Plegdes wearing letters???

[Psi U MC Vito]

I know D Phi E at least at my campus lets their pledges wear letters.

[ta kala]

Only initiated Kappa Deltas may wear the crest. This is because our badge is the center of our crest, and only initiated members may wear the badge.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by ta kala

Only initiated Kappa Deltas may wear the crest. This is because our badge is the center of our crest, and only initiated members may wear the badge.

Here's where I'm intrigued. If, as has been said in this thread, new members are members and, therefore, can wear letters, why can't they wear the badge or crest? Isn't that hazing too?

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Here's where I'm intrigued. If, as has been said in this thread, new members are members and, therefore, can wear letters, why can't they wear the badge or crest? Isn't that hazing too?

Many GLOs use the badge and crest as the symbol of a member who has gone through initiation. Therefore, a member who has not gone through initiation cannot wear them.
As an analogy, only Boy and Girl Scouts who have completed the requirements to earn certain badges or awards may wear them. All members may wear the uniform - only those who have gone through, for example, the Eagle Scout or Gold Award ceremonies may wear those symbols on their uniforms.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by fantASTic

And THIS, ladies and gentlemen, is where the real issue comes in. In NPCs, it is a generally accepted rule that new girls are new MEMBERS. Members is the key word in that sentence. In other organizations, this is not true - your pledges or aspirants or whatever the heck you call them are NOT members.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I think it all depends on how you define "member". There are stages of membership in many GLOs. Some define some of the stages as non-member stages, some don't. NPCs consider their "pledges" as members from day one - other GLOs don't consider their "pledges" as members at all, but as aspiring members.

I think it is a bit odd to have someone who is sort of a member, but not really - it's kind of like being a "little" pregnant. To me, you either are or are not. You don't "know" what you know about the baby at 8 months when you are only 6 weeks along, but at both stages, you are pregnant.

The ole "different strokes" cliche.

LOL at a little bit pregnant. But here's why I'm not sure that analogy fits, at least for some groups.

There is a corrollary to fantASTic's observation that the crux is whether the new girls and guys are considered members or not. That corrollary is this: As has been observed in other threads, for those orgs who consider the new kids "members," it is generally assumed that, barring something drastic or their own choice to disaffiliate, they will be initiated. In other words, the decision to offer them a bid is essentially the decision to initiate them down the road.

Conversely, in many if not most of the groups that do not consider the new kids "members" (or full members), the decision to offer a bid is simply that -- the decision to pledge someone. Toward the end of the pledge period (or whatever it may be called), there is another vote on whether to initiate. Granted, bids may usually be offered with the assumption that everyone who pledges will make it to initiation (although some GCers have said that's not the case with their groups), but the point is that the organization reserves the right, after observing the pledge during the pledge period and getting to know him better, to say "Sorry, but we're not going to initiate you" or "Sorry, but you need to wait until the next go-around for initiation."

We use the term "probationary members" for that reason. We offer a bid and pledge a guy (we still use the term pledge as a verb) because we believe we see in him what we're looking for to be part of our chapter, and we pledge him with the expectation that he will be initiated. But until the end of the probationary member period, when the chapter votes to initiate him and then actually does initiate him, he is only a provisional member.

And SWTXBelle, I'll refrain from commenting too much on your Boy and Girls Scout analagy, where Scouts have to earn the right to wear certain insignia.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Exactly.


And SWTXBelle, I'll refrain from commenting too much on your Boy and Girls Scout analagy, where Scouts have to earn the right to wear certain insignia.

I know, I know. I debated with myself about using it - but you'll note that I didn't use the dreaded "earn". Let me just say (as you know, MC) there is more to the Scouting awards than just fulfilling requirements a, b and c. Those awards are honours in that you also have to have recommendations (I've written quite a few for both Gold Award and Eagle Scouts!) and demonstrate a certain level of character that is hard to measure objectively.

I'd argue that it's the same for many GLO memberships. I steer clear of the word "earn" because it, right or wrongly, suggests hazing. But there are requirements which have to be met - usually a new member education program, a minimum g.p.a., and the subjective character issue. The crest and badge are the outward and visible sign (of an inward and spiritual grace - whoops. wrong org!) of having met the requirements to considered a fully initiated member.

