How to stop hazing in my fraternity?

[dnall]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Dnall, I applaud your enthusiasm. Most fraternities are, indeed, badass in their own right.

The blackfeet though...

ATO used to seem to be pretty lax when it came to enforcing hazing rules, but in the last few years, at least here locally, they've taken a hard line. My younger brother is an ATO from (I think) your Zeta Nu chapter. They lost their charter a few years back for hazing, same thing happened to the chapter at the University of Oklahoma.

So you'd be smart to get a handle on that, but it seems you have.

I'd be careful about alumni advisory boards though, especially when your chapter has a history of hazing. Some of your alumni are definitely going to see hazing as an essential part of the fraternal experience, and in some places are even active participants in the hazing. An advisory board need not be composed of members only. Parents can be on it, professors can be on it, etc. If you're looking to change your organization's culture, sometimes that change needs to come from the outside.

As far as the shit talking about founders' purpose goes, I'd stay away from that one. Most folks aren't joining up with organizations whose purpose they find to be pointless.

ATO's own initial purpose didn't seem to have much to do with Christian brotherhood, at least not in the history books on my shelf. I will of course admit that the authors of said sources are slightly biased.

Kevin,

With respect to a fellow triad member (and I really mean that), given the founding history of your organization, and that experience with our Alpha chapter, I can understand why there might be some bias on your end & think maybe history is not where we're going to be most likely to find agreement.

I appreciate your concern about the alumni advisory aspect. It is a balance thing. There is a part of me that does believe a balanced application of physical & mental stressors is the most productive way to train a new member. In fact, I know absolutely that to be true from military experience. But, it's illegal, so we can with extra effort find another way to achieve the same goals. That said, even if it were legal, I would be very concerned with the tendency over time of it to get out of hand when executed by people with too little experience or knowledge of how to do so productively. So, I don't support it. It has been many years since my chapter was in that situation. We're by no means a cakewalk now, but in the clear legally & with headquarters.

ATO has always had a Christian brotherhood, but a brotherhood in a purpose of achieving certain specific Christian goals. The brotherhood is more a function of that shared purpose, that and just a little bit of time hanging out together.

That said, I wish you the best of luck, and to your brother.

To whomever was saying something about whites only... that rule for us was the same one requiring members to be Christians. Change was voted down in the 40s based on the Christianity aspect of it. I hope I've expressed the degree of Christian basis for which we exist, and so I hope you're understand why it took us some time to be open to other religions. There was not open opposition to desegregation in the 40s, even with what is still today a predominantly southern organization. We are not perfect in that regard. Few organizations of this age are. All I can say is I hope we've learned from that aspect of our history and become better for it.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by dnall

To whomever was saying something about whites only... that rule for us was the same one requiring members to be Christians. Change was voted down in the 40s based on the Christianity aspect of it. I hope I've expressed the degree of Christian basis for which we exist, and so I hope you're understand why it took us some time to be open to other religions. There was not open opposition to desegregation in the 40s, even with what is still today a predominantly southern organization. We are not perfect in that regard. Few organizations of this age are. All I can say is I hope we've learned from that aspect of our history and become better for it.

But, were your founders shortsighted?

[dnall]

No? My founders didn't pass the rule restricting membership to whites only.

What the hell. The only theoretical org my statement could have been taken to say had short sighted founders would be one that never had a meaningful purpose in the first place. Anyone that's taking that as an insult is making a negative judgment against their own org that I never implied.

Why are people so damn nit picky and judgmental about everything around here? Do yall really like starting crap and finding fault in every possible thing? I thought we were here to have legit discussions of real issues and try to help people.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by dnall

No? My founders didn't pass the rule restricting membership to whites only.

What the hell. The only theoretical org my statement could have been taken to say had short sighted founders would be one that never had a meaningful purpose in the first place. Anyone that's taking that as an insult is making a negative judgment against their own org that I never implied.

Why are people so damn nit picky and judgmental about everything around here? Do yall really like starting crap and finding fault in every possible thing? I thought we were here to have legit discussions of real issues and try to help people.

It isn't what you say, it is how you say it.

With your founders and a whites (I am going to guess religion was also a clause) clause I will agree with you that they probably didn't pass that rule. They didn't have to because the whole eligible membership pool was white, probably Christian, though they may have specified what type, for example Protestant not Catholic. I'm sure the clauses came later when people who were not white and Christian were in college and would seek membership.

Even with your founding chapter the one guy who wasn't Christian, CSA veteran and sculptor Moses Ezekiel who graduated in 1866, probably wasn't even considered for membership based on his faith. From what I've read of him it was hard for him to even be admitted to VMI, so not being invited to join a group that you've stated is definitely Christian (Alpha Omega) is not a huge surprise.

