Getting rid of collegians because they don't fit the image?
 

For the record, the author of this post is a fraternity alumnus and is writing about a sorority at DePauw:

http://community.livejournal.com/greek_life/332248.html

I know of sorority chapters closing and reorganizing, but telling all but 12 members to leave because they don't fit the image? Is this even normal and possible?

Thoughts?

I've never heard of Nationals booting out fraternity members because they didn't "look" right......but I have heard of Nationals conducting member reviews after a chapter got in trouble for hazing or something else that they could get into trouble for. KA Nationals held a membership review at Texas Tech after they go caught hazing and kicked out some members, made other members automatic alumni, and made some alumni in bad standing. Then they initiated all the pledges, had an election, and filled the office positions..... and allowed them to stay on campus.

I have to agree with your thoughts on this. OP's link just does not ring right. The links writer may not have all the facts or has an edge to grind perhaps.

But then again, truth can be strange.

I think this happens in sororities when a group consistently has issues with recruiting and retaining members.....image is not just how women look, but also how they act and, in the case of sororities, how they represent the values of the organization. From what I understand, grades are considered, involvement in other organizations is considered, as is ability and willingness to recruit the kinds of members that will sustain a chapter.

Membership review, at least from what I have seen, frequently comes about when the women in the chapter are not having or offering a quality experience.

It is a means to an end...and the hope is that the end is a stronger, thriving chapter.

If you go to that link, you'll see that there's a deleted post. It was from me, basically challenging what this guy wrote. I took it down because the tone of my comment probably would have started a flame war, and I really wasn't in the mood for that, believe it or not.

I wanted to call BS right away. I've seen chapters reorganize for various reasons, but not because their HQ thought their members didn't "fit the mold". If anyone at/from DePauw can shed some light on this, it'd be nice. I figure he posted what he did because he's looking out for his friends' best interests, but his facts just don't add up and he's making the sorority's HQ look bad. Being that there are only 7 sororities at DePauw, I'm sure it won't be that hard to figure out who he's talking about.

I think it would depend on how you would define "fitting the mold". If they're posting pics of the chapter drinking on facebook, engaging in hazing, not making grades repeatedly, doing drugs in the house (or selling them out of the house), etc.. it could be said that they don't "fit the mold". I have seen chapters of women being required to sign a recommitment form which says that they will follow the policies and rules and uphold the standards of the fraternity in order to remain in good standing. If some women chose not to sign something like that, it could look like only a select few were allowed to remain in the chapter. One thing I can guarantee... the full story is not known by anybody except those chapter members and their Headquarters, so speculation on why something like that occurred is fruitless. The real story isn't going to posted on a message board.

That's what I was thinking.

I was looking at their Greek Life website and deferred recruitment for them starts next month. :eek: Looks like it might be an uphill battle for the remaining members.

I agree with your gut. I had a gut reaction to both that post and the SK one that they're a member crying foul and trying to portray their chapter as victims to the big, bad HQ. But, like usually happens, I somehow think we're not being told everything.

And being that this is coming from some fraternity guy who is not even on campus anymore- he surely does not have all the information. He's passing on hearsay and probably has some false information. We all know how rumors fly when a chapter is going through difficulty

I realize that this isn't the same exact thing, but there have been sororities that have put all of the members on alumn status and then started over again the next semester. Isn't the HQ/National sending a message that the current members of the chapter aren't presenting an image that they want?

A sorority on my campus was reorganized a few years ago after several incidents. Their HQ came in and interviewed all of the girs. From my understanding, most of the seniors and juniors were given alumna status because they had been the biggest part of the problem. They were small for a year or two, but they're thriving now and they have much fewer problems. It turned out to be a good thing for them.

I totally agree his post is missing something, but perhaps these 'bad seeds' were not entirely thrilled at being removed from active status and so they were told by HQ whatevery you tell people when you're giving them the boot and then their anger translated into "National says were not the right image" Angry girls have a tendency to be told one thing and somehow through our brains we can make it something totally different - usually something more dramatic and to our benefit. (I don't mean this to sound so disparaging, but I'm not sure how else to say it.)

