"No Contact" and Strict Silence" Nonsense

[Kapsig1]

Worriedsenior, thanks for the response. I understand and applaud your desire for a "job fair" type recruitment model. However, in a job fair environment, there is nothing to prevent previous contact between prospect and prospective employer. My suggestion is, that in light of our common defense of association freedoms, that we greeks ought not restrict those freedom's of our member organizations. In the eyes of your response, because I'm going to a job fair (greek system) with multiple companies (chapters) I want to be able to do as much research and gain as much insight into the "culture" of each company (chapter) as possible, prior to making a decision, which unlike the job choice, is in most cases irreversable. The anaology is not perfect, but more intended as a reference point.

I would assert again, we are ill preparing our undergrads for "real world" application, and weakening our associational freedom case by placing these restrictions on our prospective members. Barriers to entry are abound as it is, why make things worse on ourselves?

It is more likely in a "formal" rush environement that persons will get "token" consideration because of the unnatural environment in which recruitment occurs.

Brad

Originally posted by worriedsenior:
I may have some misconceptions, so please excuse me if this is way off base.
If we use your comparison of a business model, then we can call a Greek organization a job opening and rush indeed will be recruitment, the actives will be head hunters, and rushees the unemployed. If I am looking for a job, I want equal consideration
(equal employment opportunity) for the position. It may be that I haven't established a network(contact with headhunters)but some of the smaller companies I've worked with have been very impressed. The problem, I'm not a Bill Gates or CEO of any highly visible company, I'm more like a little Mom and Pop company with a great business model. All the companies want the big names, and the jobs they offer are sought after by everyone because they offer great benefits. So, they wine and dine together, rub elbows with the top brass and are pretty much accepted as one of the boys. The job is filled before this really great candidate even had a shot.
I'd like to see recruitment remain like a jobs fair. Everyone can look at everyone and the selection process will give organizations a chance to interview all applicants. I realize that many Greek Orgs will have a list of people they are really interested in prior to the first round party but there will still be some job openings.
I would like to think I'd get more than a token interview and if qualified, would seriously be considered for the job.


[This message has been edited by worriedsenior (edited July 02, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Kapsig1 (edited July 02, 2001).]

[Rudey]

I'm not going to get into any arguments about Economic systems with you, but I'd just like to point out something. Sometimes the "no contact rules" are imposed by the school administrator (not just a student run IFC). If the school is private, and in certain public ones as well, they pretty much have the ability to impose such restrictions.

[Kapsig1]

Yeah Rodney - thanks for the clarification. I understand that there are instances, particularly at private institutions where that is the case. Just so you know, any institution that accepts federal dollars is breaking statutory law if they discipline based on such restrictions. I have found that when this is brought to the appropriate level of attentions, they usually withdraw the restrictions.

My original question pertains to us (IFC/Panhel) doing it to ourselves - but thanks anyway!

Brad

Originally posted by Rudey:
I'm not going to get into any arguments about Economic systems with you, but I'd just like to point out something. Sometimes the "no contact rules" are imposed by the school administrator (not just a student run IFC). If the school is private, and in certain public ones as well, they pretty much have the ability to impose such restrictions.

[LeslieAGD]

Brad: While I believe that structured recruitment can be a little phony at times because the members and potential members are putting on a "happy face" and only showing you their good side, the contact rules are there for important reasons.

If we didn't have these rules:
1) what would stop the GLOs from bad mouthing each other to get members...or stop the potential members from bad mouthing each other so they'll look better?
2) GLO members could offer verbal bids in advance and a lot of potential members would actually end up without bids
3) Rho Chi's could go back to their chapters and tell their members who to keep and who to drop
4) GLOs could break a bunch of recruitment rules and get away with it

Hope that helps!

[33girl]

Wow, is this Greek Chat or Wall Street Week? hee hee

I was from a campus with deferred rush (for women, not men, but that's a whole other thread) and the only time we had "strict silence" was after the last pref. The only time we weren't supposed to talk about sororities was during the actual week of rush (3 weeks into start of the semester). So I agree with Brad that sometimes the no-contact rules go overboard.

The real problem is people giving verbal bids (for reasons I really hate this, see the dirty rush thread). Some people think this is crap and would never do it, but some people have no scruples. It's the same as if every business out there was honest and above board we wouldn't really need a Better Business Bureau. I'm sure the groups didn't make these rules because they wanted to, but because people got burned too many times.

[Kapsig1]

Parrothead points out (in a related thread) a question that I've never gotten a LOGICAL response to - why have "no contact rules" imposed by Panhell/IFC's?

