Getting rid of collegians because they don't fit the image?

[_Lisa_]

Originally Posted by 33girl

As far as not taking quota, not reaching standards, GPA etc - that is a CHAPTER issue. If the CHAPTER hasn't met quota since 1973, they should close the CHAPTER, not kick individual women out. You don't say that your chapter hasn't done a, b, and c, and then leave 12 girls there, especially if they are the girls who have been there the longest and therefore had the most time to remedy the issues.

For the record, I agree with you, but I am unable to read the article since I'm at work & LJ is blocked by our firewall. I misread the first post & thought it said "I know of sorority chapters closing and reorganizing, but telling all 12 members to leave because they don't fit the image? Is this even normal and possible?" as opposed to "all but 12."

[33girl]

Originally Posted by WVU alpha phi

My chapter had a hazing incident occur two years ago when we were already on probation.. Nationals came in, individually interviewed every girl in the chapter, held meeting with the entire chapter, kept an ELC in our house for 6 weeks, things like that.. the end result: our president took early alumni status (it was either that or termination), our social was terminated, and 2 girls quit on their own. Not once did I get the impression that Nationals was trying to "clean out" girls who didn't "fit the mold." From a chapter of 90, only two girls were forced to be early alum or terminated, and it was only those two because they were mainly the ones who "put us at risk".

That's a whole different matter, and it sounds like the appropriate action was taken - the individuals who did the deed were punished, not the group, since it wasn't a "group" mistake.

[LPIDelta]

Given the climate of NPC expansion lately, I would say that it is probably not in the best interest of many groups to just close a chapter--trying to rebuild seems to be the trend right now rather than just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Heather17

Membership review, at least from what I have seen, frequently comes about when the women in the chapter are not having or offering a quality experience.

I'm sorry, but I've heard this corporatespeak a zillion times and I have to jump on it and scream because it's full of guano.

"Quality experience" means different things to different people. I would not consider being in a chapter of 175 women, some of whom I barely know, a "quality experience", although I'm sure my HQ (and most people's HQs) disagree.

It is quite difficult for a chapter to have a "quality experience" when their HQ is breathing down their neck 24/7/365 telling them to bid more girls, forcing them to have bid parties every single week, and then when they do, telling them the girls they've bid aren't acceptable.

If you're told on a regular basis that you suck - guess what! - it'll become a self fulfilling prophecy. If the things you love about yourselves are the things your HQ hates, no one will ever win.

Not everyone wants to be the biggest or most popular chapter on campus. If you are keeping things going at a steady level and don't have housing or RM or money issues, what's the problem?

[LPIDelta]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I'm sorry, but I've heard this corporatespeak a zillion times and I have to jump on it and scream because it's full of guano.

"Quality experience" means different things to different people. I would not consider being in a chapter of 175 women, some of whom I barely know, a "quality experience", although I'm sure my HQ (and most people's HQs) disagree.

It is quite difficult for a chapter to have a "quality experience" when their HQ is breathing down their neck 24/7/365 telling them to bid more girls, forcing them to have bid parties every single week, and then when they do, telling them the girls they've bid aren't acceptable.

If you're told on a regular basis that you suck - guess what! - it'll become a self fulfilling prophecy. If the things you love about yourselves are the things your HQ hates, no one will ever win.

Not everyone wants to be the biggest or most popular chapter on campus. If you are keeping things going at a steady level and don't have housing or RM or money issues, what's the problem?

I agree with most of what you said...I'll just point out that if you are having membership issues, that likely will lead to financial issues, especially when a house is involved.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Heather17

Given the climate of NPC expansion lately, I would say that it is probably not in the best interest of many groups to just close a chapter--trying to rebuild seems to be the trend right now rather than just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Completely agree.

But in this case, why would they keep the seniors? One could argue that they bid the "unacceptable" women and they are the reason the chapter got to this state in the first place. Macallan's scenario seems more plausible and one I've seen on my campus - kick out the actives and keep the pledges.

[LPIDelta]

Maybe they figured that someone was better than no one...

Maybe they figured the seniors were almost done anyway....

Maybe the seniors had the "right" vision or what the group could be....

who knows.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Heather17

I agree with most of what you said...I'll just point out that if you are having membership issues, that likely will lead to financial issues, especially when a house is involved.

yup, and I know that in this case, they have houses, so I'm sure that figured into it. I just don't understand the point of keeping the 12 seniors - even if there were no women, they could still say "our chapter is intact at DePauw and we're going to be all new in fall 2007" under the NPC rules - right? I mean, I really don't think that these girls are going to want to spend their last semester consumed w/ rebuilding the sorority. I wouldn't. Unless, of course, the remainder of the sorority really was full-out terminated and these 12 were given alum status.

[AEPhiSierra]

Am I the only one who actually believes image could have played a significant part in closing chapter. I doubt the group was actually told that was the reason though because it's not the politically correct thing to do. While I am not saying national orgs have a singular image of what they want every chapter to look, act, dress like, etc. I don't find it hard to believe that a chapter could fall into an image that a national organization doesn't like and doesn't want to represent their organization. I would think that chapters with this problem tend to be smaller and that would be the official reason for the closure. They probably didn't like their image and figured restructuring would be the easiest and cheapest way to improve the image and resultingly bring them up to total.

Also, I don't really think there is a one year rule with NPC chapters being able to come back on campus, I think it is a courtesy that is extended by some campuses (give the org another try b/c they have been there for a while and/or its' easier than going through a whole expansion process). They probably kept 12 members so they could keep the charter but my guess is those 12 will not have the final say when it comes to new member selection

[kddani]

With image, maybe there was a chapter problem with drinking and drugs? That would certainly cause a bad image.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by kddani

With image, maybe there was a chapter problem with drinking and drugs? That would certainly cause a bad image.

You're getting this one confused with the other thread.

According to the OP in LJ, there was none of that going on in the chapter at DePauw.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by 33girl

You're getting this one confused with the other thread.

According to the OP in LJ, there was none of that going on in the chapter at DePauw.

Of course, I wouldn't necessarily trust that to be truthful

Plus, he's not even on campus anymore, so it seems like his information is based solely on hearsay and the gossip chain.

[33girl]

I'm gonna be really shallow here.

I looked at the site of the chapter in question and they just don't strike me as big partyers/druggies.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I'm gonna be really shallow here.

I looked at the site of the chapter in question and they just don't strike me as big partyers/druggies.

What makes you say that, out of curiousity? How can you judge by how they appear? I know young women of all shapes, sizes, colors and levels of beauty who partied like crazy.

But of course, all of us are speculating based on some random fraternity alumnus from that campus's LJ rant

[irishpipes]

And to answer your question about why they left some active members: they could not get a guarantee from the University or the Pan-Hellenic Council that they chapter (which happens to be, I believe, their oldest surviving chapter) would be allowed to re-open its doors once the last "old" member graduated.

This information must be incorrect. The chapters at DePauw are:
Alpha Phi 1887
Alpha Chi Omega 1885
Delta Gamma 1949
Delta Zeta 1909
Kappa Alpha Theta 1870
Kappa Kappa Gamma 1875
Pi Beta Phi 1942

He references the "oldest surviving chapter." Well, DePauw hosts the Alpha chapters of both Kappa Alpha Theta and Alpha Chi Omega. They don't have "image" problems at DePauw, unless things have changed drastically recently. No other chapter could be the oldest surviving. Alpha Phi, DG, and KKG all still have their Alphas open, ane we all know DG and Pi Phi have chapters older than 1949 and 1942. The LJ poster didn't have these facts straight, which could lead one to believe that other facts are not straight...