Positive pledge education

[furmanbeta]

For those of you who are unaware, the General Fraternity has mandated that ALL chapters now submit their entire pledge education programs to their respective district chief. This must be a fully detailed account of everything that goes on during a pledge period. There are an absurd number of requirements, and it seems to me that they are basically trying to destroy their fraternity chapters as a whole. Not in that they are trying to disband them, but homogonize them. Every Beta chapter is different, does different things, acts different ways. We all have the same letters, ideals, etc but are all different. Chapters in good standing shouldn't be required to submit a pledge program. Chapters without reported risk management or hazing violations shouldn't have to submit a pledge program. This must stop. If you would like the full details, I will be happy to e-mail you the exact document General has sent out and let you see and judge for yourself. It is completely out of step and the general convention should overrule it.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Im a pledge educator... and I had to do this too. It really, it isnt that hard to meet most of the requirements, though almost impossible to meet all. Im sure your district cheif isnt expecting you to have the perfect program, but I think its good that the GF is working on the haze free Beta.

[ZZ-kai-]

I agree on both sides. I think it seems to be a bit 'big brother', but then again, I don't know full details. I also look at it and say 'if you ain't got nothin to hide, whats the big deal'.

Again, I see both sides, and stand neutral on it. I personally don't like 'having the man looking over my shoulder' though...that is for sure.

-kai-

[sdbeta1]

I haven't seen the document, but how is this going to make a chapter spill the beans on themselves?

[furmanbeta]

Originally posted by sdbeta1
I haven't seen the document, but how is this going to make a chapter spill the beans on themselves?

I don't know that at present they've established any sort of penalties for going outside of the bounds of your official pledge ed plan. That will undoubtedly be coming later.

The issue which I think this is most addressing is a lack of chapter autonomy. We are a fraternity, not a sorority, which would appear to be the ultimate goal of our GFO's. Let Beta Be Beta.

[ZZ-kai-]

What do you mean by "Let Beta Be Beta"? If we have majorly unique pledge education programs from chapter to chapter, then who's to say our initiation ceremony isn't majorly different chapter to chapter? And then, why don't we all just go local and do our own thing, as it appears as though that is what you prefer (IE, keep GF at a distance, let us do our thing...etc.).

I firmly believe that GF is not your enemy. They are only your enemy if you're doing things you shouldn't, and then I pose the question - why continue as a Beta chapter, if you're not letting Beta be Beta? Being, practicing and living BETA, lets us be Beta's.

[furmanbeta]

I honestly see a day when, and this is not intended as a joke, southern chapters start seceding from their national fraternities. What works for some doesn't work for others. General fraternities across the nation are trying to turn themselves into "one size fits all" organizations. Should we all do the same initiation? Of course, it's been passed down from generation to generation. However, mandating what you should do in pledge education has not been mandated before. It is up to individual chapters to determine what is best for them, what works for them.

Beta at Kansas State is not Beta at Georgia Tech, which isn't Beta at Truman State, which isn't Beta at Florida. I don't think that anyone would dispute that these are great chapters, but they are great in different ways. We all have certain things which unite us, but each chapter has its own identity. Some chapters were forged from local fraternities and still practice parts of their locals' ritual. Under the newly proposed system, that can't happen.

What I meant by "Let Beta Be Beta" is actually quite simple. We have a fraternity history in our organization unlike any other, better than any other. More members of Congress, Supreme Court, all of that. You know it as well as I do I'm sure. These men came from varying chapters. Some of them were partiers, some of them were studiers, some of them were singers, some of them were combinations. We should be proud of our individuality as well as our national identity. Quit trying to screw with systems that are already working so that they fit into your convenient little compartments. Some of what I went through as a pledge was hazing, and guess what I'd go through it again. It is the sacrifices you make during pledging which make you appreciate brotherhood even more. If all we do is teach history, lore and songs, we're just a club. It's a club with secrets, but still just a club. That sucks in my opinion.