No, that's how I interpreted it. In their minds, they're getting thrown out because they don't fit the image. God knows why they're actually being asked to leave.

Exactly! Like not meeting the minimum standards, or consistently taking in much less than quota, or not meeting the chapter GPA requirements for several semesters in a row.

Ok, at a place like DePauw, why would they leave those 12 there to do all the work, especially when they're seniors and especially since there's an NPC rule that they can take everyone out and still keep their spot for a year - right?

I think if I was those 12 seniors I would have told the nationals to go shit in their hat, unless they completely hated the rest of the chapter.

As far as not taking quota, not reaching standards, GPA etc - that is a CHAPTER issue. If the CHAPTER hasn't met quota since 1973, they should close the CHAPTER, not kick individual women out. You don't say that your chapter hasn't done a, b, and c, and then leave 12 girls there, especially if they are the girls who have been there the longest and therefore had the most time to remedy the issues.

Do I think a national will remove girls just because they don't fit the "image" if the chapter's numbers are high and everything else (risk mgmt, $$ etc) is OK? No. Do I think a national will remove women or close a chapter if they don't fit the image AND their numbers are low or the chapter has other issues? Definitely. Do I think a national will let the same sort of RM or treasury issues slide if the chapter is over total and all the girls are drop dead gorgeous and it's the most popular sorority on campus? Definitely.

My chapter had a hazing incident occur two years ago when we were already on probation.. Nationals came in, individually interviewed every girl in the chapter, held meeting with the entire chapter, kept an ELC in our house for 6 weeks, things like that.. the end result: our president took early alumni status (it was either that or termination), our social was terminated, and 2 girls quit on their own. Not once did I get the impression that Nationals was trying to "clean out" girls who didn't "fit the mold." From a chapter of 90, only two girls were forced to be early alum or terminated, and it was only those two because they were mainly the ones who "put us at risk".

For the record, I agree with you, but I am unable to read the article since I'm at work & LJ is blocked by our firewall. I misread the first post & thought it said "I know of sorority chapters closing and reorganizing, but telling all 12 members to leave because they don't fit the image? Is this even normal and possible?" as opposed to "all but 12."

That's a whole different matter, and it sounds like the appropriate action was taken - the individuals who did the deed were punished, not the group, since it wasn't a "group" mistake.

Given the climate of NPC expansion lately, I would say that it is probably not in the best interest of many groups to just close a chapter--trying to rebuild seems to be the trend right now rather than just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm sorry, but I've heard this corporatespeak a zillion times and I have to jump on it and scream because it's full of guano.

"Quality experience" means different things to different people. I would not consider being in a chapter of 175 women, some of whom I barely know, a "quality experience", although I'm sure my HQ (and most people's HQs) disagree.

It is quite difficult for a chapter to have a "quality experience" when their HQ is breathing down their neck 24/7/365 telling them to bid more girls, forcing them to have bid parties every single week, and then when they do, telling them the girls they've bid aren't acceptable.

If you're told on a regular basis that you suck - guess what! - it'll become a self fulfilling prophecy. If the things you love about yourselves are the things your HQ hates, no one will ever win.

Not everyone wants to be the biggest or most popular chapter on campus. If you are keeping things going at a steady level and don't have housing or RM or money issues, what's the problem?

I agree with most of what you said...I'll just point out that if you are having membership issues, that likely will lead to financial issues, especially when a house is involved.

Completely agree.

But in this case, why would they keep the seniors? One could argue that they bid the "unacceptable" women and they are the reason the chapter got to this state in the first place. Macallan's scenario seems more plausible and one I've seen on my campus - kick out the actives and keep the pledges.

Maybe they figured that someone was better than no one...

Maybe they figured the seniors were almost done anyway....

