SOM, not sure which of us is older, but your experience sounds similar to mine.

I don't think anyone is downplaying hazing or RM issues. I certainly don't mean to. These are real problems that need to be addressed. I appreciate that this is an attempt to do that, but based on what's been seen in other groups, I admit I'll be surprised if it has the intended effect. As DBB says, those chapters that want to continue hazing will probably just move to hazing the most recent class of new members.

Then there's the issue of buy-in. A change like this is hard enough to implement when the majority of people who have to implement it—meaning the majorities in chapters—are behind it and feel some ownership of it. If chapters have the feeling that the change is being forced on them without any chance for input, or worse that it's being implemented in a way contrary to the fraternity's laws, then I fear it's going to be a very hard sell. I can just hear the chapters asking "well, if they don't have to follow the rules, then why do we?" I'm afraid that my experience is that few things can doom a change like this faster than decreeing it without extensive discussion and input involving all stakeholders and without following agreed-on procedures.

Obviously, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I certainly wish SAE the best. I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

In a lot of ways, I'd compare this to the process of Alpha Phi Omega going co-ed. It took 8 years between the first chapters admitting women illegally to the National Fraternity *allowing* chapters to be co-ed and *that* was with the pressure of Title IX included. The 1974 convention allowed women to be affiliates and the 1976 convention allowed for co-ed chapters. Even *with* things being decided at the conventions, there were still chapters that left and I'm convinced if this had been done as a fait accompli by the National board, that the National Fraternity would have completely come apart with a significant number of chapters creating an all-male social fraternity. Even when the final decision at convention was made that chapters had to be made co-ed more than 30 years later, some chapters did leave to form a separate organization...

As I said, the primary questions left to be answered are
a) What has changed since the Summer 2013 convention that made this need to happen before the Summer 2015 convention?
b) And if the answer is 'nothing'? Does that mean that the Supreme Council of Sigma Alpha Epsilon felt that they had to do something that they didn't think they could get passed (or failed to get passed!) by a national convention.

Agreed. I applaud the effort, but I think more attention needs to be paid to address the hazing issue. Sororities shortened the new member period to as a way to reduce hazing, but we continue to read news reports about sorority hazing and members saying they feel like they were rushed into membership and are discontent with their choice.

a) Brad Cohen was elected as national president in 2013 and will be out of office at the 2015 Convention.
b) As evidenced by the smoke and mirrors, hocus pocus and hand waving it took them to pretend to have this fictitious authority, legislation by fiat with an ultimatum of loss of charter was the only way they could ever hope to make this fly.

One question that I'm hoping an SAE can answer, but slap my hand if I'm too close to membership selection:

How difficult is it, comparatively, to remove a pledge? Does the fact that someone has been initiated make it much harder to throw them out of your chapter?

My experience on the NPC side has been that it takes a *lot* to get rid of an NM, and that most orgs don't let chapters make that decision on their own (i.e. it has to be run up the volunteer alumnae chain), so initiating early wouldn't make a huge difference in terms of kicking someone out.

Of course, if a chapter really wants to get rid of someone, they pressure her to leave "voluntarily," but I am curious how much the early initiation matters on this issue alone.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The NPC made the change years ago to equate a bid with a PROMISE to initiate. Essentially by issuing a bid you have decided that the new member has all the qualifications to become a member of the organization. The new member period is not a time for the NM to EARN her letters or prove herself but to learn about the organization and decide if SHE wants to continue on to initiation.

It sounds like SAE is trying to change to this model and have its chapters have more of a values based approach. Bid equals initiation. Fit is no longer the goal and prospective members no longer need to prove their worth with tasks but by their merit.

It's a big change, and unfortunately the idea of proving yourself by doing physical and mental challenges is hard wired by this point in the fraternity system. Friendships outside the fraternal movement don't rely on this model but somehow we expect it in a fraternity. The biggest problem is that no one likes change. It may not be this change, but I will say that change isn't going to come from the collegiate members. In the end, change is needed to avoid the harsh realities of liability issues. There is only so far you can go with paying higher and higher insurance rates before at some point you can no longer afford those rates or obtain a policy to cover you.

