A chapter on my campus was "reorganized" after their HQ found out they were hazing. They made all the active sisters go alum and kept the pledge class as the active chapter. Then again, I think that the pledges were the ones who blew the whistle on the hazing.

These pledges, on the other hand, sound like they would just do all the same things that were done to them. If they were a little cannier, they'd have at least pretended to be upset and traumatized.

Some of them may have been upset and just not admitting it - but on the flip side, until you are a member and really learn about Greek life, etc. you might not realize how illegal some of these seemingly minor events are. These pledges were freshmen, new to college, Greek life, etc. Who ever told them that blindfolds are hazing? Unless they were attending campus wide panhellenic meetings on this type of stuff, they were just going along with the people in charge...- I don't think we can blame pledges - they were the "victims" at the very least.

Oh, I'm not blaming them for anything - just surprised that they didn't think "hey, they are getting their butts handed to them on a plate for this stuff. Maybe if we act upset that they did it, even if we're not, they'll let us stay active."

a lot of specuation
 

With all due respect, I don't think you have enough information on both sides of the equation for you to make a comment like this. You don't know if this chapter was already on probation or not for previous infractions. The incidents that happened during I-week were likely the last draw. (I am just speculating)

As stated above, we don't know if the chapter had been on probabtion before and what sanctions were enforced. You never know if they were restricted from recruiting in the past spring semester. The chapter could have met all of the goals in the spring and all sanctions were lifted cut were still on probation (not exactly something initiated members will advertise during recruitment). Like I said it seems like the incidents at I-week were the last draw. It would be extremely hard for the national organization to hold initiation if the events were not reported till after initiation occured.

Sigma Sigma Sigma has a Zero Tolerance Hazing Policy. If a member is found accountable of hazing by the national organization, it is immediate termination.

Actually, the new Arc Sequence (for new members) of the Essential Sigma Program, that was rolled out in the Fall, has a very long session on the National Policies and there purpose going over many senarios. The women have to sign paperwork saying they have read and understood these policies as soon as they become a member and basically again at initiation. I do feel a little sorry for the NI's. Most were probably a little naive about the situation and trying to just go with the flow.

Clearly the delegation the chapter sent to convention this past summer did not go to the prestation by the lawyer. WOW! Was that ever enlightening. Most of the colligates I spoke with about the presentation had this as an expression :eek:. It was basically about a chapter that had a scavenger hunt across town. After the event had ended, a group of members on their way home when they were in a car accident. One woman was paralyzed by the accident. The parents sued the chapter, chapter officers, and national organization and won. An event that seemed totally innocent turned into a large expense for the chapter and national organization.

Most of the "rules" in place my many national organizations have come about in the last 20 years as a result of lawsuits. They really aren't as archaic as many of today's colligates think.

You make some good points Cruise4fun - but I still feel like there could have been something worked out for those new initiates. I am sure there are anti-hazing policies explained in new member materials, but I have to side with the pledges on this one.

And I agree, we are speculating on the chain of events. I just have to ask again, where were the adult women in charge of this chapter?! If this was the huge problem it is being made out to be (and again, I want to say I understand the need for these rules, etc) I just have to hope that there was lots of interaction with alumni who were providing guidance, hands on involvement, etc.

I cannot imagine this happening with my group (I am speaking of a chapter being closed) without numerous visits from national officers, visiting fraternity reps, etc. and lots of pressure from national office as well as local panhellenic to have alumni very involved in all aspects of the chapter. I would really like to know if that happened.

I still feel bad for the pledges who were totally left in the cold.

As I understand it (from the articles posted here), the hazing and drinking related allegations (i.e. the reasons given for the suspension by both the University and by Sigma Sigma Sigma HQ) came to light right *after* initiation.

And frankly, the chapter was on notice. Every chapter of every inter/national fraternity/sorority is on notice. Every chapter should know that if they go against fraternity/sorority policy, their charter may be pulled.

Now I understand why the new initiates might feel cheated. However, I would hope that Missouri State's Campus Panhellenic made it clear to each girl participating in recruitment that hazing is not allowed. That if it happens, a chapter may close. And after the women accepted their bids, it should be drilled into them by the current chapter members and through their new member education - as Cruise4fun noted. If the recent initiates (pledges at the time) were willing participants, then they too should be held accountable for the hazing and risk management related issues. If they were forced, then perhaps they should be allowed to withdraw from Tri Sigma without prejudice (i.e. as if they never accepted a bid) and allowed to rush again.