GLO's have battled, and continue to battle to maintain our "freedom of association" for years. Why do most Panhelenics and some IFC's find it necessary to hand those same rights over to others? Doesn't this weaken our stance when we attempt to fight overzelous administrators that want to infringe upon them? While not an attorney, I'll ask the question - WHAT IS THE HARM in allowing an "open market" interaction to occur? I've heard all the "level playing field" arguments. But what does that teach our undergraduates in terms of real world experience? Does anyone think that KPMG and a small 4 man consulting firm are operating on a level playing field? Of course not. I realize this is NOT a business environment, but if part of our responsibility is to help prepare our members for graduation/post graduation realities - I believe we're doing them a disservice with all the "no contact" stuff.
Defend away - but think first!

Brad Bracken
A decidedly Keynesian Economist

[Kapsig1]

These are typical arguments in support of a quota type system - see the rebuttal below:


<<If we didn't have these rules:[/b]
1) what would stop the GLOs from bad mouthing each other to get members...or stop the potential members from bad mouthing each other so they'll look better?>>

Dirty Rushing occurs just as much in quota/restricted systems as is does in a open system - restrictions don't stop it

2) GLO members could offer verbal bids in advance and a lot of potential members would actually end up without bids

Verbal bids - great! Rushees get cross cut in many restricted systems, again - the restrictions don't eliminate that issue

3) Rho Chi's could go back to their chapters and tell their members who to keep and who to drop

YES, exactly - which in my opinion, armed with MORE information about the rushee, the chapters and rushees make more informed decisions which leads to fewer dissapointments and depledges

4) GLOs could break a bunch of recruitment rules and get away with it

No - the rules regarding alchohol or whatever else stay in place, those that actually violate them are dealt with individually instead of assuming that some will break them, and thus restrictions are necessary for ALL.

Just a view from someone who see both systems' pains and gains work at different schools.

Brad

[Kapsig1]

I'm not really on the inside - I'm a 10 year volunteer with Kappa Sigma, and have served at 7 different chapters and their respective systems. I would never advocate breaking the rules - I am an advocate of working to change rules that create barriers to entry into GLO's and I think that things like "no contact" rules do that. I'm not a believer in legislating morality and values (dirty rush is a value break down in my book). I would argue that if a rushee is attracted to a group that bad mouths another with lies, and that rushee doesn't check the story out, then both get what they deserve - the rushee gets less than the full picture and probably makes a bad choice, and the dirty rushing chapter gets someone who takes rumor and makes it fact, which in my experience is the kind of member that causes BIG problems. I see more exceptions made in formal systems - primarily for "small" chapters than I do on "open" systems (does not mean without rules, just without rules that keep me from talking/interacting with a prospective member)

Not really passionate - just perplexed as to why, in a time of decreasing greek membership, we would make things harder on ourselves and our recruitment efforts.

I guess my concerns about associational freedoms won't have any traction until more host institutions begin eliminating greek systems.

Brad

Originally posted by worriedsenior:
Brad, you seem very passionate about this issue. Since you are on the inside looking out, you may not be as sensitive as someone looking in. I was taught to NEVER break the rules. Of course I find the "loop holes", but I expect EVERYONE to follow established guideline. It burns me up when "exceptions" are made for this or that case. I saw it all the time in HS. I know the "That's life" response and indeed, it is, but it seems that in a situation like recruitment, people in our position would like to believe there are SOME regulatory guidelines in place to at least level the playing field. I guess it's the degree of infringements that would change. You are correct when you say that dirty rush exists, but I hope it is the exception, not the rule. If those rules were not in place, what then would be the exception?

[carnation]

When I rushed, all the dorm phones were turned off and we had no contact with the "outside world", so to speak. It seemed crappy at the time.

Now that this is no longer done--due probably to the fact that it would be impractical to try to keep rushees from using cell phones and e-mail--I see why it was wise. I know a lot of rushees who have been bombarded with calls from alums and moms to the point that the rushees were hysterical from all the pressure they were put under. One girl we know almost dropped out of rush because her mom, who was in 1 sorority, and her 2 sisters, who were in 2 others, called and cried and carried on during the whole rush period.

[33girl]

Getting back to the "job" example: say I interview at Greekchat Inc. and my friend worriedsenior works in the personnel department. Would it be fair of me to ask her to tell me about the other applicants, their chances, or anything her boss said about me? On the other side of the coin, would it be fair for her to pressure me into taking the job because they need a superduper salesperson, which I am, even though she knows I might hate the work environment?

The answer, of course, is no. I wouldn't put that pressure on a friend nor do I think she would put it on me. Since we're not all friends going into rush, that's where the rules come in.

Most of the strictest no contact rules, from what I've seen, take place at schools where the freshmen rush before school even starts. It's not like people have to go a whole year not talking to freshmen. I guess DePauw changed to deferred rush but didn't change the contact rules and everyone complained, and rightly so. Keeping the no contact rules in place defeats the whole purpose of deferred (i.e. to get to know the groups in a more "realistic" environment).