Actually, that suggests an even better analogy. In many Christian churches, you are considered a member upon baptism. It is not until you have gone through a confirmation class and had the bishop lay hands upon you during the rite of confirmation that you are a full-vested member of the church. There are, if you will, levels of membership. You are a member at baptism - but you have godparents who help you in learning what you need to know to be able to function as an adult member of the church upon your confirmation.

My point is that withholding the badge and crest from new members until they have met the criteria for being an initated member is not hazing.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

My point is that withholding the badge and crest from new members until they have met the criteria for being an initated member is not hazing.

So this is hazing?

Originally Posted by aephi alum

It's the other way around, for AEPhi. Our new members cannot wear letters (per national policy) but our new member pin is the crest with the Greek letters removed.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Many GLOs use the badge and crest as the symbol of a member who has gone through initiation. Therefore, a member who has not gone through initiation cannot wear them.
As an analogy, only Boy and Girl Scouts who have completed the requirements to earn certain badges or awards may wear them. All members may wear the uniform - only those who have gone through, for example, the Eagle Scout or Gold Award ceremonies may wear those symbols on their uniforms.

The way things are going with the NPC and hazing, I foresee that the entire recruitment/education/initiation process will have to undergo an overhaul where women are initiated on bid day and have a brief orientation process. That's the only way to truly abide by the insane hazing guidelines where pledges have to have equal rights to full members. The only reasonable solution is to have no pledges.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

The way things are going with the NPC and hazing, I foresee that the entire recruitment/education/initiation process will have to undergo an overhaul where women are initiated on bid day and have a brief orientation process. That's the only way to truly abide by the insane hazing guidelines where pledges have to have equal rights to full members. The only reasonable solution is to have no pledges.

I think the NPC groups have it handled, thanks. Insane? Rather harsh take on it.

Just out of curiosity, which NPC gives new members equal rights as initiated members? It's not Gamma Phi Beta.

You seem to have a very unattractive chip on your shoulder.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I know, I know. I debated with myself about using it - but you'll note that I didn't use the dreaded "earn".

Oh but you did:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

As an analogy, only Boy and Girl Scouts who have completed the requirements to earn certain badges or awards may wear them.

Sorry!

And as an Eagle and Adult Scouter myself, I know well what you mean about it being more than just fulfilling requirements. And I think I like your baptism/confirmation analogy.

My point is that withholding the badge and crest from new members until they have met the criteria for being an initated member is not hazing.

And I thank you for making this point!!

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Just out of curiosity, which NPC gives new members equal rights as initiated members? It's not Gamma Phi Beta.

Well, I remember discussions here at GC where ADPis have said that their new members have full voting and office holding rights. Is it them?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

prejciousjeni, I have to assume at this point you are just trying to be argumentative about the NPC.

You could trade out individual schools and states in there. I'm pointing out that it's kinda ridiculous for any organization to say that new members can wear letters but not the crest or that new members can wear the crest but not the letters. Why restrict them at all if the concern is that restrictions equal hazing? Do you see what I'm saying? My issue is not at all with the NPC itself. As I've said before, the definitions of hazing across the board are completely out of control.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Just out of curiosity, which NPC gives new members equal rights as initiated members? It's not Gamma Phi Beta.

They don't (at least not that I know of) but isn't it hazing that they don't? I said in the future I foresee it getting to the point where NPC organizations along with the rest of Greek Life will have to immediately initiate interests and dismantle the entire concept of pledging. That's the only way to avoid hazing if one of the key definitions of hazing is "deprivation of privileges granted to other members."

You seem to have a very unattractive chip on your shoulder.

That's an odd thing to say.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Here's where I'm intrigued. If, as has been said in this thread, new members are members and, therefore, can wear letters, why can't they wear the badge or crest? Isn't that hazing too?

No.

You brought up the idea of non-initiated members of some NPCs not being allowed to wear the badge or crest as hazing. It has been explained ad nauseum.

It has also been explained why some NPC groups have alternative policies.

prejciousjeni, I have to assume at this point you are just trying to be argumentative about the NPC.