|
As I understand it (from the articles posted here), the hazing and drinking related allegations (i.e. the reasons given for the suspension by both the University and by Sigma Sigma Sigma HQ) came to light right *after* initiation.
And frankly, the chapter was on notice. Every chapter of every inter/national fraternity/sorority is on notice. Every chapter should know that if they go against fraternity/sorority policy, their charter may be pulled.
Now I understand why the new initiates might feel cheated. However, I would hope that Missouri State's Campus Panhellenic made it clear to each girl participating in recruitment that hazing is not allowed. That if it happens, a chapter may close. And after the women accepted their bids, it should be drilled into them by the current chapter members and through their new member education - as Cruise4fun noted. If the recent initiates (pledges at the time) were willing participants, then they too should be held accountable for the hazing and risk management related issues. If they were forced, then perhaps they should be allowed to withdraw from Tri Sigma without prejudice (i.e. as if they never accepted a bid) and allowed to rush again.
Generally speaking it seems easier for a chapter to come back from a closing due to risk management issues than from closing due to low numbers.
As such if this had been an IFC, I wouldn't have been surprised if a membership review of the chapter wouldn't have been in order similar to the one 33girl noted in a previous post. The likely result being perhaps only the actives (not the recently initiated members) being suspended. It seems like a more fair thing to do than suspend the whole membership. In this situation the sixty new members would have been allowed to remain active in the chapter and help reorganize it. Perhaps they might be on some sort of social probation if warranted. Bottom line is that only the women who deserved to be suspended should be suspended.
But to be clear here, if the (at the time) pledges *knew* (understood) that they were participating in hazing and other types of risk management activities, then they too should be held accountable. Which is what I feel was the result of Tri Sigma's and the University's findings. That all (most) members (active and recent initiates) were perhaps culpable. Thus the whole chapter's suspension was warranted.
33girl - I am impressed that an NPC chapter did this type of reorganization (i.e. keeping the pledges and allowing the suspended actives to accept alum status) at your campus. It seems like it might be difficult for most NPCs to implement. If you do not mind, how has that chapter faired?
|