Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
It really doesn't have to be either-or. Sure, oftentimes when people say "earn letters," they mean survive hazing, so I can see why people might very well want to steer clear of talking about "earning" letters. But there's no reason to assume that "earning" = hazing. Earning letters can also mean demonstrating "sincerity, dedication, intelligence, depth of character," and a desire to learn about and contribute to the fraternity.
We've had this discussion many times, but I'll say it again: Unlike NPC sororities, most fraternities with which I'm familiar (NIC or non-NIC) have two votes on new members -- one on whether to issue a bid and pledge the guy and a second at the end of the pledge period on whether to initiate him. Under this set-up, there is built in to the process a decision on whether the pledge has demonstrated that the chapter was right in offering him a bid and pledging him. So even without any hazing at all, there is still a sense that the pledge has "proven his worth" and is deserving of the honor of initiation. (And I won't make this post even longer than it is by going into my theory on why the idea of earning initiation and proving worth has a very real, deep-seated resonance for males.)
The general regulations of my fraternity state that only initiated brothers are permitted to wear our letters. There are, as I see it, two reasons for this. First, until the probationary member is initiated, he is not a brother and there remains the chance that he won't be initiated. Second, until he is initiated, he does not know what the letters mean; only those who know what they mean wear them.
And another questions I've asked before: why is wearing letters different from wearing or owning anything with the coat-of-arms? I've seen many say that their new members can certainly wear letters (sometimes suggesting that it's hazing not to allow them to do so), but that the coat-of-arms are reserved only for initiated members. What's the difference?
This isn't an issue about who's right and who's wrong -- it's simply about recognizing the different orgs do things in different ways. If allowing your new members to wear letters fits in with your understanding of the "preperatory" experience leading up to initiation, great! Go for it! But there's no need to assume that other orgs are wrong because they approach things differently.
|
My main problem with the term "earn" is when, for example, you earn a paycheck, you are given money in return for completing certain tasks. Becoming a member of a GLO is almost always far more complex than that. Perhaps it is simply a matter of semantics, but just about every time some talks about "earning their letters" there seems to be an undercurrent of hazing.
The crest is reserved for initiated members because it is a symbol of a member who has gone through initiation. Circular, I know, but there you go.
The first day you accept your bid you have an idea of what the letters mean - an incomplete understanding, of course, but at least an elementary one. Through your new member education period you will come to know more, and of course at initiation all will be explained. The crest serves, as does the badge, as a symbol of a member who has completed their education and gone through, if you will, their graduation. Consider it a form of diploma!