Sigma Alpha Epsilon Announces Historic Change for membership experience
 

Sigma Alpha Epsilon Announces Historic Change for membership experience http://www.sae.net/truegentlemanexperience

WOW!

Just curious. Which other members of the NIC have gotten rid of pledging? (One ceremony, straight to brotherhood)

And while I understand some of the reasoning behind the board not being able to do this between conventions, this is *not* going to go down easy.

When I first read this I thought' 'Oh Jeez, this is going to to be where the stuff hits the fan'! Then I remembered stories I heard when I was a very young kid about how different things used to be way back when. Apparently it used to be common practice among fraternities that rush was a much longer process where the prospectives were looked at in a number of different social and academic situations. This seemed to go for about a month where there was an informal stag 'smoker', followed the next week by something like a picnic with dates, in turn followed next week by a cocktail party with dates. All the while the prospectives were observed in class and and other campus activities as well as the organized social events. After the first smoker culling sessions were held where the brothers could speak for or against any of the prospectives. Those who made the first cut were invited to the next activity and this went on through three or four culls. Then after the final activity the brothers met for a final selection. Depending on the organization anywhere from several to one single objection would 'blackball' the prospective, but if he got through the culling and was extended a bid it was essentially a done deal. The bid was not given unless the chapter was really sure that they wanted this guy. Again, varying from house to house, the prospective was given a bid on, for example, the Wednesday following the last formal activity and had until Friday to sign the bid or decline. Then that weekend was spent learning what a new guy was supposed to understand about the fraternity and then formally initiated.
Some of the really ancient brothers of several fraternities said this was pretty much the way it was done in the late 1800's through the end of WWI
when many fraternity men returned from overseas to finish their college time. The old guys said that they were told by the even older guys that the WWI returnees thought the concept of military basic training would be a good idea for new guys (pledges). In those old days hazing was much less dangerous and more tongue-in-cheek and good natured. This began to change in the 1930s but really became what was viewed as a problem after the mid-70s or early 80s.
Anyway, if this SAE initiative is well handled and has a positive effect it might be something we might all want to take a look at.

Zeta Beta Tau abolished pledging in 1989. Sigma Phi Epsilon changed from a traditional pledge program to a "process" in 1991. In both groups (from my understanding), new members are given all the same rights as actives as soon as they accept their bids.

This is where the path of hazing leads.

Posters on SAE's FB page are not happy with the change.

I think it's a brilliant idea in theory. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in reality.

Basically, in chapters with hazing traditions, members become full brothers, but are still treated as NM's...the most recent pledge class is still hazed.

Lambda Chi Alpha does not have pledging.

I think this is a horrible idea. You basically become a joke. I'm sorry, but it's true. Not to mention, pledging, for fraternities and sororities alike is a time to learn about the values, traditions and history of an organization, so that when initiation comes along it actually means something.

But those most recent members will now have the leverage of knowing ritual secrets, which they'll take with them if they quit and will probably be inclined to share if the older members treat them too harshly. It's possible that SAE HQ isn't too worried about this over the long run, given that everybody's ritual is probably going to end up splashed all over the internet sooner or later. For the meantime, though, for hazed new members, it's leverage.

I agree with you that it's not going to magically fix the problem of hazing, but I do think it puts the newer members on much leveler ground with the older members.

With Lambda Chi Alpha, Sig Ep, and most of the other groups that have eliminated "pledging," don't most of them still have some kind of associate member/new member period where initiation doesn't happen for the first couple months? ZBT might be the exception where initiation happens immediately, I'm not sure.

Yes, as far as I know, Lambda Chi and Sig Ep do have associate member periods. Is hazing a problem? Yes. But I don't think this is the way to fix it. It undermines and devalues 150 years of traditions and history and all the things you're supposed to learn during the pledge period. Plus since this is so high profile, it could have serious implications for all groups, NIC and NPC. I personally, am not willing to share my ritual, the day after bid day, with Suzy PNM who could turn around 3 days later and quit. Ritual then means nothing, for all of us, it's not secret or sacred or special.

I don't really think that members who engage in hazing are going to be deterred by the fact that the NMs already know ritual secrets. In the chapters I've seen adopt a no-pledging program, nothing changed.

The primary objection that members are having is not with the merits of the idea, but rather with the method with which it was developed and announced.

This new program made sweeping changes to the national Fraternity Laws and repealed a portion of our Ritual in its entirety, all with zero authority to do so. It also was kept secret from members, alumni, and advisers, except for a privileged few who were given the information a couple of weeks ago. Those who heard rumors and asked national staff were denied information.

