Alpha Phi International Threatening Volunteers with NDA

[*winter*]

Ok...I’m genuinely curious here- as a complete outsider to this type of system. (My sorority is non selective; therefore our “selection” process is completely public.)

If a confused freshman comes here and asks why she wasn’t selected, everyone says, that’s membership selection information, which is private and ritual. It seems to be taken very seriously, so I’m surprised that organizations don’t already have these types of agreements. Granted, I didn’t read the entire agreement (and I’m not a legal person anyway), but what’s the issue? Wouldn’t it be good to have this type of agreement because you don’t want people discussing membership selection?

[NYCMS]

Any Alpha Phi's here who can shed light on this question - I'm curious when this focus on looks began for recruiting...I recall reading something here about it beginning at University of Arizona and I'm curious when it started and what sparked it.

I'm an alum of Arizona and knew many girls in the Alpha Phi chapter (this was late 70's). There was no fixation on looks back then - they had a wide range of girls (as did all chapters) and some of those I knew were super smart (Mortar Board, etc.), others were involved in campus groups, one gal won Homecoming Queen. Nice girls, but not the focus on looks that seems to be the case (like all chapters they had a range of looks). As a side note, even the chapters at Arizona known for 'pretty' girls back then didn't have that "babe" look I see on many campuses now among different sororities. You know, the long legs, long hair, skimpy clothing, "I'm so sexy", pouty lips, very posed look. Ugh.

Thanks for any info one might be able to share - if not, no worries.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by *winter*

Ok...I’m genuinely curious here- as a complete outsider to this type of system. (My sorority is non selective; therefore our “selection” process is completely public.)

If a confused freshman comes here and asks why she wasn’t selected, everyone says, that’s membership selection information, which is private and ritual. It seems to be taken very seriously, so I’m surprised that organizations don’t already have these types of agreements. Granted, I didn’t read the entire agreement (and I’m not a legal person anyway), but what’s the issue? Wouldn’t it be good to have this type of agreement because you don’t want people discussing membership selection?

If you look at 19th century fraternal organizations' rituals which are out there, they tend to have a component wherein the new initiate promises/swears/vows not to divulge ritual, which includes membership selection. It wasn't a legally enforceable agreement, at least to the best of my knowledge, but instead relied on the integrity of the person being initiated. With the advent of the internet, you had former members and malcontents posting ritual, but there's a catch 22 for any group in confronting that information - if they were to sue, 1. it would cost a lot of money and 2. it would confirm the validity of the information. GLOS have wisely, in my opinion, basically ignored internet postings of supposedly secret information.

The issue with Alpha Phi goes back to the release of membership selection information which appeared to be valid, and the HQ response.

[navane]

Originally Posted by *winter*

Ok...I’m genuinely curious here- as a complete outsider to this type of system. (My sorority is non selective; therefore our “selection” process is completely public.)

If a confused freshman comes here and asks why she wasn’t selected, everyone says, that’s membership selection information, which is private and ritual. It seems to be taken very seriously, so I’m surprised that organizations don’t already have these types of agreements. Granted, I didn’t read the entire agreement (and I’m not a legal person anyway), but what’s the issue? Wouldn’t it be good to have this type of agreement because you don’t want people discussing membership selection?

In this instance, I think the issue boils down to -- is it ok to keep something a secret when the secret is considered to be objectionable to a reasonable person's morals and all efforts to correct the problem from within have been unsuccessful?

[*winter*]

Thanks for answering. Makes sense!