Pledging period issue
 

Ok,
I know that there have been some general threads on this but here's a question I want to throw out there and get some feedback on:

Our International Fraternity recently changed its constitution and bylaws at the last Karnea (our term for our general convention every 2 years) to limit the pledging period of all chapters to 8 weeks.

The reasoning behind this was to increase the initiation rate of men that pledge Delt (I guess the rate of our International Fraternity was lower than our competitors, we have a rate of 75% I believe) and to narrow the scope of the program as to tighten the reign on any hazing potential (I guess someone felt that the longer the pledge period the more likely it was that negative activities would spring up) But hazing is not even an issue at my chapter. We have a fantastic pledge program and strongly oppose any negative activities. Our belief is that you can't build up good members by breaking them down first. It's just a non-issue for us. Anyway, both reasons are good in their intentions; however, my chapter and my concern was that initiating after 8 wks was too soon, that a young man may not be ready to assume the responsibilities of membership. Basically this is great for smaller chapters who are working to increase their over all membership very quickly. Or for immplimenting more strict guidance for chapters who need to remove some bad traditions that are associated with hazing. But it may hinder larger chapters with successful and established pledge programs, such as mine, in a few different areas. The vote was close as I recall but the change was approved by a simple majority of chapters and the 8wk program regulation was enforced and implemented at all Delt chapters for the 1st time this semester. Here is where we are running into some problems with the change:

1-Academics-Our school runs on 2 full semesters (about 14 wks each)...not quarters. We are not able to determine a candidates academic standing (GPA) any earlier than after the end of the semester. Initiating after 8 wks completely null and voids any academic requirement for initiation. Even the best high school students may struggle in college and in my opinion 8wks is not enough time to determine someone's academic standing or needs. Even with a grade report from professors there is still plenty of time (post initiation) for them to "mess up" and bomb out the semester. Even with the great academic programming my chapter has there are some young men who will struggle and need time to find methods that work for them. Initiation should be a reward for those who have demonstrated their ability to be good members, and an additional motivator (besides their own personal success) for them to work with the academic/pledge programming and develop good academic habits and skills.
Initiating them before determining their scholastic performance may result in a signficant drop in the chapter's GPA. So we may have a great initiation rate but we will initiate men who will then reflect poorly on our academic standards. They will immediately have to go on probation and it just doesn't make sense. Most fraternity members will likely agree that it's easier to develop and work programming with pledges who are working towards initiation then members who have initiated. Quality over quantity is what I say. Plus, a dropping GPA will in turn hurt recruitment efforts which will lower pledging rates, which will lower total membership rates, but hey initiate 1 out of 1 pledges in a house of 3 actives and you get a 100% rate! (gimmie a break).

2-Involvement/Leadership-How can someone be a leader or hold a position if they do not quite understand how the process or the system works. It takes time and observation to really get a grasp of all the elements it takes to run a successful chapter. 8wks is not enough for some men to see how things operate and gain an appreciation and understanding. The amount of history and organization that goes into running a large fraternity and a large chapter cannot be covered and understood in one meeting. It takes a hands on approach that comes from participating in pledge and active activities that span the course of a semester.

My chapter tried to work with this program by saying that at 7 wks a grade report will be issued and reviewed by the Pledge Education committee and the Academic Committee. Those pledges whom have demonstrated superior scholastics by having a certified estimate of a 3.0 GPA from a grade report from each professor at that time and have thus far been exemplary in the general pledge program and understanding of the fraternity operations by the Pledge Education Committee and general chapter opinion (i.e. hasn't been brought up for depledging) are rewarded by being initiated at 8 wks. Kind of an ‘honor initation’. They then go into a Neophyte education program where their academics will continue to be monitored by the academic committee although they are not required to attend study hours any more. They also will work with the executive and administrative committees to continue to learn about chapter operations on the active side of things (how chapter works etc.), work with the Ritual committee to understand that aspect of our fraternity that is new to them, and also continue to participate in activities with their pledge class to keep cohesiveness and unity among them even though they are now active brothers and some of their class is not quite there yet. It's like an arm of membership education that bridges pledgship and active membership for those who have already demonstrated what is needed to be a good member.

I have also noticed an amazing thing in that the men who did initate early have taken on a leadeship role among their pledge class brothers who did not meet the requirements at that time. They are really helping the guys who didn’t qualify with the areas they need to improve in so that they can soon call them Delt brothers as well. They are armed with a better understanding of the Fraternty that comes from what they learned at their initation to help the others see why what they are working on is important. It’s actually a really positive thing that some of them arrived earlier than the other b/c they have come back and are trying to push the rest of their class towards success.