Generally speaking it seems easier for a chapter to come back from a closing due to risk management issues than from closing due to low numbers.

As such if this had been an IFC, I wouldn't have been surprised if a membership review of the chapter wouldn't have been in order similar to the one 33girl noted in a previous post. The likely result being perhaps only the actives (not the recently initiated members) being suspended. It seems like a more fair thing to do than suspend the whole membership. In this situation the sixty new members would have been allowed to remain active in the chapter and help reorganize it. Perhaps they might be on some sort of social probation if warranted. Bottom line is that only the women who deserved to be suspended should be suspended.

But to be clear here, if the (at the time) pledges *knew* (understood) that they were participating in hazing and other types of risk management activities, then they too should be held accountable. Which is what I feel was the result of Tri Sigma's and the University's findings. That all (most) members (active and recent initiates) were perhaps culpable. Thus the whole chapter's suspension was warranted.

33girl - I am impressed that an NPC chapter did this type of reorganization (i.e. keeping the pledges and allowing the suspended actives to accept alum status) at your campus. It seems like it might be difficult for most NPCs to implement. If you do not mind, how has that chapter faired?

You know...according to the article, the new members didn't even think they had been hazed. I'm not calling conspiracy theory here,but that definitely concerns me. One of them apparently even recited the definition right there and said, "We have NOT been hazed."

Is it possible that there's a lot of overreaction going on here?

Nor am I calling consipiracy theory - but there are details that are not being explained to all concerned. If the hazing incident occurred during initiation, then who's to say that the new members just thought that it was part of the 'secrets'?
And, I still want someone to explain WHERE THE ADULTS WERE. If not publicly, I sure hope some adults are being called on the carpet internally, because you can preach to young women, and print in manuals all you want, but if the advisors are turning a blind eye, then who is really to blame here? Or did they even have a chapter advisor working with them?

It is such a shame that the new members will not be able to experience being a Tri-Sigma as a collegiate because of the actions of a few.

My favorite quote from the article:

Ummm, sweetie, they are not just "Greek rules"... they are federal laws that the University and Greek system are abiding by.

I also think it's sweet that she seems to think that high school and college kids never drank until now - they invented drinking! :rolleyes:

Just like every generation invents sex. We all know our parents couldn't have ever done THAT.

WHAT??? We didn't invent sex??? I was sure we had in the 80s!

The Story Continues -- A Lawsuit Begins (Update, May 16, 2008)

As experienced GCers probably expected because it's the way American society is, several women are suing Sigma Sigma Sigma national, the local chapter, the university, and so on.
Excerpt from article on the web site of the News Leader, a local paper:

Their hopes of experiencing the "college sorority experience" dashed, nine former members of a shuttered Springfield sorority filed suit against Missouri State University and several Greek organizations this week.

MSU freshmen Claire Walker, Nicole Buechler, Ashleigh Fountain, Mandy Kisker, Hope Allen, Jillian Otis, Brittany Ortman, Katie Zvacek and Alyssa Ruff all pledged to the local chapter of Sigma Sigma Sigma in November.

Less than two months later, the sorority was shut down after an investigation found members had hazed pledges and played drinking games.

Under Greek rules, its members are now barred from joining another sorority, since they'd already pledged to Sigma Sigma Sigma.

So the nine plaintiffs filed suit Wednesday against MSU, the local and national chapters of the sorority, and a sorority oversight group. The petition also names as a defendant Dixie Williams, assistant director of student activities
. . .

Entire article:

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs...805160366/1007

Note: I think the author of the article probably misused the word "pledged," since merely pledging, without initiation, doesn't bar a woman from becoming an initiate of another NPC organization. Or is it possible that in some way the school and the local college Panhellenic are interpreting rules to mean that a "pledge" is still binding, even when the chapter is closed? Oh well, we'll probably hear more about this.

Edited Saturday, May 17, to add: In another article

http://ozarksfirst.com/content/fulltext/?cid=21151

there’s this bit of information:
. . .
The university says it was not the decision maker in whether the students could join another sorority. It will aggressively defend its case and has no plans for a settlement.

I'm guessing they were initiated?

So much for the shortened pledge period, huh?