Only the biennial national Fraternity Convention, at which the undergraduates own the majority share of votes, has the authority to amend or repeal the Fraternity Laws or the Ritual. Even then, any such proposal must be submitted in writing months in advance, published to the Fraternity, discussed and voted on at the Convention, and achieve a two-thirds majority vote in order to pass. Alternatively, the Supreme Council can submit a proposal to the membership of the Convention via a direct mail vote if the matter can't wait until the next Convention.

The five-member Supreme Council acting on its own does not have the authority to do this. They are attempting to invent this authority by pulling the word "represent" out of context and ignoring the multiple sections of the Fraternity Laws that clearly but inconveniently establish otherwise.

Honestly, I think this is a smart move for SAE. I read the QandA on their website and it makes sense to me why they did this. I can see how this change will be hard and I'm sure there will be breakaway groups but I think they are looking at the longevity of the organization and making sure it will be around in the future.

LaneSig: Minor correction: The page that you bring up (and the one that was mentioned it at least two Greek blogs that I have seen) is NOT the Official Sigma Alpha Epsilon page. And out of the 5 or so I am on, it is the only one that did blow up over this. Will be interesting to see what develops on the several Sigma Alpha Epsilon LinkedIn pages.

Short term is going to be hard on all involved. However we need the long term benefits for our general health and well being as an Organization.

My Brother here maybe onto something with his comments. At least it is rational and well thought out reasoning. Many of the postings on that Facebook page were far, far from it. To the point that page owner tried to moderated it. And when that failed, deleted it. Also many people, reading about it, tried to get into the page. And judging from some of the comments, the people behind them may be part of the problem(s) we as Greek Organization are having and many other GLO's are having.

I don't necessarily disagree. However, this would be like the president writing his own laws without regard for Congress. The checks and balances are there for a reason.

I can absolutely see why members would be upset with the way it was done.

Exactly. Beyond that, the new program is still under development, but was rushed into implementation for what can only have been the convenience of the timing to our national founder's day. Such a radical departure from the usual order of business will have unavoidable hiccups as we work out how to deal with it. Nevertheless, we were all given 48 hours' notice of its implementation, followed by 48 hours to comply. Noncompliance means getting your chapter shut down. Nobody likes an ultimatum.

My hope is that the Supreme Council and Fraternity Service Center reconsider the mandatory nature of this until it can be more thoroughly reviewed and actually discussed by the membership. It could be piloted on a voluntary basis to prove the concept and refine it where appropriate before full-scale implementation. There were so many ways in which this could have been better handled. As it is, I've already heard talk of the entire Supreme Council getting voted out of office at the next Convention over this.

I fully agree here. Yes, there are reasons to allow a National Board to make certain actions between conventions. However, if a National Board can do this, what CAN'T they do.

I fully expect the Supreme Council to be voted out at the next opportunity.

In reading this thread, does this new policy state that after each bid is given out, the chapter will have 48 hrs to initiate the new member?

A question I have is was this something done to try and appease the university boards of trustees and insurance companies?

Years ago this was brought up in many fraternities, back in the 1990s many schools were trying to abolish pledging as they feared the pledge process was the sole root of hazing....

It didn't work then as they had planned.

The thing about making anyone the chapter likes, and "automatic" brother so to speak is that eventually there will be those that find ways around this....

Fraternities are akin to FreeMasonry in that now it seems that they will just follow how that organization works. You get a committee to check your background, then you go through the three steps to becoming a "brother". Although there is no "pledge process" within masonry, many lodges take the three months to go through each "phase" of membership if you will....(I too am a mason, so I'm trying to put this in laymens terms for those not familiar with how it works).

If this sort of thing happens you will see more groups adopt processes similar to other orgs who dropped "pledging" for a more elaborate ritualized society. New members may be called whatever the college or university wants to call them other than "pledge" but many will not likely be privy to "ALL" the secrets of the society until after a period of time passes or other "levels" of membership occur.

From an historical standpoint the logic of it makes sense in that in the beginnings of most orgs, they would just find people on campus that the chapter liked or members trying to establish a new chapter liked and then just initiate them as soon as possible to have them start to build great chapters, some failed, and many successed, and some switched affiliations.....but that was back in the days when you'd be talking about only a couple of people to deal with within chapters, now some chapters have hundreds of members and dozens of potential new members. To me it seems like rushing in 100 new guys (or gals if this ever happens to a sorority) will break up many chapters and cause too many divides within the brotherhoods....there won't be any time to get to know how the new members will fit in...they are forced to being "fit in" under this plan.

In the end, I guess there are interesting points on both sides of this issue....it'll be interesting to watch what happens.

