Oh, is this like killing the point of being members?

Okay, lets kill being GLOs!:rolleyes:

I'd be curious to know - do they have voting rights regarding membership? In other words, do new members vote on pnms? I could see a point being made about chapter business other than new members - but surely you have to be an initiated sister to be, say, the new member educator?
We may never know, because that may be secret ADPi knowledge, which is fine, but again, now I'm curious!

Ah, I think I completely misread your initial post. Sorry about that.

NPCs that allow letters, not crests, for NMs:

AST
ASA
G Phi B (I think I gathered that..?)
KD
Sigma Kappa


NPCs that allow crests, not letters, for NMs:

AEPhi

NPCs that allow both:

Pi Phi

FWIW, I agree with preciousjeni. I think that for the most part insisting that allowing letters vs. crests is all a matter of semantics. As is "new member" vs. "pledge."

I think the salient point for me is that some chapter were doing things in the past like "making pledges earn their letters" by hazing and that's why disallowing letters for NMs was done away with. I've never heard of hazing justified by "making pledges earn their crest," so it's less of a hot-button issue.

History question
 

I would be interested in knowing when the question of letters became an issue. Certainly those NPC groups formed in the 19th and early 20th centuries could never have imagined their members wearing T SHIRTS as outerwear!!! The pledge pin and member's badge were really the only early insignia. And breathesgelatin, do you know when crests were adopted for NPCs? (paging oldu - I bet he'd know!)
It seems that lettered jerseys hit around - maybe the 50s? Late 40s?

breathesgelatin essentially said what I've been trying to get across, but she put it more succinctly.

ETA: I'm calling the hazing laws and such - that have forced Greeks orgs to enact the logically inconsistent policies - "insane" and "ridiculous," not the policies themselves. If we weren't such a litigious society, I believe we could have much more successfully separated the true hazing from the organizational traditions. ALL Greeks are affected which is why I'm so concerned about it.

All of this talk has really made me start to think... When was it approved/allowed that greeks were allowed to wear other greeks' letters? Many times, our Panhellenic Council will sponsor an event or have some type of promotion where they used tshirts to advertise. The tshirts would include the letters of all participating greek organizations... or.. even some sororities team up with events and advertise the same way... umm, if "new members" can't wear letters, how is it that other greeks can!?! :confused:

As far as I remember, our new members were allowed to wear letters.

You know...as a national staff member, you may want to consider whether you REALLY want to keep going on about how hazing issues are insane and ridiculous.

While I understand what you're saying about litigious societies, it's worth saying that as a GLO member, we are obligated to hold the standards Nationals sets for us - and while we can disagree with them, as a national staff member I'd expect you to support them so as not to give the wrong idea.

You'd have to ask an ADPi, but here is a post where I mentioned it before and linked to other posts -- one about ADPi and one that I'd forgotten about AXO.

When this has been discussed before, the consensus has been that shirts like you describe don't imply that you are a member of every organization listed, but just that the organization you are a member of participated in the event or promotion. The issue is wearing letters in a way that indicates that you are a member of the organization whose letters you are wearing,

Even then, some orgs might have guidelines -- Fiji would not allow their letters to be used at all; and as described ad nauseum above, some orgs might allow their names to be spelled out in English but would not allow the Greek letters to be used.

I/HQ policies aren't really the issue -- it's the extremely vague state/federal hazing laws that are cause for concern.

Actually, the hazing laws are often much more limited than GLO or university hazing policies. Hazing laws establish criminal violations that must give people reasonable notice of what conduct is prohibited. In my state, for example, it doesn't meet the legal definition of hazing unless actual physical injury occurs. (And I stand to be corrected, but I'm not familiar with any federal laws defining or criminalizing hazing; so far as I know, that's left to the states.)

GLO and university policies, on the other hand, are drafted with civil liability in mind, so they are typically likely to be more broad.

Maybe I should have prefaced that with "in my experience." I've noticed that (Texas) hazing law tends to leave too much open for interpretation. Several GLOs (NIC, NPC, NPHC, and NALFO) that I've run into have been concerned because simple things incorporated into their programs have to be stopped/re-evaluated because they don't want to run into trouble with "well, that coooould be considered hazing" violations.

Right, but (following your lead) in my experience, that concern stems from the threat of civil liability, where the criminal definition given in state law wouldn't necessarily apply.

Hazing issues are a serious consideration. Hazing laws and regulations are my problem for the following reasons (among other things):

We do this dance around the law trying to decide how far is too far. Even the organizations that have the tightest regulations can still come under fire when a good lawyer gets on the case. The vagueness causes utter confusion and insecurity.

Where have I said that I/we shouldn't support the standards our organizations set for us? I'm even MORE cognizant of risk management issues because of my specific position on the board.

Because of the differences in laws and regulations across states, college/universities and individual organizations, we end up creating policies that contradict other organizations' policies, which only serves to reflect badly on Greeks as a whole.

There's no consistency in all of this and we're placing blanket bans on things that don't need to be banned for fear that we'll get hit with a lawsuit. I fear there's no room for logic anymore. My organization is in this hot mess with the rest of y'all.

ETA: I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but lawsuits are brought against Greek orgs constantly but the cost of going to court is often more than the cost of settling out of court, so Greeks are paying out the behind for stupidity. You say "hazing" and the pockets spew forth riches.

That, to me, is very clearly disagreeing with your RM policies.

You didn't say anything about agreeing. There are A LOT of things in life I don't agree with that I support and uphold (e.g. unconstitutional seat belt violations). And, I'm not making any suggestions that my sorority change its policies as they are in place to protect us.