[ZZ-kai-]

I don't disagree with anything you said. It's pretty much right on, except, I would put my salary on it that most southern schools won't go local, as they'd never survive. Phi Delt at Ole Miss is prominent, but if they were to quit Phi Delt and go 'Omega Tau Phi' (or whatever), they'd get smaller rush classes, they'd lose some of their alumni support, and eventually would become run-of-the-mill chapter....but, I sense your slight exageration and again, do not disagree with what you said.

As for the hazing makes us appreciate brotherhood more comment - you could be no more wrong. Hazing came to about 100 years after Beta was around. We dominated the fraternity world the first 100 years - members, alumni, money, chapters, recognition...etc. - much like today EXCEPT all the other fraternities 'back then' didn't have 200 chapter like today. Something I'm fine with - I'd rather have 122 pretty damn strong Beta chapters, than 250 mediocre TKE chapters.

Anyway, hazing came in long after Beta, so to say one appreciates brotherhood more after going through the trenches, isn't really a fair statement - as Beta has been appreciating brotherhood well over 100 years longer than the first hazing incident.

Great discussion though - I'd love to hear other opinions.

-kai-

[Coramoor]

I've always felt that Beta is more willing to shut a chapter down than offer options to make it better.

On my campus, there have been a few chapters that have had problems over the years. However rather than pulling their charter and ending a long standing chapter their G.F. made a pull to gather in alumni and positively influence a chapter to becoming better.

My experience with out national office is that they bring up things that happened several years ago (before much of the chapter was even in college, let alone in Beta), set expectations for us to meet and tell us that they will help us reach our goals.

Well, we meet our end and yet they don't meet their end. I've tried to work with the G.F. on a number of occasions but I've always found myself bounced around from person to person or just never responded too period.

Additionally, I think that the G.F. is making it's risk management policies so ridiculous that no chapter can follow them and remain a social fraternity.

They tell me that in the event that something happens with my chapter they will help us as much as possible in defending ourselves...and yet if you read the RM policy there are so many measures that if you are having a gathering at Church with the choir you probably won't be covered.

If I had wanted to join a service or honors fraternity I would have. I joined Beta because it is a social fraternity...at the time.

[ZZ-kai-]

Beta's RM policy is there to cover it's own ass. It's like your car insurance policy, or your homeowners policy - read it, you'd be amazed at the crap in that. It's only expected that Beta's RM policy would be written that way. Also, go online and read other GLO's RM policies - you'll find very similar, if not more extensive policies.

For closing down chapters - yes, they have to keep a timeline of events, and bring up events that happened several years back. Why? Well, just because the chapter gets new members each year, and a 4-5 year complete flip in chapter, doesn't mean they wipe that slate clean, nor does the university. This track record allows the GF and the Unviersity to justify their actions when dealing with any chapter.

When dealing with a 'bad' chapter (whatever you consider bad), saying 'lets just cut out 90% of the tumor, and hope the other 10% dies off', won't work. If you have a bad chapter, and they continually screw up, I agree with GF, shut them down. If they're bad and GF goes through the re-org process, keep top 6 men, 'Alumni' the rest, and start over - that's great too.....there are plenty of options, you just seem fixated on the GF 'devil'. The GF and the Univ. doesn't have time, resources, money to mess around with a bad chapter, and nor should they. Also, a lot of the time, the GF closes a chapter at the request/pressure of the university or the chapter's alumni.

Also, I can't stress it enough - if you don't like the way Beta is going today, when you graduate, become very active with the GF as a Asst. District Chief, or District Chief or something, and try to make some positive changes. Bitching about it online does no good - venting helps though . And if you're not happy with Beta today and don't want to go that route, go alumni status and be done with it. Worst case scenario, deactivate.

[ECUJacob]

Chapters in good standing shouldn't be required to submit a pledge program. Chapters without reported risk management or hazing violations shouldn't have to submit a pledge program. This must stop.

That's not a good idea, IMO. Just because a chapter is in good standing doesn't mean it should be. Some chapters get away with murder (pardon the saying) by hiding things from GF officers when they visit.

Also, if you chapter is in good standing and submits their pledge ed program, then maybe the GF can use your program to help other chapters that are struggling or performing poorly.