Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfman
Case in point. Amongst NPHC groups, more open dialogue and transparency amongst the rank and file would have been better in crafting a better solution to the wholesale abolition of pledging in 1990. This decision had the result of making pledging a sub rosa activity and teh culture of hazing more more distorted in some ways. This is the reason why my fraternity is exploring bringing pledging back. But this issue does not exist in a cultureal vacuum. We are not simply accountable to our groups and the sometime secretive cultures that exist in them at different levels (just like in police depts., the military,etc. where exposure of misconduct or certain apects of its inner workings of the institution can be viewed as a betrayal of the group); we are accountable to the our hosts educational institutions and, increasingly, the legal and penal system. This will increasingly become the case if we act as we do now.
A few random thoughts on the fly!
|
Just to be clear, Delta changed her intake process before the rest of the NPHC. We had a period where chapters piloted the new program, evaluated it and that in turn led to some tweaking. Then it was voted on at a national convention. You also need to understand that this whole process change started because host institutions were threatening to eliminate all NPHC orgs on their yards, because of the hazing that was occuring.
And notice I said hazing and not pledging, because in my mind they will always be two different things.
Threaded Mode