BG

If you're interested in seeing what collegians think about this, there's a discussion about it over on Reddit. It's going about as well as you'd think.

I am all for massive, sweeping, transformative changes in theory. They excite me to no end. I immediately envisioned myself as a chapter president confronted with making this work, like Olivia Pope.

And it SHOULD work.... chapters SHOULD be picking dudes they KNOW they really want and making them their brothers. IF SAE allows for a much longer rush period and doesn't penalize chapters for becoming drastically smaller over the next five years, SAE could truly become known as an elite, exclusive, selective fraternity nationally. This is not a terrible branding decision, all things considered.

But here's the problem: Rarely, if ever, does a fraternity's culture supersede the campus culture. What is the usefulness of this sort of image if you are on a campus where "exclusive" isn't as valued as "big" or "gregarious" or whatever it is that works on a specific campus.

In NPHC world, where all of the organizations have abolished pledging since 1990, and some before that, we have certainly entered into a dark ages we are only just now emerging from. Of course the kid sought underground pledging experiences which turned them from children into men and women. That's what people under 25 do, make dumb decisions.

Sorority DEF in the NPHC had a three-day intake process. On one hand, the organization became very successful over the past 20 years in creating a culture that frowned upon the "making" of sisters and embraced the "selection" of sisters. But at what cost? Even though women are still pledging, it's now been 20 years of being called skaters, paper, weekend warriors, etc. And they don't even have a three-day process anymore, but after 20 years, the damage to the undergrad experience has been done.

Anyway, I feel like I am rambling... but my overall point is that unless SAE is prepared to not even compete for the same candidates as their peers, they are in for a lot of problems they hadn't even considered. Hazing persists in NPHC organizations and abolishing pledging hasn't saved lives.

I'm not sure it's that brilliant. Personally, if it were my group doing this, I'd rather see a rehaul of how pledging is done first. I've said before that I think that pledging (called by whatever name), at least for males, plays into some important rite-of-passage archetypes—not so much in terms of weeding out, but rather in terms of being fully accepted. NB: By pledging, I do not mean hazing.

Yes, it does. It just calls it associate membership. Not having pledging means going straight from bid to full initiation. Lambda Chi goes from bid to an associate member period and then to initiation.

SAEalumnus, thanks for all of the background info. I can see why SAEs may be up in arms about this if there are questions as to the Council's authority. I hate to say it, but I think an attempted change like this is doomed if there isn't broad buy-in from collegiate members, and that's not likely to happen without extensive discussion and feedback that includes everyone.

Re Masons, yes, it would be marvelous if college fraternities could choose their members like that. The difference is that the window of time is a lot shorter. The Masons also don't have to worry about filling a million dollar house.

I guess this is why I am so cynical about it. The national council has told chapters they must implement this or lose their charter. Okay, but they've been telling chapters that they have to stop hazing or lose their charter for years, and hazing is still happening (and I personally have no idea how widespread it is, but obviously the council thinks it is enough of a problem to implement this change).

On an unrelated note, I go by their HQ a lot. Maybe I should look and see if people there look especially stressed out today.

I'm sure it's taboo to say this on GC, but the problem is that NIC fraternities are largely wedded to this idea that the collegiate chapters are capable of self-government despite the fact that this has been proven untrue for the majority of them. SAE says it outright in their statement: "We acknowledge that many groups maintain a positive experience for their new members and that the experience may be beneficial to the development of members on some campuses. Unfortunately, the instances of programs that do not follow suit outweigh the ones that do." SAE's own documentation shows that they've disciplined more than 100 of their 250 chapters since 2007--and that doesn't include the ones who are doing things but haven't gotten caught, or--like with the Salisbury hazing case--ones where the university found the chapter guilty of hazing but SAE failed to act.

So fraternities' international offices create policies that are supposed to dictate how chapters should be run, and they hand down punishments when chapters are caught violating those policies, but they apparently fail to intervene effectively in that middle period where they could address hazing or alcohol problems before they've grown out of control, because the chapter is supposed to be in charge of governing itself. This is not a sustainable position, given rising insurance and settlement costs, and I think SAE's leaders realize it, even if their members don't. They already have the highest fraternity insurance costs per member in the country, and if they lead fraternities in deaths, they likely also lead them in pocket-emptying lawsuit settlements, too, so those costs are only going to grow. This is a good first step to reduce them, but unless they're going to back up the changes with changes in how things are enforced--field staff taking a more active role to root out hazing, a return of house parents, more direct involvement with campus Greek life staff, more of a willingness to close chapters with recurring problems (no matter how prestigious of a campus they're on), etc--then nothing will change. More direct HQ intervention is not going to be a popular change, so I can understand why so many fraternities are so hesitant to do it, but the bottom line is that it's going to be a necessary one at some point in the fairly near future in order to keep organizations alive.