SAEalumnus - semi touchy question (shock). Are the guys on the Supreme Council from chapters that do everything by HQ's book, chapters that might not follow all the rules explicitly but pull huge numbers, or a mix of both? I know we all have those "chapters that can do no wrong" and wondered if they were coming from that vantage point.

It's hit the front page of NBC news: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ledging-n48406

A values-based approach and a pledge period are not mutually exclusive. A values-based approach and bidding without a promise to initiate are not mutually exclusive. And a pledge period that is, in part, a time where the chapter can determine if the pledge is truly a good fit does not have to include proving oneself by physical and mental challenges. It is possible to have a pledge period that is values-based, that builds bonds, that is respectful, that doesn't haze and that still enables pledges to come to initiation feeling like they have accomplished something and have earned the right to be called "brother."

But apparently they haven't been able to enforce a pledge period free of serious hazing at a large number of their chapters. We obviously know that these concepts don't have to be mutually exclusively nor is it mandatory to have a pledge program to have a good member experience. Just like everyone has been arguing that this program sounds great in THEORY but won't work in practice, your statement is the same. It works at a group of chapters that uphold the ideal of non hazing, but the rest practice a spectrum of hazing that ranges from harmless depending on who is judging to deadly. I worry about the numbers that practice serious hazing. Not only does it risk the lives of students, it risks the entire Greek system. I query whether SAE is moving towards an unsustainable risk management and liability position and took at desperate act to mitigate those issues.

But as everyone has said, this does nothing to change a hazing culture. The most recent brothers will be the ones who get the brunt, as full membership doesn't mean you can't be hazed. Unless they're hoping this weeds those members out. The problem is, there are plenty of GOOD members who will leave as well.

From a legal standpoint, a "pledge" could be viewed as a "probationary member" and thus, easier to remove than a full member. That being said, any group would have to follow their own procedure.

I get what you're saying better now. Thanks.

I think clearly the issue is how to move away from a culture of hazing. I don't know that there's one answer. A move like the True Gentleman Experience may be the right answer for some groups, but not for others.

But I still think in this instance, the process of reaching and implementing this decision may trump any merits of the new way of doing things. Pronouncements like this, after no consultation with stakeholders and with questions about authority, are not the way to go about changing the culture. To be honest, I fear that the way this was handled may actually reinforce the culture of hazing.

The fact that this drastic change was announced Friday to take effect today makes me think something bad must have been on the horizon.

MysticCat: The fact that this drastic change was announced Friday to take effect today makes me think something bad must have been on the horizon.

That could be true, however, no one knows for sure if that was the main reason behind the decision. I know it took ZBT 3 years to roll out their New Membership Program.....the idea was introduced in 1986, the first rough outline was developed and presented at the 1987 convention, the final outline was developed and present at the 1988 convention for everyone (Grand Supreme Council, National Assembly of Advisors, Alumni Clubs/Association, Foundation Directors, Executive Staff and undergraduate Delegation) to vote and finalize and in the Fall 1989 the New Membership program was launched. Chapters & Colonies had extensive training on the new program before if was launch. Even though it has been over 25 years since the initial rollout, the new membership program did go through at least 2 minor enhancements to keep up with changing times on college campuses.

ZBT:"BROTHERHODD & BEYOND"

If any society wants to get away from a hazing culture, is to call it what it really is, bullying.

Plain and simple, kids are hazed or bullied in high school, maybe even elementary or middle school. They then go on to college and are either "hazed" or bullied, or they become the person who does the bullying or hazing.

Hazing is a LEARNED trait...... It will take time, but we have to enforce acceptable behavior early in schools in order for those good people to come to college and stop it.

No amount of laws or charter withdraws will ever stop people from doing this. And as everyone has seen already, it's not just "fraternities" that haze, but many organizations have this in their midsts.....change the culture and you'll lower or eliminate hazing, or bullying as it really is.