Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldest_Pledge
I challenge you to provide the other side of the issue to the Brothers At Large. This is a very important issue the entire membership. It is clear that you feel the issue should have never been publicized. I agree with you on that point.
However, since this has been made a public issue, show the rest of world that all Betas are not petty, vindictive people. Step back from your own opinion of the situation and write a good 5-10 page white paper that can be shared with all.
|
Hi Oldest Pledge,
It is impossible for me to provide the "other side" of the issue as I was not involved directly in any way.
However, I am happy to offer some observations based on what has been released- which at this point includes everything I was aware of.
I read the blog again and it just becomes even more clear to me that the real core issue here is strife within the chapter over how it should be managed.
This strife is most obvious to the outside observer by the fact that two groups of members felt compelled to establish "Beta houses" at separate addresses.
That in and of itself is not a big deal. It is quite common for groups of fraternity men to pitch in and get their own place at some point for a variety of obvious reasons. Living in a chapter house, even a dry one, has its own distractions. And Alpha is substance free- not just dry- meaning no tobacco products on site. So maybe a few guys like to smoke and wanted to live where they could do that. And of course if you are going to find a place of your own, naturally some of your fraternity brothers make ideal potential roommates much of the time.
But where things get different is in the fact that a party for the new pledge class took place at one of these properties and that in several comments all over the blog there are indications these properties were used as social centers for Beta activity. They were not places where active members happened to live- they appear to have been secured with the specific intent of frequent use for social events that, even if legal and acceptable to other chapters, were not acceptable to the Alpha chapter as a whole or its advisory team.
Add in the fact that some of the alleged incidents were reported by chapter members who did not live in these annex properties, and I think you have the basis for the core of the matter.
The disclosure on the internet is unfortunate, but I have been more concerned with the tone of the disclosure than the content. And, for the record, it would be nice if we had the old forum back at the Beta site. That would have been the perfect setting for this kind of discussion, and without that kind of forum I suppose it is inevitable that open internet discussions on matters such as these will pop up from time to time.
The specific content and facts presented in the most recent blog post seem reasonable to me. I have no idea how accurate they are, but they do not seem to be unrealistic. And they do not indicate to me inappropriate action was taken.
The difficulty however is in the tone and in the combative attitude about GF. This happened weeks ago, and these blog posts are exceptionally well written. They indicate a very deep sense of anger and resentment which goes well beyond the forgivable in-the-heat-of-the-moment comments of frustrated individuals.
Remember that the second annex property was named the "slippery slope" in honor of what the chapter advisor originally said about it when he learned of its existence.
This raises two key questions.
First, why was the chapter advisor even aware of or concerned about a few guys who happen to be Betas renting a house? The answer may be revealed in part by the fact the blog admits that getting the first annex house across the street was a "red flag" and that the second property would not create such a stir. This again suggests that there was a specific intent behind renting these properties to conduct chapter activities inconsistent with the chapter's own policies- and that the chapter advisor knew about it and at some point made the "slippery slope" comment.
Second question, given these early concerns were obviously raised- why name the house "slippery slope" and be proud of it? This may well be the "attitude problem" that the GF investigation seems so often to refer to. It is one thing to disagree with the advisor and rent the house anyway (which noone can prevent)- but to then use it as it was used and also openly and mockingly name it in reference to the chapter advisor takes away much potential for a reasonable future discourse. I know it seems a minor point, but just consider how disrespectful that was. In one of my companies, an employee with that kind of disrespect is gone- and it is the one circumstance when I almost enjoy firing somebody. There is just no reasoning with someone who resorts to immature cockiness over issues that affect a broad range of people.
And this brings us to the GF (AO is the term used in the blog) reaction to all of this. The words of the blog betray the fact that there was almost certainly a discourse about the wisdom of the annex houses early on. The words of the blog also indicate that the RM reports related to the annex houses came from within the chapter. The words of the blog also very clearly indicate that even weeks later there is zero contrition or understanding of why this happened by the suspended members. These guys just don't get it. This also suggests they were, in some part, existing outside the spirit of the rest of the chapter already. Hard to say for sure, but it sure looks that way.
How does an advisor or GF react to this? Given the language and tone used in this blog, would any of you have a discussion with a suspended member at this point in the process? I probably would not. What more can be said?
And note most especially that the blog indicates the suspensions were for all members living in the annex properties and one guy in the chapter house.
This is the final proof that I and many others removed from this matter have been right all along in our suspicions and analysis of what little info is out there. And the more that is disclosed, the more obvious it all becomes.
If the suspended members who were there and in the middle of all this cannot even begin to see what is so obvious to the outside world, I am not sure there is any reasonable discussion to have with them.
These guys are raising a big question, but they already have the answer. So that reduces any further disclosure, especially given the tone involved, to some kind of vengence or payback. I do not think that is the intent- surely these guys are still very upset and may need to time to sort it out. But once you go public, it is only natural that others are going to want to respond and try and sort out the real story.
LONG STORY SHORT,
1. There was strife within the chapter.
2. Some members, against advice and common sense, came up with a bad solution to that and chose to create a fractionalized set of environments for chapter activities.
3. Guidance from above to not do that was ignored and openly mocked.
4. Action was taken as RM reports started piling up.
5. Those suspended are no longer part of the debate. Yet they try to continue it in a very inappropriate forum and in a tone that suggests their suspension was justified. If they are this angry now, imagine how they were in the months leading up to the review.
6. In the aftermath there are a few items worth discussing for future direction, but not in places where non-Betas can read them. And most of that needs to happen within Alpha. These kinds of internal battles are just not to be found at other chapters to this extent. All the more reason this does not need to form the basis for future chapter vs GF resentment where there is no reason for it to exist.
Hybrid Mode
