to combat hazing,reduce chapter liability, focus on philanthropy, move away from the Barbie image). And there was quite a bit of backlash. Older members reacted and "rebelled" against the changes (read some of the posts on BAck in the Day thread posted elsewhere). Women felt that "they" were telling us what and how to run the chapters.
By now, 2008, those changes are firmly implemented and chapters are moving in the direction national is pointing. It sounds like this is what fraternities are feeling...and maybe some alumna are not as supportive (at some chapters) as the sorority advisors, etc were in regards to this because there seems to be fewer adults who interact with fraternitiy chapters than sororities? I can totally understand both sides and have to say (that with a few exceptions) the changes were for the better and npc sororities are stronger and better than ever as a result.

EW - We may have to agree to disagree, I would bet the farm that none of the strong houses at U of A ever leaves their national group willingly... BTW- are you from Arkansas originally or from out of state?

From here. Sort of near where you grew up, actually (before you think I'm creepy you said you were from the Heights in West Little Rock in a previous post)

The difference is whether the activity is a requirement to become part of the group. Allowing pledges to sign up to participate in intramurals isn't something that is a requirement for initiation, so it's not hazing. If you tell your pledges that they must do X# of pushups as a condition of membership (or as a condition of not getting yelled at), that is hazing, even if all of the pledges agree to do it.

I think we all would be very surprised at what you know about ALL the different chapters at your school.
And just how one person would know everything and anything about chapters not his own.
So, since you put it out there in your own posting, show us.

Spies?
Pillow Talk?
Gossipy pals?

Stuff happens.

Many people know stuff about various chapters of their own or of other GLOs through casual conversation and other unofficial and even offical means of accessing info.

EW-Still waiting for your answer to this:
True, to a point DSTCHAOS. However I would rather hear EW's confession, umm explanation to it. As his posting seems to indicate a great deal more.
Or is it, the posting, just puffing up like a peacock or blow-fish???

Weeeellllll.....

I don't think that the "big chapters who bring lots of $$ into nationals get away with more" concept is entirely a fraternity concept, I'll put it that way.

Plus I don't think I've ever heard any national say "move away from the Barbie image." If that's the image that keeps your chapter bringing in members and $$, you're not going to have a chapter consultant come in and tell you to pledge a bunch of butter-face girls.

Didn't see this one Jon... I don't know if I even knew it was directed at me?

You're really missing the point of why someone doesn't like nationals. Very much so missing the point. It is not so much about hazing (very little of it is...seeing as nationals rarely touch good chapters). That's very shortsighted and ignorant. It's about the new programs nationals puts in place. Crap like the Balanced Man is the worst thing to hit chapters. 8 week pledgeships. Sending nationals that complain about the lack of diversity in the chapter. Riding against the traditional conservatism of the chapter. It's not about hazing, drinking, and not caring about law. It's about the liberal/illogical progression of nationals. The pressure the nationals puts on for this sort of thing is obnoxious.

It's not like you can follow-up on his investigative reporting. :p Or can you?

As if was my question to you, I think it still worth a direct answer.
If I was going through rush tom mow; how would you explain your actions.
If I was going through rush next year, how would you explain your actions.
And if had just pledged, how would you explain your actions.

Because, as I posted, all I would see is a small, local drinking and eating club.
And I could hang out at bars,restaurants and clubs for that.
And all of them have rules and regulations that they have to follow.
And you post about your problems with hazing rules as much, if not more, than other policies. Which I why I asked you and posted about what seem to be a wish to have a group with no rules.

:):rolleyes:;)

Nor do I think that any national said literally, "let's move away from the Barbie image." I was trying to make the point that the emphasis on leadership, post college activities, philanthropy, etc (things that we have always had as a part of our heritage) were given more of a front seat in the past decade to give credence to the sorority experience.

I was really just trying to say, that it seems the fraternities are experiencing what sororities experienced some 15 - 20(?) years ago, and those of us who remember those changes, remember that chapters struggled with the feeling of heavy handedness -no matter how well intentioned, BUT it was the right move to make.

Something disturbs me when I hear about Chapters bolting from thier Nationals and wonder why? Because they have rules to follow that are changed because of all the hazing that has taken place and the hue and cry to correct it along with all of the States who are invoking laws because of the hazing.

I do not care if it is a female or male GLO and to say male GLOs are more into it is calling wolf.

Since I only know LXAs even though I have read two others, no where did I see any hazing that was listed in them.

Again, I do not know how other GLOs work, but any changes in LXA have to be approved by the members at our National conferences, not by the Officers at HQs.

If your GLO does not have this, then I think you should ask why and have it changed. Of course, it is always easier to blame HQ and not the individuals themselves.

Explain what actions? And why do the pledges/rushees care about the choice to go local or not? You're not making a whole lot of sense. If you're a pledge/rushee why would I have to explain anything to you? You're not a brother.

Wow. Way too insult all the local GLO's on this board. Try telling them that.

How do you figure this one, sportsfan?

I don't get where you're coming up with "no rules". We have plenty of rules in the chapter, that were created by the chapter. Nationals hands down rules because they're busy jerking themselves off to the belief of inclusion and how many people a fraternity pledges so they can get more money and expand, creating more shitty chapters. The only good thing Nationals gives us is insurance.

So, you don't think it is fair to let the rushees/pledges know: "Hey, you thought you were going to join the national fraternity, Alpha Beta, but later this semester we are going to disaffiliate and become a local."

As much as the rushee might like the guys in the chapter, what if they don't want to join a local?

ETA: This is a sincere question, not trying to be snarky.

Aside from that, what University is going to stand by and allow an organization to split away from its HQ so that it may haze and ignore sound risk management policy?

-- Don't think so. You won't be a part of IFC and the University will refuse to affiliate with you. Good luck finding new members who want to be a part of that tradition -- especially when the national you split away from recolonizes on that campus.

Great post! :)