If you're interested this is one page about him http://www.jewish-history.com/civilw...s_ezekiel.html

So many (historically white) groups had clauses on race and religion, we all know it. I just don't understand what the big secret is about admitting it and acknowledging when we officially took it off our Inter/National documents. I can't think of any group that doesn't have people who aren't WASPs nationally so maybe some groups never officially got rid of it but haven't been enforcing it, and don't want to be embarrassed that it is still there.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dnall

No? My founders didn't pass the rule restricting membership to whites only.

What the hell. The only theoretical org my statement could have been taken to say had short sighted founders would be one that never had a meaningful purpose in the first place. Anyone that's taking that as an insult is making a negative judgment against their own org that I never implied.

Why are people so damn nit picky and judgmental about everything around here? Do yall really like starting crap and finding fault in every possible thing? I thought we were here to have legit discussions of real issues and try to help people.

Your founders [mine too] didn't need to pass that rule because for a long time, we weren't at any schools which accepted black students.

As far as purposes, they change, right? I mean, Sigma Nu was founded because our founders perceived the precursor ATO organization to be abusive of their fellow students, unaccountable to anyone, and just generally perpetrating a reign of terror on the school. That problem was solved, and we still exist. Purposes change. I figure you probably get that.

[dnall]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As far as purposes, they change, right? I mean, Sigma Nu was founded because our founders perceived the precursor ATO organization to be abusive of their fellow students, unaccountable to anyone, and just generally perpetrating a reign of terror on the school. That problem was solved, and we still exist. Purposes change. I figure you probably get that.

I think our two orgs have VERY different recollection of this period. ATO's version is we took the best students at VMI, which by natural effect rather than back room politics led to them controlling all leadership positions of the corps. Hopkins thought he was being unfairly excluded from corps leadership because he was not part of this fraternity & they would not admit him. So, he broke into our original ritual, which involved members washing the feet of new members as in Jesus doing so to with the disciples with all the lessons connected to that. Of course he was ejected with some force, as any of us would do today if some random kicked in the door during in any of our initiation rituals. He then accused our Alpha chapter of hazing, but not in the way any of us understand it now. His claims were required participation in secret ritual, having a leadership hierarchy, and that outside the fraternity they were less than accepting to what we'd today call GDIs wanting to seize power at the University.

I don't see that as any different than modern situations where non-greeks don't like greeks and are mad when greeks control a lot of student government or other positions on campus through what often seems less than democratic means.

That is our recollection of our perspective. I fully understand and respect that Sigma Nu has a different recollection/perspective. Hence, this is not the thing we should seek agreement on.

In terms of change, yes absolutely the mission can change over time. I said specifically that if that original mission has passed away then the org should remake itself with a new bigger vision. ATO completely remade our ritual in the 1880s. It was still the original founder that did it, and still basically the same purpose, but it took that 15-20 years to refine our purpose from what some kids in their early 20s came up with during a tumultuous period of history to a more mature long-term vision for the world.

But, my impression is not that Sigma Nu had a short-term vision. I get the short-term complaint raised by your founders. For better or worse, that's fine (even if your snake is specifically to oppose our Christian basis). But I don't believe that's what Sigma Nu was founded on. I'm not a Sigma Nu so I'm just guessing. That may have been the catalyst that motivated their creation, but I suspect the ritual and meaning of the org from its early days is aimed at something quite a bit more meaningful.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As Kevin said, people rarely join organizations whose purposes they find to be pointless. They also rarely take kindly to some outsider standing in judgment of them or commenting on whether their purposes are valid or not. It's just not your call.

Yes, and at no point have I disagreed with that. I said I want to believe all orgs were established with a grand change the world vision rather than just correcting some short-term injustice or being a social club. I was asked my personal opinion on the theoretical case of an org having either lost its way or never having had such a broad meaningful mission in the first place. And I said, they should get back to their roots &/or remake themselves with such a purpose for being, or they should cease to exist. I don't want anyone to dissolve. I want them to find that change the world mission and focus the existence of their org on that.

You're right that it's not my place to judge if any particular org does or does not have such a purpose, and at no time have I done so. I am not some god of greek life with the authority to decide if an org has purpose and should continue to exist, nor do I have any desire to be. I haven't seen their rituals & don't understand their meanings. I can only see the surface, and I'll tell you right now that a whole lot of ATO outwardly projects something different than the org I described earlier. That doesn't change the soul of it, and even if I wanted to I can't judge the soul of other groups without being able to see it first hand. So, at no time have I said anything about any other org.