Those who need to continue to work on their academics and/or need to continue to progress a little further in other areas of membership education (i.e. maybe they have violated a significant rule or bylaw like drinking in the shelter or have poor performance on tests about our principles, values, creed, or history) will continue their pledgeship through to the end of the semester where they will then again be eligible to initiate based on their academics (they must have an actual recorded 2.5 semester GPA or higher that time) . There is not a 3rd chance.

Well, this all matters because recently our traveling consultant has reported that this is not an acceptable way to run the program and we need to either initiate ALL of the men @ 8wks or depledge those who are not ready by then so that the "rate" is 100% (100% of those that are left).
This past week (the 8th week) 9 men out of 24 were eligible for this "honor initiation", many others were close but the committees felt that these 9 men were completely ready and the others just needed more time to work on grades (many were just shy of the 3.0 but have plenty of time left in the semester to work on it, and now the chapter can easily recognize who needs more academic assistance) and a few made a poor choice the weekend before the committee meetings to break a bylaw and drink in the house, thus demonstrating that they need time to develop more respect and understanding of the standards of conduct, their role in our activities both as a group and as individuals and how they effect the fraternity. We do not just want to give up on these men and just depledge them, they just need a little more time and attention so they can grow to be ready and I also believe the chapter needs more time to hone its skills in an 8 wk pledge program, keep in mind this is the 1st time we have attempted to do this in 8 wks.
Plus, to loose the other 15 men who are great and have good potential but just need a little more time to develop it would hurt a large chapter such as mine who needs 81 individuals just to put our house at live-in capacity. Average initiated pledge classes in out house are around 25 (mine was 34!). Taking a class of 9 just so we can have "100%" will kill us. Taking all 24, or even just a few less if some prove in the end that Delt is not the place for them, but taking the time to make sure those who will wear the Delt badge are good members and are properly prepared to be good Delts is worth the extra few weeks to us.
To me, those who go through initiation should have proven that they will be good members by taking a semester to learn how to and demonstrate it. We shouldn't be just initiating men for statistics and then thinking of quality as an afterthought...

Delta Tau Delta International Fraternity may have a slightly lower initiation rate than our competitors, but if that is a reflection of the fact that the standards to become a Delt are higher than other Fraternities, and it takes a little something extra to make it, then I say it’s a statistic that we can be proud of.

What do you think?

If your nationals says you have to initiate after 8 weeks, then you have to initiate after 8 weeks. Plain and simple. The only way you can supercede nationals ever is if your school mandates a longer pledge period which I really don't see any school ever doing. Most people don't hold positions the semester after initiation anyways unless there are dire circumstances, and if you're from a larger chapter, that shouldn't be a problem for you.

Re: Pledging period issue
 

This statement doesn't make sense.

Your initiation rate or percentage is the number of men who initiated divided by the number of men who accepted bids. You can't say "well we depledged them so it's 100%." If your TC told you this, I think he's got it wrong.

As to the rest of your post, I can't even imagine 25 person classes so I'll leave it to someone who can.

I'm sorry but I just don't think it's that simple to say, "they told you to do it so you have to". In the end this will hurt my chapter and others. I understand that in sororities that is often how things are done, but in fraternities there is a different process by which you can disagree with the 'higher ups'. I was just looking for some input on perhaps what other GLO's, in particular fraternities, who may have similar circumstances do.

PS I will also mention that I am an alumnus, serve on house corporation, and as an advisor to the chapter. As an undergrad I was an exec for 2 years and held 4 seperate administrative positions including rush and the pledge education committee. So I have put a lot of thought into the effects of this. I'm not just a member who maybe doesn't like change...I tried to see the positives in this when it was being decided and when my chapter was developing the changes in its program to meet the new requirement, I liked the program my chapter came up with to incorporate the change, it's proving to be effective. But the practice that they want us to do will not be.
The other issue is that no one from 'higher up' said anything to us while we were incorporating this into our chapter's operations. They only made it an issue AFTER we had already gone through 8 wks. The language in the change was too vauge and not anyone I know read it the way they did. Poor communication. The traveling cosultant even had to make a call to the Central office to clairify if we could or couldn't do it (he actually thought our way was a good way to interperet and run the program).

Re: Re: Pledging period issue
 

I agree...it doesn't make sense...but I think it's to pressure us into initiating EVERYONE b/c they know we'd rather get these guys in then let them go just b/c they are not quite ready yet.

I say it may take some men more than 8 wks to get it. Heck, I know it took me more than 8wks to adjust to college let alone begin to understand Delt. It's just too much in too short a time.

