[sugar and spice]

I think the major issue is the housing factor. I think that it's very hard to make the switch from fall rush to deferred unless your school does not have houses. Here, the majority of leases are signed in November-January. If rush is in January and girls aren't initiated until March, you will lose out on sophomores being able to live in. In a school where chapters have a hundred women (after rush) and the house holds 30, this may not be so bad. If the houses hold 50, it could be another story. I remember reading an article about Northwestern where the sororities were forcing these girls to break their apartment leases so they could fill the house. I know you sign a contract saying you'll live in if you have to, but I don't think that's very fair.

That said, I don't really think that deferring rush will do ANYTHING to stop the alcohol problems that Colorado has been having. I spoke to one of the Colorado Tri Delts, and from what I've heard, it sounds less like hazing than just stupidity on the part of the new member ed and the pledges in question. I don't really see that being solved by deferred rush. Maturity does not increase that much in one semester. Even if it was hazing, I don't really see that being solved by deferred rush either. In my opinion, using deferred rush is a punishment* and not a proactive measure to counteract the risk management violations that are happening. It's an easy solution for the school to look like it's doing something when really it's not going to change anything.

* I realize that deferred rush is not necessarily a punishment and that many of you who experienced it liked it -- just saying that schools often attempt to use it as a punishment, as in "You were bad, so now we're not letting you rush until second semester."