Quote:
Originally posted by zchi2
Actually in my organization the associate members can't drink at all during the pledging process. So 95% of what happened on that show would of been eliminated. Also, if someone in a pledge class is acting in a way that we think is not representative of our organization, the ENTIRE pledge class is talked to. I really didn't like certain people getting singled out. It wasn't right. Also you don't wait until the end of the process to rebuild trust. A lot of times pledges lose trust because they don't understand why things function they way they do, but most of the time it take you to actually cross into the sisterhood to understand everything. It's a totally different ball game when you are actually in the organization.
|
As for Mara's question, I think that chapters have a responsibility to make all of their new members feel welcome -- when people feel they are being "tested" it is hard to develop a sense of trust. As zchi said, individual women shouldn't be cornered if there are concerns, a pledge class should be addressed. It seem like there was a lot of segregation between the pledges and the actives (specifically the rock-moving activity), both sides should make efforts to include one another.
I respect and admire any sorority that abstains from drinking during their pledge period. However, at some chapters this may not be a realistic expectation for some organizations -- some houses have pledge classes that range from 50-70 women. It may not be possible to monitor or keep track of the behavior of this many women (nor does it create a sense of trust) - it is more realistic and healthy to teach women about drinking in moderation.
Threaded Mode