Potential New Members, New Members, Brothers-to-Be, Recruitment, etc.
 

The Greek community as a whole is going crazy with this. Call me a reactionary, but I rush rushees, pin pledges, and initiate those who deserve to be called brother. For a system that exists because of the tradition set forth by our respective founders, I think change for the sake of change is dangerous, even in name. A bad fraternity is a bad fraternity will continue to bring in eggs whether they recruit or rush. Brothers and leaders are forged within the framework already set-up by the founders and by striving for those values, not conforming those values to make them accessible and acceptable.

So...what are your intentions with this thread?

Good point. Why do we as a community feel these names are necessary? I think think it is a trendy attempt to be politically correct. Agree, disagree, discuss.

Previous discussions on this...

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=29470

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=45371

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=13730

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=41412

InHocYall,

actually no matter waht name any of us may call it, if there is Hazing envolved it is not good.

Pledgeing or New Association, todays PC is the Norm even though some are getting tired of it.

Rush or Recruitment? Which is proper?

What you state is not universally true. Not every fraternity refers to its pledges as "pledge" -- or at least that's not what their organization's national norms prescribe. Sigma Nu, for example refers to pledges as candidates (although often pledge is used). The words mean the same thing.

I agree as to the PC bullcrap though. Candidates or pledges have no guarantee, and in some chapters, not even a likelihood of being initiated. To call them a BS name like "Brothers to Be" is silly. Of course, in some organizations (not judging rightness or wrongness) initiation is actually guaranteed after you become a "brother to be".

Personally, I think the phrase is a little silly sounding. As for not calling it "rush", and instead "recruitment", I see no difference. Whatever is the norm where you're from is what should be used. Speaking from a semantics standpoint though, I prefer "recruitment". For fraternities, it's more accurate as on most campuses, I'd recommend a chapter actively recruit members that would complement their chapter rather than to have "rush" which implies they come to you.

Change for the sake of change is bad, but so is tradition for the sake of tradition.

While some of it is admittedly a bit crazy, IMO... it's not "change for the sake of change" It's change to get back to the core values our founders wanted... I doubt the 10 founders of my org. circled the fat of the women came after them..:rolleyes: That is all.

That's outside the scope of the conversation. I don't think anyone here is advocating hazing. Did your founders require new members to go through a period in which they were trial members after which they were accepted or they won't? I have no idea, but mine did.

As for our core values, the trial period is to ensure that the men that we initiate are able to uphold those core values. Sometimes I question whether the pledging periods restricted by so many organizations adequately allow for that.

Inhoc has a point, and I think that there is some movement of Greek Life away from what we have been in the past towards resembling social clubs.

Whaaat???

Changing the terminology from "rush" to "recruitment" (even when what is actually happening changes very little) and "pledge" to "insert individual sorority PC term here" has nothing to do with circling fat or our founders. Who do you think thought up those terms anyway??

Most of the terminology changes are the DEFINITION of "change for the sake of change" as evidenced by the fact that hazing and the craziest parts of rush still go on. Nothing has changed but what you say.

I see your point. But, you can jump on either side of the line here. Yeah, 'new member' is preferred today over 'pledge or puke' and the process of pledging and rushing (ah, excuse me, recruiting) are different today than they were 50 years ago, than they were 150 years ago, than they will be in 50 years.

Why don't we just go back to the days of our founding? In your close group of associates, those who are not members of your 'secret' GLO - you'd decide if he's worthy, then sit him down and read him your constitution, covering your beliefs (secrets), mottos, meeting times, secret handshakes..etc. Then he's an initiated brother. No recruiting. No Pledging. About a 2 hour process, and he's in.

Thing is - things change. It's inevitable; you just gotta roll with it. Like it or not, Sigma Chi will go on whether you like their vision or not. And that goes for all GLO's.

I think the names change group to group for a variety of reasons-- you have to change with the times, build your image if your numbers and public perception are waning, and then you have volunteers in power who just want to change names to change names...

I believe if it's not broke, don't fix it. But over the years, negative connotations have been associated with Greek Life. So we're changing our image in different areas in order to preserve the legacy. I have no problem with the current classifications-- I think their purpose is treat prospective members and members with respect and to help remove some of the mystery associated with pursuing membership to encourage more people to come out.

My main problem is that changing the names DOESN'T equate to change in the actual practices, so to me it's all a big lie. It's like Kentucky Fried Chicken going by "KFC" to take out the "fried" and seem more healthy - without changing their menu. People still know that you go there and the majority of the menu is fried chicken.

It's ridiculous to call what goes on at SEC schools "sorority recruitment." It's nothing like what that term is supposed to mean. If it was, the skits and decorations and big celebration bid days would be gone and replaced by year-round member selection.

As for "new member" replacing the negative connotations of "pledge" - any term can be used in a negative or positive way. You can make "new member" or "pearl" or "membership candidate" sound just as nasty as pledge ever could, if your chapter is bound and determined to treat people that way.

33 -- I concur 100%!