Well said, S&S.

This whole thing makes me glad that major changes like this in Sigma Nu have to be approved by the collegians. It would be a pretty tough sale. And if I think of just how many actually awful people our pledging program (no hazing) has kept us from sharing our secrets with, I could never support this sort of thing.

And if to comply, SAE chapters simply wait a semester to hand out a bid and initiate, what was the point of that? How many of your pledge class members are going to be picked off by other NIC groups through COB who don't have this restriction?

To each their own though. Maybe this works for y'all, but what I'm guessing is the makeup of your executive board is going to change dramatically soon and these rules are going to be rescinded before Fall recruitment.

You make lots of good points overall, but I question this one. Has it actually been "proven" that "the majority" of chapters are incapable of "self-government" (which is a much bigger thing than just preventing hazing)? If it has, what's the proof? It's not the statistic you cited:

Quote:

SAE's own documentation shows that they've disciplined more than 100 of their 250 chapters since 2007--and that doesn't include the ones who are doing things but haven't gotten caught, or--like with the Salisbury hazing case--ones where the university found the chapter guilty of hazing but SAE failed to act.

That's just one fraternity, and it's not a majority of chapters of that one fraternity, unless you can include 26 otherwise unidentified chapters (well, 25 not counting the Salisbury case) that are hazing but haven't gotten caught. Proof means actual data, not anecdotes, showing that more than half of chapters of NIC fraternities are incapable of governing themselves.

I'm not denying there's a major problem. There certainly is. I just question what seems to me like an over-generalization.

Really interested to see how this all shakes out! I have a son who is currently an active member in a college chapter of SAE and let me tell you they are NOT HAPPY! They feel like they are just giving the membership away, without having to first prove your loyalty and worth to the Brothers. While I do not support hazing activities that are overtly humiliating or potential harmful to life and limb, I DO support a comprehensive new member period that includes learning all those tedious details about the fraternity! I don't think its awful to have new members do some chores around the fraternity house, I do not think its a travesty when a initiated (usually older) member calls a new member at 2:00 am and tells him to go buy him a Slurpee and bring it to him in the fraternity house. I do believe that some of these activities do serve to bond the group together and frankly to weed out the ones who maybe don't really want the membership that badly! I know many of you think Im nuts and that I am pro hazing. Well, to a degree I suppose that I am. But both my husband and my son look back at their personal experiences with so much respect...and some laughs. By the way....my best friend's son is a Lambda Chi at a private california school. Yes, they most certainly DO have a new member period and they most certainly DO haze.

As I posted a day or two ago I can understand and support my Brothers postings here. My feelings are that once this is full implemented, it will work to help us (SAE and all GLO's) improve and strenghen. However, as my Brother pointed out, the set-up and start-up of this program is a bit of a shock. I would have to wonder how busy the office and phone lines are this weekend with calls and meeting.

Something that I find interesting in a few posting is sort of a cavalier approach to hazing/RM issues. One look at the RM section should be enough. Or one can do a search with terms "hazing" "law suits" "injuries" "deaths" "Sigma Alpha Epsilon" (or any other GLO). Sadly not at all to difficult to find news stories about SAE. We have a large target on us right now as we have the highest death toll of any Greek living group. And laws suits resulting from them. A letter from our National was posted, a year or so back, in the RM section-worth a review. And it is not only SAE-all GOP's, as seen within the RM section, have problem chapters. And yes, Chapters can get closed, a few Brother/Sisters may get some fines and/or minor jail time but it is the National that gets hit with the law suits. Even thought they have policies in place, education in place to prevent, or at least reduce the issue. I have seen here and in other posting all to many comments from people who claim to be active students that state that their Chapter gives the finger to their National all the time and get away with it. Until something bad happens and then they find out that they are on their own. And that they just put a hurt on the entire Greek family on their campus.

Now I have a good feeling that I may be one of the oldest people lurking on this board. And yes, by today's definitions, I was hazed. However we were never, ever put into any kind of situation that may have put us anywhere near the the area of physical harm. Most of it was mental and even that was countered by positive education and support right afterwards. As for getting a 3 AM call for a soda-that is BS. That is not building a Brotherhood-that is bullying. We had to carry a pen, a lighter, and some small change. Maybe a whole dollars worth. And wear our Pledge pin. Did we, as Pledges, do some house work-Yes. Party clean up and dinner set-up. And Active Brothers did come around and help out after a bit. That is team building.

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.