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

[macallan25]

I've never heard of Nationals booting out fraternity members because they didn't "look" right......but I have heard of Nationals conducting member reviews after a chapter got in trouble for hazing or something else that they could get into trouble for. KA Nationals held a membership review at Texas Tech after they go caught hazing and kicked out some members, made other members automatic alumni, and made some alumni in bad standing. Then they initiated all the pledges, had an election, and filled the office positions..... and allowed them to stay on campus.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by macallan25

I've never heard of Nationals booting out fraternity members because they didn't "look" right......but I have heard of Nationals conducting member reviews after a chapter got in trouble for hazing or something else that they could get into trouble for. KA Nationals held a membership review at Texas Tech after they go caught hazing and kicked out some members, made other members automatic alumni, and made some alumni in bad standing. Then they initiated all the pledges, had an election, and filled the office positions..... and allowed them to stay on campus.

I have to agree with your thoughts on this. OP's link just does not ring right. The links writer may not have all the facts or has an edge to grind perhaps.

But then again, truth can be strange.

Originally Posted by jon1856

I have to agree with your thoughts on this. OP's link just does not ring right. The links writer may not have all the facts or has an edge to grind perhaps.

But then again, truth can be strange.

If you go to that link, you'll see that there's a deleted post. It was from me, basically challenging what this guy wrote. I took it down because the tone of my comment probably would have started a flame war, and I really wasn't in the mood for that, believe it or not.

I wanted to call BS right away. I've seen chapters reorganize for various reasons, but not because their HQ thought their members didn't "fit the mold". If anyone at/from DePauw can shed some light on this, it'd be nice. I figure he posted what he did because he's looking out for his friends' best interests, but his facts just don't add up and he's making the sorority's HQ look bad. Being that there are only 7 sororities at DePauw, I'm sure it won't be that hard to figure out who he's talking about.

[AGDee]

I think it would depend on how you would define "fitting the mold". If they're posting pics of the chapter drinking on facebook, engaging in hazing, not making grades repeatedly, doing drugs in the house (or selling them out of the house), etc.. it could be said that they don't "fit the mold". I have seen chapters of women being required to sign a recommitment form which says that they will follow the policies and rules and uphold the standards of the fraternity in order to remain in good standing. If some women chose not to sign something like that, it could look like only a select few were allowed to remain in the chapter. One thing I can guarantee... the full story is not known by anybody except those chapter members and their Headquarters, so speculation on why something like that occurred is fruitless. The real story isn't going to posted on a message board.

Originally Posted by AGDee

One thing I can guarantee... the full story is not known by anybody except those chapter members and their Headquarters, so speculation on why something like that occurred is fruitless. The real story isn't going to posted on a message board.

That's what I was thinking.

I was looking at their Greek Life website and deferred recruitment for them starts next month. Looks like it might be an uphill battle for the remaining members.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by OTW

I wanted to call BS right away. I've seen chapters reorganize for various reasons, but not because their HQ thought their members didn't "fit the mold". If anyone at/from DePauw can shed some light on this, it'd be nice. I figure he posted what he did because he'looking out for his friends' best interests, but his facts just don't add up and he's making the sorority's HQ look bad. Being that there are only 7 sororities at DePauw, I'm sure it won't be that hard to figure out who he's talking about.

I agree with your gut. I had a gut reaction to both that post and the SK one that they're a member crying foul and trying to portray their chapter as victims to the big, bad HQ. But, like usually happens, I somehow think we're not being told everything.

And being that this is coming from some fraternity guy who is not even on campus anymore- he surely does not have all the information. He's passing on hearsay and probably has some false information. We all know how rumors fly when a chapter is going through difficulty

[LaneSig]

I realize that this isn't the same exact thing, but there have been sororities that have put all of the members on alumn status and then started over again the next semester. Isn't the HQ/National sending a message that the current members of the chapter aren't presenting an image that they want?

[Xylochick216]

A sorority on my campus was reorganized a few years ago after several incidents. Their HQ came in and interviewed all of the girs. From my understanding, most of the seniors and juniors were given alumna status because they had been the biggest part of the problem. They were small for a year or two, but they're thriving now and they have much fewer problems. It turned out to be a good thing for them.

[Little E]

I totally agree his post is missing something, but perhaps these 'bad seeds' were not entirely thrilled at being removed from active status and so they were told by HQ whatevery you tell people when you're giving them the boot and then their anger translated into "National says were not the right image" Angry girls have a tendency to be told one thing and somehow through our brains we can make it something totally different - usually something more dramatic and to our benefit. (I don't mean this to sound so disparaging, but I'm not sure how else to say it.)

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by Little E

I totally agree his post is missing something, but perhaps these 'bad seeds' were not entirely thrilled at being removed from active status and so they were told by HQ whatevery you tell people when you're giving them the boot and then their anger translated into "National says were not the right image" Angry girls have a tendency to be told one thing and somehow through our brains we can make it something totally different - usually something more dramatic and to our benefit. (I don't mean this to sound so disparaging, but I'm not sure how else to say it.)

No, that's how I interpreted it. In their minds, they're getting thrown out because they don't fit the image. God knows why they're actually being asked to leave.

[LPIDelta]

I think this happens in sororities when a group consistently has issues with recruiting and retaining members.....image is not just how women look, but also how they act and, in the case of sororities, how they represent the values of the organization. From what I understand, grades are considered, involvement in other organizations is considered, as is ability and willingness to recruit the kinds of members that will sustain a chapter.

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.

It is a means to an end...and the hope is that the end is a stronger, thriving chapter.

[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

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.