I agree. I don't think I made myself clear in that post. I was trying to state the changes WERE supposedly made in order to try and get away from the terms which brought up thoughts of hazing and to try and prevent situations where hazing could occur, does it work ? Of course not... people will still haze.
My thought was that they did change the name for a reason, not jsut for the hell of it.

My chapter stopped using "Rush" when we learned of what the history of the term meant. And since we do not do the sorority style events and pretty much recruit members, I don't think changing the name is ridiculous. In fact, in the 19th century, when a lot of our GLO's were getting started, there wasn't such a thing as rush, there was recruitment, so if the argument is that we should maintain tradition, then potentially "recruiting" is the better use of the word. "Rush," remember is a slang term for recruiting, so in goes without saying that recruiting would be the more appropriate term.

I have no opinion on the pledge, new member, associate member, brother to be. If you are making a pledge to an organization it seems to me that you are a member or at least a new member, or perhaps a neophyte, or an associate. None of them relinquishes the fact that the person is new to the organization.

My school just changed the Panhellenic constitution to say "recruitment" rather than "rush" last year. The use of PNM is becoming more prevalent, but 90 percent of us still say "rushee".

However, girls are still called pledges, and in my sorority, new member refers to an initiated sister who hasn't celebrated the 1 year anniversary of her intiation which means she hasn't gone through all the major functions of the sorority as an active quite yet. (IE, it's a term we use to get people's attention when we need to talk about stuff that newly initiated sisters haven't gone through. "New Members, can you please stay after the meeting to go over some rush guidelines?" ) . And "Active" is anyone who is initiated and not alumna.

Risk Managment is the key!

Everyone wants to change all of the namings because of this conotaion that has to do with R M and Hazing.

I am sure none of Our Original Founders foresaw some of the changes that came about over the years. It was a much more demure time back then.

I just wonder when a Chapter decided to use a paddle to make a "Pledge" feel closer to becoming a Brother/Sister? I seriously doubt that this was started by Our Founders.

That is why LXA decide that Big Brothers Paddles were a no no because it showed Hazing. Heck, We even had to quit having New Memebers stop making big Paddles that hang on the wall showing their memebers of that class. They are sorely missed by many.:(

I am sure they are missed as much as going out and finding items for presentation to the chapter. "Scavanger Hunts".

Or say the Smoot Measure on a Bridge at MIT. A fun story in the Washington Post!!!!:D

Believe it or not, there actually "is" a difference between rush and recruitment. "Rush" is what we would call the once or twice yearly structured or semi structured series of events designed to get new members into houses. "Recruitment" is technically keeping your eyes and ears open all year to actively seek out the best and brightest for your orgs......just a thought!!!!!!

Changing the name is just a band-aid.

It's no different than an institution slapping a punishment on a particular greek house for the wide spread problem of collegiate alcohol abuse. Sure it takes care of a PART, one instance, but is not a REAL solution.

Call it "rush, recruitment, pledging, tapping, potential new member, associate member", whatever you want, but if you don't change what it IS you can't change what people think about it. Changing the word "mugging" to "tickeling" doesn't make it any better. (And I agree with 33girl on the KFC point!)

The negative connotation will never stop following our organizations (the good ones AND the bad ones) or whatever words we use to describe our practices and processes untill those whose actions bring indignity to those words (no matter how small of a minority) STOP the things that continue to drive the negative images associated. Even our words "initation" and "Ritual" have tarnishes even though we Greeks know that they are meaningful ceremonies that reflect and exemplify only positive things.

But I also believe that doing away with the process of "pledging" in its good form is not a solution either, but rather the gateway to another problem. If we become "sign up and join" organizations we lose our ability to continue to claim the higher standards for membership that we do. I don't care how much some out there say that can be protected and enforced entirely during "recruitment" (which is harder and harder as the pool of those joining Greek orgs is shrinking every year and houses are fighting to stay afloat numbers wise), the process that allows the organization and the individual time to experience one another in a trial period allows them both to make a decision as to whether their relationship would be mutually advantages. If honor societies just started passing around a sign up sheet on campus and every bozo who never cracked a book, gave a minute of service, or worked for anything joined, the value of that organization would be diluted in medocrity. And its purpose: to reward those deserving based on their personal merits and provide them opportunity and recognition for their efforts or exceptional talent, would no longer be served. Perhaps I sound elitist, but if we are too afraid of that accusation then lets all stop boasting our above average statistics we have a Greek Organizations.

I've said it before in other threads, pledge periods are for BOTH sides. The organization can determine whether the individual is willing/capable of meeting the obligations and standards for membership.
Which have NOTHING to do with what goes on in hazing practices-no matter how distorted some can twist things to show a relationship between their actions and some "fraternal ideal" like rolling around in garbage with your pledge brothers=brotherhood (pure BS).
And the individual can determine if they are willing/capable of meeting those obligations (again legitimate things like academics, involvment, community service, conduct, leadership, etc.).

But in a perfect world...