Maybe the seniors had the "right" vision or what the group could be....

who knows.

yup, and I know that in this case, they have houses, so I'm sure that figured into it. I just don't understand the point of keeping the 12 seniors - even if there were no women, they could still say "our chapter is intact at DePauw and we're going to be all new in fall 2007" under the NPC rules - right? I mean, I really don't think that these girls are going to want to spend their last semester consumed w/ rebuilding the sorority. I wouldn't. Unless, of course, the remainder of the sorority really was full-out terminated and these 12 were given alum status.

Am I the only one who actually believes image could have played a significant part in closing chapter. I doubt the group was actually told that was the reason though because it's not the politically correct thing to do. While I am not saying national orgs have a singular image of what they want every chapter to look, act, dress like, etc. I don't find it hard to believe that a chapter could fall into an image that a national organization doesn't like and doesn't want to represent their organization. I would think that chapters with this problem tend to be smaller and that would be the official reason for the closure. They probably didn't like their image and figured restructuring would be the easiest and cheapest way to improve the image and resultingly bring them up to total.

Also, I don't really think there is a one year rule with NPC chapters being able to come back on campus, I think it is a courtesy that is extended by some campuses (give the org another try b/c they have been there for a while and/or its' easier than going through a whole expansion process). They probably kept 12 members so they could keep the charter but my guess is those 12 will not have the final say when it comes to new member selection

With image, maybe there was a chapter problem with drinking and drugs? That would certainly cause a bad image.

You're getting this one confused with the other thread. :)

According to the OP in LJ, there was none of that going on in the chapter at DePauw.

Of course, I wouldn't necessarily trust that to be truthful ;)

Plus, he's not even on campus anymore, so it seems like his information is based solely on hearsay and the gossip chain.

I'm gonna be really shallow here.

I looked at the site of the chapter in question and they just don't strike me as big partyers/druggies.

What makes you say that, out of curiousity? How can you judge by how they appear? I know young women of all shapes, sizes, colors and levels of beauty who partied like crazy.

But of course, all of us are speculating based on some random fraternity alumnus from that campus's LJ rant :)

And to answer your question about why they left some active members: they could not get a guarantee from the University or the Pan-Hellenic Council that they chapter (which happens to be, I believe, their oldest surviving chapter) would be allowed to re-open its doors once the last "old" member graduated.

This information must be incorrect. The chapters at DePauw are:
Alpha Phi 1887
Alpha Chi Omega 1885
Delta Gamma 1949
Delta Zeta 1909
Kappa Alpha Theta 1870
Kappa Kappa Gamma 1875
Pi Beta Phi 1942

He references the "oldest surviving chapter." Well, DePauw hosts the Alpha chapters of both Kappa Alpha Theta and Alpha Chi Omega. They don't have "image" problems at DePauw, unless things have changed drastically recently. No other chapter could be the oldest surviving. Alpha Phi, DG, and KKG all still have their Alphas open, ane we all know DG and Pi Phi have chapters older than 1949 and 1942. The LJ poster didn't have these facts straight, which could lead one to believe that other facts are not straight...

Dani, I said I was being shallow, LOL.

IP - when he says "their oldest surviving chapter" he means "their" as in the national sorority, not "their" as in DePauw.

Loved your last sentence, btw.

*shaking my head at some of these douchebags*

AEPhiSierra, I don't find it too hard to believe; the relatively recent report of DePauw's Greek commission , which is in PDF and can be accessed with a click or two from:

http://www.depauw.edu/univ/greekfacts/

mentions in its section on "Affiliation" (i.e., recruitment / intake) -- page 14 of the report, at least as it showed up on my screen -- that for the seven NPC sororities, the "stereotypes" are "pervasive," the competition among sororities is "intense," and many women are interested in joining only certain chapters. Those who do not get bids at all, or who don't get bids to the chapter(s) they want, "harbor resentment for years." The report mentions that 31 percent of Greek women at DePauw think the recruitment process "is not fair."

So I can imagine that "image" could be a huge problem in that particular Greek system. I'm not saying it was (or that it should be in a perfect world), but I think it could have been.