We had a similar issue come up this past august at the Beta Convention.

It was voted down. There is a very strong belief in self-government among chapters at our GF. I personally think that any amendment that makes you initiate men that you don't think is ready is only going to hurt you. Sometimes general fraternities live in another world though...

Sigma Chi Fraternity has begun a six to eight week pledge program. No less than six (if the chapter is small, it may not need a full eight weeks) to no more than eight. If the campus has an autumn or spring break that falls during the pledge period, that week would not count toward the time frame. The program was implemented this fall ('05). However, my understanding is that if a chapter needed more time to implement or had specific campus related issues, the chapter could petition IHQ to postpone it for a year.

The way I see this is that if pledges are taken at the start of the semester, (say the first of September for autumn term - early January for the spring term) then they would be initiated by/around the end of October/early March. This would allow the remainder of the semester for continuing education. And to devote time and energy to making sure the GPA requirement is met.

Overall, I think that having a uniform or standard pledge program is a good idea. Yet each campus, each chapter, and each pledge class is different. As such, some allowances should be built in that would allow a chapter to have some leeway as how to proceed with a particular pledge class.

This is why we have a "plactive" period. Our pledge program is 6 weeks. At the end of 6 weeks, one of two things can happen...initiation, or plactive status. Plactive is not meant to be another 6 weeks of pledging. These members are no longer pledges, but they are not actives. Plactive status is given if a quorum vote is reached saying that initiation at this time would not be in the best interest of the chapter. This may mean the girls need 2 days to finish a project or something in the system (not a result of the NM's) is not ready (IE, initiation is postponed a few days due to circumstances outside our control...sickness of a member (or NM), family death of a member/NM). Plactive status isn't a punishment, it's a period of adjustment/continued education/extension.

Sigma Pi's requirement is no less than three weeks and no more than eight, and it's been that way for about ten years. I know Sigma Alpha Epsilon has a very similiar rule. So this isn't uncommon.

Both SP and SAE have an exception for GPA requirements. Our school runs 11 week trimesters, so there's a period when a freshman has finished pledging but can't be initiated yet because he has no grades- sort of a limbo. We have to finish the pledge process in eight weeks, but we don't have to initiate until we know they got the minimum GPA. If that's your only concern, then I would request an exemption from your HQ.

The simple fact is, long pledgings lead to hazing. It's not guaranteed, but it is a strong link, and it's a good idea to limit the length of time a man is a pledge to something very definite. Besides, it shouldn't really take much more than eight weeks to train them in the basics. It's not as though someone is going to going to be elected president straight away off initiation. If you're electing NIBs to office, you have other problems.

I can completely understand your concerns with this. I am currently the President of my chapter, and we're having similar issues regarding our new member process. Phi Psi mandates a 6 week pledge process. My school is semester based, so we obviously can't know their grades once the pledge process is complete. To top that off, our Constitution doesn't allow for a "limbo" area between pledging and being active. You are either a pledge, or a Brother...no in-between.

One thing that has helped me to look past this is the whole idea of Fraternity Education. We have a "Fraternity Educator" vs. a Pledge Educator. I totally believe that Fraternity education should not stop with initiation. You should continue to learn about your fraternity for your entire time as an Undergrad and for the rest of your life. There are problems with initiating men who don't have the strongest of grades. Often times once they've been initiated, they have no structure to help them perform well. I'm not sure how your chapter is set up, but we continue to mandate study hours, tutoring, etc. for those Brothers that are not performing well academically.

You had mentioned that hazing wasn't an issue in your chapter. First of all, that's awesome! We are moving in that direction...and it's been a hell of a transition. One thing to think about though. All of the Brothers in your chapter right now may be on the same page when it comes to hazing, but it is vital to put safeguards into place to prevent it in the future. By having longer pledge programs, it truly opens the door to hazing. I had an entire semester of pledging, and I was hazed hard core. Something that I saw with the Brothers in my chapter when I was pledging, was that it seemed that after the pledge tests were done and the real "education" was over, they just got bored and instinctively turned to senseless hazing. That is something that we've completely turned around now, but we've put things into place to help prevent it when we're gone.

I understand the feeling sometimes that our Headquarters is kind of in this other dimension, and they don't really understand what is going on in their chapters. However, everything that they do is for the good of the Brotherhood. My challenge to you is that instead of looking at the negatives of this new program, look at how you can use it as a tool to better the chapter. If you still think that this is something that your chapter absolutely CANT use whatsoever. Then call your HQ, talk to your Executive Director, express your concerns and see what he has to say. I'm sure that they've thought about most of these things when they made this policy. Perhaps he will have some good advise, another way to see the situation.