My confusion here is because the only way I can see anyone being angry with what I said is if they thought their own org didn't have a real reason for being and had in fact become little more than a social club. I really hope that no one thinks that about their own org, and if they do I hope they are working aggressively to change it.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by dnall

Yes, and at no point have I disagreed with that. I said I want to believe all orgs were established with a grand change the world vision rather than just correcting some short-term injustice or being a social club. I was asked my personal opinion on the theoretical case of an org having either lost its way or never having had such a broad meaningful mission in the first place. And I said, they should get back to their roots &/or remake themselves with such a purpose for being, or they should cease to exist. I don't want anyone to dissolve. I want them to find that change the world mission and focus the existence of their org on that.

You're right that it's not my place to judge if any particular org does or does not have such a purpose, and at no time have I done so. I am not some god of greek life with the authority to decide if an org has purpose and should continue to exist, nor do I have any desire to be. I haven't seen their rituals & don't understand their meanings. I can only see the surface, and I'll tell you right now that a whole lot of ATO outwardly projects something different than the org I described earlier. That doesn't change the soul of it, and even if I wanted to I can't judge the soul of other groups without being able to see it first hand. So, at no time have I said anything about any other org.

How precisely do you reconcile the two bolded statements? It's not your place to judge buty ou're going to do it anyway? It's not YOUR place to judge, but others SHOULD judge and do what YOU think is right?

My confusion here is because the only way I can see anyone being angry with what I said is if they thought their own org didn't have a real reason for being and had in fact become little more than a social club. I really hope that no one thinks that about their own org, and if they do I hope they are working aggressively to change it.

Lol. "You can only be upset because you think I'm right about your org."

LOL

You are stupid.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by dnall

I was asked my personal opinion on the theoretical case of an org having either lost its way or never having had such a broad meaningful mission in the first place. And I said, they should get back to their roots &/or remake themselves with such a purpose for being, or they should cease to exist. I don't want anyone to dissolve. I want them to find that change the world mission and focus the existence of their org on that.

What you were asked wasn't exactly theoretical:

Originally Posted by 33girl

I don't think you can say that overall, as there are many religious or ethnic groups out there who part of their purpose, if not their primary purpose, for being founded was that they were denied membership in other groups. You can't really blame them for "losing their purpose" when society has moved forward and (hopefully/theoretically) made their purpose moot.

Anybody familiar with Greek life can quickly identify a number of specific fraternities and sororities that would fit this description, so it should come as no surprise that you would be interpreted as commenting on those fraternities and sororities when you said:

Originally Posted by dnall

I would say their founding was short sighted. They have lost their purpose & therefore should dissolve or remake themselves with a new change the world purpose. Otherwise it's sitting in a car that's out of gas blasting the radio and pressing on the pedals thinking you're getting to your destination. I'd rather see them out of the way so those members will go to orgs that do actively have a serious change the world mission to accomplish.

Meanwhile, your constant focus on a "change the world purpose" prompts me to ask again:

Originally Posted by MysticCat

So only "serious change the world" missions are valid or worthwhile missions? Anything else is short-sighted? My org certainly has what I would call a "serious change the world" mission, but I can't imagine ever suggesting that other orgs with different kinds of missions (like, say, change/grow the person) aren't equally worthwhile or valuable.

My confusion here is because the only way I can see anyone being angry with what I said is if they thought their own org didn't have a real reason for being and had in fact become little more than a social club.

Then I'm afraid you are indeed confused. Whether you intend to be judgmental or not, that's how it's coming across, and that's what we're trying to tell you.

BTW, being challenged on something you've said =/= angry challenger.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by dnall

Why are people so damn nit picky and judgmental about everything around here? Do yall really like starting crap and finding fault in every possible thing? I thought we were here to have legit discussions of real issues and try to help people.

Because you keep providing such a big target?

Seriously, dnall, I've said it before and I'll say it again -- you've got some great insights and great things to add to discussions. But you do seem to have a way of mixing the good observations up with some disrespect for other organizations and, I've got to say, a little arrogance. I mean, you couldn't really think that no one would take offense at or challenge a statement like this:

Originally Posted by dnall

I would say their founding was short sighted. They have lost their purpose & therefore should dissolve or remake themselves with a new change the world purpose. Otherwise it's sitting in a car that's out of gas blasting the radio and pressing on the pedals thinking you're getting to your destination. I'd rather see them out of the way so those members will go to orgs that do actively have a serious change the world mission to accomplish.

As Kevin said, people rarely join organizations whose purposes they find to be pointless. They also rarely take kindly to some outsider standing in judgment of them or commenting on whether their purposes are valid or not. It's just not your call.