I'm not to sure why this is so hard to believe either. I think there are probably some details missing from the story, sure, but I think we all know that a national doing a reorganization because of numbers alone is certainly not unheard of. And if the chapter's national thought that a certain image was what was necessary to rebuild the chapter on that campus then they're only going to keep those members that have that image. The one thing that struck me about his post was that he mentioned that it was a chapter of "independent-minded women." The image issues may not be about appearance but may be just about commitment to the sorority and a willingness to become a more traditional chapter. On a campus with greek life as steeped in tradition as DePauw being the "independent-minded" chapter is likely going to hurt them during recruitment, so yeah, I can definitely see a national organization deciding that they needed more "traditional sorority girls" to rebuild their chapter.

And no, that doesn't mean I agree with the decision, (if that's really what happened) just that I can see it happening.

In defense.....
 

I'm not one to go and defend this type of behavior normally, but as a brother that joined in colony status and a founding father...


IMAGE IS SO highly regarded because recruitment is so important at this time and it so incredibly difficult to find new members because you are small and everyone looks on you as weak.

Members HAD TO PUT THE GROUP before themselves in order for the group to survive! Men that didn't shave, or had bad habits with regard to showering, or had bad clothing style are asked to fix these things, and a lot of times they didn't want to! and left the group because of it... and this is perfectly acceptable...

We never asked anything of anyone that they couldn't control... and we certainly never booted anyone because of genetics... We never asked that you not be your self, we just simply asked that you be your best self.... and represent us as best you can.

I think that DZ has probably endured the same problems we did... and are attempted the same thing, and It doesn't surprise me that a large faction of their group quit, or left or was asked to leave, THIS IS COMMON FOR COLONIES AS the group figures out and ESTABLISHES its identity!!!

Unfortunately, I think that these girls, were not willing to make the needed changes to support growth of the colony!!!

Now that our colony is a chapter, and is now stablizing, I've noticed that because their reputation has been built, recruiting is FAR FAR FAR easier and the guys worry a lot less about image...

It's really hard starting a colony, especially when you're dealing with freshmen who are retarded and superficial as hell and inspect who they join with a microscope.

I saw this covered on CNN and I was outraged that this was displayed on TV like a fucking soap opera, and that pledged author needs to put a sock in it.

They weren't colonizing; they were dwindling. There is a huge difference between choosing founding members based on their ability to recruit a strong alpha class and kicking out initiated sisters because they aren't recruiting the prettiest, thinnest, whitest, and/or sluttiest girls.

I don't agree with that statement. A dwindling and weak group below healthy numbers faces a lot of the same challenges a colony does... reputation being one of them. In fact, on some campuses, including mine--once a chapter drops so far in numbers it loses chapter status and, is, in affect, technically a colony, such as in this case.

I am under the impression from the CNN news report that the girls were asked to make certain changes to their behavior (which would include superficial things like makeup, or hair, etc) to better represent and sell the sorority; and the girls didn't want to and left.


This, some people would find alarming. But if the sorority isn't selling what the majority of freshmen girls want to buy, the colony will continue to dwindle in numbers and die.

This is the cold hard truth.

archangel:

This wasn't a colony. This was DZ's second oldest chapter. And the "individualistic" outlook of the chapter was nothing new.

Did you see the pictures of the girls? They were hardly ugly or ungroomed. They just weren't Paris Hilton clones. And they were smart enough to question what was being asked of them and whether it really was true to the values of DZ as it was founded.

Not to mention that the women of the chapter were all active on campus - they were hardly the social retards people painted them as.

Second oldest, ouch.

So, they weren't having trouble with recruitment?


I don't know then. I can only offer input from my perpective, the DZs I know, and how my campus operates. From my perspective, even old fraternities, when tiny, are much like colonies, except with a very large alumni base that is "helping" them. Usually really old chapters get alot of attention (I guess like what we see here).

Nationals are somewhat fanatical about their oldest chapters... we've been trying to get our "other" Alpha back for years. They can be really ridiculous about our bigger chapters. So, I guess its possible that someone would just be that crazy and boot these girls because they weren't the exact image of what they wanted.


I was simply offering an alternative possibility...