Good luck! Change in a chapter is never easy...I know that first hand. Let me know if you've got any other questions!

Luke...

Re: Pledging period issue
 

You need to find a way to work with this new rule and to promote it-- but you can also write letters and give constructive feedback to your Grand Council about why this doesn't work for you.

What's wrong with pledging the 30 men, initiating those who meet the requirements and then holding the rest over pending a standards hearing to initiate the following week? Or holding them over to repeat pledging for another 8 week cycle?

The sororities have 4-8 week new member periods. ADPi is 4-6 weeks, with new members being allowed to hold offices. Those who break a policy or don't pass an international Initiation exam may be held over until they pass the exam/have a standards hearing to determine if they should remain in the organization.

Change is difficult, but the fraternity is a constantly changing animal-- if the policy doesn't really work for large and/or successful chapters, then it won't stick.

Go over the consultant's head and talk to a membership director.

update:

Well in speaking with the executive vp of our central office I was informed that what 'should' be done is all pledges who have been their eight weeks should either be initiated or depledged and that there is no longer an academic requirement to initiate but ONLY the academic requirement to retain thier membership.

But my issue and one that my chapter shares is that how can you have an academic requirement to RETAIN MEMBERSHIP but not to OBTAIN MEMBERSHIP? It's a logic problem here: as we see it initation is the doorway to membership, so to be elligible for initation you should be able to demonstrate elligibility for membership, right?. If you have an academic requirement for membership then you should have an academic requirement to initiate thus achieving that membership.

In addition I have looked at our International Constitution and Bylaws every which way where this change was made. I have not found one sentence that indicates that a chapter cannot have an academic standard/requirement for initation, or cannot offer to men who do not meet that standard after one eight week period, the opportunity to utilize the second eight weeks of that semester to meet it and then initate. In fact, in just a few sections up from that it says that "superior scholarship" is a requirement. So I feel that we are reflecting that clause by having an academic standard to initiate. Here's the section in question:

Article IV
Section 2. Qualifications For Initiation. In order to be eligible for initiation:
(a) The candidate shall have achieved in the semester immediately preceding the semester of initiation an average of not less than 2.25 on a 4.0 scale in the college or university at which the initiating chapter is located. The chapter’s Director of
Academic Affairs, upon recommendation by the Chapter Advisor and the Faculty Academic Advisor, has the power to waive such rule based on the curriculum and unique characteristics of said institution. In the absence of a Chapter Advisor and/or the Faculty Academic Advisor, the matter shall be referred to the Director of Academic Affairs of the Arch Chapter.

(b) In the event a candidate is otherwise eligible for initiation during the first semester in which he is enrolled in the college or university at which the initiating chapter is located, such that the requirements of Section 2(a) cannot be met, the chapter’s Director of Academic Affairs, upon approval by the Chapter Advisor and the Faculty Academic Advisor, may certify following investigation of the candidate’s academic background that he meets the scholastic standards for membership.

(c) The candidate shall have completed a period of pledgeship in which he has successfully demonstrated acquisition of a sound and thorough knowledge of the Mission and Values of Delta Tau Delta Fraternity and of the ideals and principles upon
which it and college fraternities were founded. The length of this pledge period shall not be longer than eight (8) academic weeks in duration and shall be in full compliance with any requirements for initiation of the institution in which he is enrolled... (the rest is about applying for an extension that allows full semester pledge periods, which we don't want to do...we still want to work with 8 wks but allow those who don't look like they are making the grades after the 1st eight to try the 2nd eight)

I asked the Exec VP to point to the sentence in the Constitution and Bylaws that we were violating by having and academic standard for initation and by offering the guys a second eight week chance to meet it and he couldn't.

Sorry I didn't re-read the thread before asking but... I'm assuming you're talking about initiating first semester freshmen? Although I'm sure your reply will express the dramatic difference between high school and college grades, you could always have a minimum high school GPA as a requirement for pledgeship. This is what sororities do. Just being honest, though... it doesn't always work out for us, but it's better than nothing.

Yes, I'm just talking about 1st semester freshmen. We do utilize academic indexing of rushees during recruitment. It's always an unspoken rule of thumb though go after the guys with good grades, good involvement, good personalities. We don't have a set in stone requirement for rush b/c some guys who may have not tried so hard in H.S. can come to college and do extremely well (case in point...me). But the Greek system also has a minimum HS GPA to even rush, so those safeguards are built into the system.