[orchid2]

Hey there 33girl, what sorority are you in?

[33girl]

It's in here, do a search. Hee hee, sorry but I had to!!

[James]

It might be important to seperate the issues of formal recruitment for men and formal recruitment for women. They seem to be very different and have different reasons for existing.

It might be nice to have some history here . . . maybe some of the formal recruitment gurus among the ladies could tell us how and when the NPC rules first came about? And their reasoning?

Without that information let me take a risk of putting my foot in my mouth.

I would think many of the more formalized rules came out for the women first. Looking at the situation from the outside it seems that the NPC rules are designed as much for the protection of weaker chapters as some conception of fairness.

If this wasn't true then after a girl went through the process of formal Recruitment she would still be able to join the sorority of her choice. It still boggles my mind that you might want to be a Chi Omega or DElta Zeta and even if they want you also, the rules can almost force you to become a XYZ.

So anyway the no contact rules seem designed to increase the probability that less popular houses will get more girls.

All the other reasons just seem like rationalizations of this.

Formal recruitment as a model for men seems designed primarily to limit the competition for new recruits to a specific time period and within certain limits. Given how much money some chapters spend to vie for a pool of applicants I can see some people viewing this with relief.

Here I think the no contact rules are somewhat designed for protection of smaller chapters, but they probably primarily just evolved (its the nature of the beast to evolve more and more rules in an organized system), and was copied from the NPC model. The big difference here is that male Fraternities don't, for the most part, have quotas or Total, so the impact is going to be very different.

I am not sure what I think about the way the women do it . . . I kind of like competition and it occurs to me if you can't compete . . . you can't.

Do you think this kind of protection is intrinsically a good thing ladies?

[James]

I agree with Brad that IFC and NPC shouldn't allow themselves to become the enforcement arm of the administration.

And we really shouldn't be limiting ourselves . . . in various ways.

The problem is: who runs the collegiate version of IFC and NPC?

Obviously they have their officers . . . that mostly change every couple years, and usually a vaguely worded consitution to guide them. But lets not forget the power of the advisors which are usually College Administrators.

If an administrator is there 5 years or longer, who has more of a long term affect on the organization? Him/her, or the officers that change yearly? Especially if she also does a lot of the leg work for the group, runs their training program, and sits in on meetings. So as Rudey was saying its often the administrator that is doing it and some times its easier for him/her working through the IFC/NPC because it keeps his hands clean: It looks like IFC/NPC are actually making the rule.

At least NPC has some controls . . doesn't each sorority have some type of alum delegate they are supposed to communicate with also?

ITs easier to influence these organizations because a lot of times, especially for IFC, its not looked upon as a very important position in chapter, so will often be staffed with a very junior member.

Also, its very hard for IFC officers to stand up to adiministrators. One problem is familiarity, the advosr is considered like an acquaintance or friend, which gives a lot of influence. Another is the perceived authority , we tend to be easier influenced by authority positions. And maybe most important is just experience, how many beginning IFC/NPC members will have enough leadership experience and personal authority to really evaluate what is going on in terms of what is most advantageous to the Greeks and then carry it through?

Brad is right when he implies that we sign some of our rights away.

The only thing I can think of to put a stop to this is build a pretty thorough educational program into our National leadership programs so that people will have a better idea of what the goals of IFC/NPC should be and how to accomplish them.

In fraternities at least, there is very little training involving IFC's, or strategies to make the whole Greek System better.

[Kapsig1]

My original example was not about an internal applicant because that doesn't emulate the ruch scenario. I would think, that when you graduate, if you're going to interview for jobs, that you would find someone to talk to about the company/culture/position/etc. It only makes good sense. Of course you're not going to discuss other rushees with anyone exceot your sisters/brothers - but why not be able to discuss what YOU know about YOUR org with someone that is interested in joining. Oh yeah, it may very well help you become that highly sought after super salesperson.

Brad

\

Originally posted by 33girl:
Getting back to the "job" example: say I interview at Greekchat Inc. and my friend worriedsenior works in the personnel department. Would it be fair of me to ask her to tell me about the other applicants, their chances, or anything her boss said about me? On the other side of the coin, would it be fair for her to pressure me into taking the job because they need a superduper salesperson, which I am, even though she knows I might hate the work environment?

The answer, of course, is no. I wouldn't put that pressure on a friend nor do I think she would put it on me. Since we're not all friends going into rush, that's where the rules come in.

Most of the strictest no contact rules, from what I've seen, take place at schools where the freshmen rush before school even starts. It's not like people have to go a whole year not talking to freshmen. I guess DePauw changed to deferred rush but didn't change the contact rules and everyone complained, and rightly so. Keeping the no contact rules in place defeats the whole purpose of deferred (i.e. to get to know the groups in a more "realistic" environment).