True, it is a learning process on both ends!

We all try to To Recruite/Rush People who We as Active Members feel would fit in Our Organizations. But many times it really doesnt work out.

Everyone will put the best face on when doing Recruiting.

Please share some of this history of the term.

Check out a Baird's or any number of documents pertaining to the history of collegiate fraternal groups.

It has something to do with going down to the train station and rushing the freshman off the train to the fraternity house to initiate them.

New Member is what sororities call their pledges and should never be used by a fraternity.

Please qualify that somehow. I continue to call pledges pledges, because they signed a pledge to become a Sigma Chi, they are nowhere near being a member when they sign that pledge. I beleive that pledging, just like anything else worthwhile should not be easy, that being said my chapter pledges to initiate, but that doesn't mean anything is automatic. From what I see, chapters that pussy foot around with pledging and place no demands on them sacrifice a good name with nationals for a weak, worthless brotherhood. I think the line between pledge activities and hazing is ceasing to exist.

I agree 100%

Pledging needs to be hard.

Not only do pledges need to prove themselves to the house, but most importantly to each other. If you know that the guy next to you has gone through all of the intense shit that is required out of their own free will so that you could have it easier, it makes all of it worthwhile. Tough pledging builds lifelong friendships on a much deeper level than any other way about it. There should be more to being part of a "greek" organization than offering bids, hosting events, and putting up letters on a house, its a shame that this isn't the case.

Not always true.

In the eye of the beholder isnt it?

Tough pledging can cause "close bonding" within the class, sure... but at what means? The traditional pledging system seems to be all fear based, so you are scaring your new members sh*tless so they are forced to bond with each other.

That's great for the first semester. :rolleyes: Then once the pledge class becomes active brothers or sisters, you have the possibility of bitterness towards the active chapter. Yeah, they'll be bonded with each other, but you've stressed Pledge Class Bonding so much that you haven't really focused on WHOLE CHAPTER Bonding. Then you get pledge class rivalry.

I've seen it happen. It's not fun to deal with.

To me, "Bonding" doesn't happen over night. I don't agree with forcing a new member group to bond after 2 events. It it something that takes time. And if it takes more than a semester, well so be it. Not everyone can be friends.

Interesting. See, this is exactly what I think of when I hear the term "new member." I know that's what we're supposed to call ladies who have accepted bids but haven't been initiated yet, but somehow it just seems a little off. They're not really "members" yet. If they were, they'd have all the privileges actives have. That's why I think that "pledge" is a more accurate term, because you have pledged yourself to a group, and that's how I always thought of myself when I was in that situation. I'm not saying that's how it should be done...I'm just saying that that's how I think.

All I'm saying, is I wouldn't give up my "tough" pledging experience for anything, I signed up for it, and its made me (somewhat) more humble, more responsible for myself and others, stronger in every sense, and beats any personal growth I've got in years of involvement with service, athletic, and other easy to join social groups.

I don't resent any other pledge class in any way shape form, my pledge class is as much a part of the house as a whole as theirs.

frathole -- what organization are you a member of, what chapter?

I know you won't answer that (or you shouldn't) because someone might turn your admissions in to your national HQ.

Consider this -- are you really living up to your organization's beliefs if in joining the organization you're required to break the very specific rules that the national body has laid out for its chapters?

Frathole is a Pike. Yep, another one of 'those guys'. I am guessing he came from fratty.net

To some extent, I more-less agree that there needs to be some kind of barrier that is a challenge to pass before you can become a full member of an organization. What I don't agree with is the assertion that you have to break the law and the rules of your own organization to challenge your pledges/whateverthehellyoucallthems.

Each of our national organizations (maybe with some exceptions) have spent a lot of time and money developing national programming. They didn't do this for fun. They did this primarily to give chapters that had dangerous traditions an option to still challenge new members, but to do so legally.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but damn.. if you're doing something illegal, don't advertise it.

The guy refers to "gelheads" in a thread.

Anyone else know someone that uses that word?

-Rudey

Lots of people use the word gelhead. BUT what's funny is that the person you're referring to is like the KING of all Gelheads... but yet he uses the word anyway.

They're all a bunch of dorks.

On this site?

Why the obsession with Pike though? Can't he be a member of Triangle for one username at least?

-Rudey

Agreed. I think if he reincarnated himself as UFSigEp or something, we'd be confused for a little longer.

You should see the things he posts on fratty.net ... a lot of my "best" quotes for my sociology project (looking at hate on college campuses) came from him on there.

It would only take about 20 minutes, to search a bit on the internet, to find out exactly who he is. Spam his name around a bit, e-mail his mom and dad, his National HQ, and I bet he shuts his pie hole.

I'm not sure what you mean by "those guys" but I highly doubht he is a Pike.

Some of us have seen his post and like many of the above posters, we get headaches of Cashmoney all over again. Like Rudey said, I don't know what the obsession is with us. It been proven that whoever this Cashmoney was, that he was not a Pike. Members did a search on him, and then I verified it with our national database.