Sigma Alpha Epsilon Announces Historic Change for membership experience

[MysticCat]

SOM, not sure which of us is older, but your experience sounds similar to mine.

I don't think anyone is downplaying hazing or RM issues. I certainly don't mean to. These are real problems that need to be addressed. I appreciate that this is an attempt to do that, but based on what's been seen in other groups, I admit I'll be surprised if it has the intended effect. As DBB says, those chapters that want to continue hazing will probably just move to hazing the most recent class of new members.

Then there's the issue of buy-in. A change like this is hard enough to implement when the majority of people who have to implement it—meaning the majorities in chapters—are behind it and feel some ownership of it. If chapters have the feeling that the change is being forced on them without any chance for input, or worse that it's being implemented in a way contrary to the fraternity's laws, then I fear it's going to be a very hard sell. I can just hear the chapters asking "well, if they don't have to follow the rules, then why do we?" I'm afraid that my experience is that few things can doom a change like this faster than decreeing it without extensive discussion and input involving all stakeholders and without following agreed-on procedures.

Obviously, I don't have a dog in this fight, and I certainly wish SAE the best. I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Then there's the issue of buy-in. A change like this is hard enough to implement when the majority of people who have to implement it—meaning the majorities in chapters—are behind it and feel some ownership of it. If chapters have the feeling that the change is being forced on them without any chance for input, or worse that it's being implemented in a way contrary to the fraternity's laws, then I fear it's going to be a very hard sell. I can just hear the chapters asking "well, if they don't have to follow the rules, then why do we?" I'm afraid that my experience is that few things can doom a change like this faster than decreeing it without extensive discussion and input involving all stakeholders and without following agreed-on procedures.

In a lot of ways, I'd compare this to the process of Alpha Phi Omega going co-ed. It took 8 years between the first chapters admitting women illegally to the National Fraternity *allowing* chapters to be co-ed and *that* was with the pressure of Title IX included. The 1974 convention allowed women to be affiliates and the 1976 convention allowed for co-ed chapters. Even *with* things being decided at the conventions, there were still chapters that left and I'm convinced if this had been done as a fait accompli by the National board, that the National Fraternity would have completely come apart with a significant number of chapters creating an all-male social fraternity. Even when the final decision at convention was made that chapters had to be made co-ed more than 30 years later, some chapters did leave to form a separate organization...

As I said, the primary questions left to be answered are
a) What has changed since the Summer 2013 convention that made this need to happen before the Summer 2015 convention?
b) And if the answer is 'nothing'? Does that mean that the Supreme Council of Sigma Alpha Epsilon felt that they had to do something that they didn't think they could get passed (or failed to get passed!) by a national convention.

[SAEalumnus]

Originally Posted by naraht

In a lot of ways, I'd compare this to the process of Alpha Phi Omega going co-ed. It took 8 years between the first chapters admitting women illegally to the National Fraternity *allowing* chapters to be co-ed and *that* was with the pressure of Title IX included. The 1974 convention allowed women to be affiliates and the 1976 convention allowed for co-ed chapters. Even *with* things being decided at the conventions, there were still chapters that left and I'm convinced if this had been done as a fait accompli by the National board, that the National Fraternity would have completely come apart with a significant number of chapters creating an all-male social fraternity. Even when the final decision at convention was made that chapters had to be made co-ed more than 30 years later, some chapters did leave to form a separate organization...

As I said, the primary questions left to be answered are
a) What has changed since the Summer 2013 convention that made this need to happen before the Summer 2015 convention?
b) And if the answer is 'nothing'? Does that mean that the Supreme Council of Sigma Alpha Epsilon felt that they had to do something that they didn't think they could get passed (or failed to get passed!) by a national convention.

a) Brad Cohen was elected as national president in 2013 and will be out of office at the 2015 Convention.
b) As evidenced by the smoke and mirrors, hocus pocus and hand waving it took them to pretend to have this fictitious authority, legislation by fiat with an ultimatum of loss of charter was the only way they could ever hope to make this fly.

[adpiucf]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

SOM, not sure which of us is older, but your experience sounds similar to mine.

I don't think anyone is downplaying hazing or RM issues. I certainly don't mean to. These are real problems that need to be addressed. I appreciate that this is an attempt to do that, but based on what's been seen in other groups, I admit I'll be surprised if it has the intended effect. As DBB says, those chapters that want to continue hazing will probably just move to hazing the most recent class of new members.

Agreed. I applaud the effort, but I think more attention needs to be paid to address the hazing issue. Sororities shortened the new member period to as a way to reduce hazing, but we continue to read news reports about sorority hazing and members saying they feel like they were rushed into membership and are discontent with their choice.