Thread: No cut policy?
View Single Post
  #22  
Old 02-07-2002, 05:14 PM
RTZTAS RTZTAS is offline
GreekChat Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 29
I forgot to mention. I attended the same school carnation did, Auburn Unversity. I'm not sure if we were there at the same time but I might be able to explain why they operated the way they did. When I was in school I think there were 16 sororities. (1988-1992). There were 5 rounds of rush (ice water teas, light n' lively, colors, theme and pref). With five rounds of rush there was no need for any group to get cut happy in the first round so many groups only cut for grades because they have 3 more rounds to cut a rushee for other reasons before they are invited to pref and are placed on the bid list. No school, campus or Panhellenic organization can impose membership selection rules or criteria on an individual group. Panhellenic officers, advisors, etc. cannot say to ADPi, you cannot cut for anything but grades on the first round. ADPi makes that decision for themselves. Now the Panhellenic Council made up of delegates for each sorority can vote to agree to not cut for anything but grades, but I would be surprised if that has actually happened anywhere. I do know that Panhellenic advisors and officers will make recommendations based on communications from their supervisors (area NPC coordinators - like a Province President for a campus panhellenic council) to the individual chapters, maybe "We strongly recommend that chapters not cut rushees during round 1 for any reason other than grades." Recommendations of this sort are based on history of rush numbers and a variety of other factors on that campus. The individual groups (advisors and Rush chair) then decide whether to follow that recommendation. If the group wants to be agreeable and doesn't have any extenuating circumstances for wanting to cut more women, they will follow the guideline. At Auburn, for example, there are so many more rounds to cut, a chapter can "afford" to invite back potential rushees to the next round they consider to be "questionable" with out risking what I call "lobby hazard" (XYZ is inviting HER back so why would I want to be a part of XYZ).
Reply With Quote