Dirty Rushing and Consequences

[arkadpi]

Dirty Rushing at our campus has been ghastly since I pledged, in 2005. There have been changes in the scheduling of recruitment, from before school started to now, during the first semester. It's gotten worse, of course. Most girls I knew got calls from several of our 8 houses during the off-time of Rush week. The houses would call to assure girls that they were wanted, and to confirm that the PNM would not cut their house, ABC, the next day.
So, if ABC ends up not giving her a bid, she might complain to the Greek Life Office, but what can they do about it? She didn't get a bid. They can't give her one. If she files an official complaint for dirty rushing, they get fined. Most houses do budget for fines.
A few houses have consistently released more women than allowed on the first and second nights of recruitment. That may be a hefty fine, even, but their alums and budgetting allow them too. Even if it were a difficult payment for the chapter to make financially, who cares? They don't get those women added back to their party lists for the next days of rush. They get rid of them. They get what they want. And their chapters don't have to hold on to the women that are guaranteed a bid from somebody, because of our campus's policy. No punishments can fix that. No matter what the infraction, all dirty-rushing usually gets the offending chapter little punishment. Restricting numbers would actually keep that from happening, and I'm inclined to agree with the policy.

[exlurker]

LSU's Panhellenic has reportedly adopted new sanctions for bid promising, which is supposedly a problem there sometimes:

Recent article:

http://tigerweekly.com/article/12-11-2007/7168

Until now, the penalty for bid promising there was a fine and possibly some sort of probation.
The new policy, according to the article ^, is:

"Chapters found in violation of this policy will result in social suspension on and off campus for the fall semester,” as stated in the Rules Governing Recruitment. This means no exchanges, no formals, semi-formals, grubs or grab-a-dates for an entire semester if found responsible for promising a potential member an invitation to a chapter.

Of course, I guess the bid promising would have to be reported in the first place, then investigated.

Is it likely that the new policy will produce the results LSU's Panhel wants? Do I look like I know? Anyone with good knowledge of LSU recruitment care to discuss?

[NutBrnHair]

Originally Posted by exlurker

LSU's Panhellenic has reportedly adopted new sanctions for bid promising, which is supposedly a problem there sometimes:

Recent article:

http://tigerweekly.com/article/12-11-2007/7168

It certainly is a problem that needs attention; however, I still think it will be difficult to enforce. Won't it end up being her word against hers?

Here's an idea -- bring Judge Judy in for the week after Bid Day -- she'll get to the bottom of it!

[carnation]

[QUOTE=arkadpi;1562821]Dirty Rushing at our campus has been ghastly since I pledged, in 2005.[QUOTE]

LOL, it was ghastly at UAF 35 years ago too.

[Denise_DPhiE]

All of the posts in this thread just emphasize the giant BIATCH attitude of some groups/campuses. Glad I do not deal with collegians b/c this stuff is ugly!

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by Denise_DPhiE

All of the posts in this thread just emphasize the giant BIATCH attitude of some groups/campuses. Glad I do not deal with collegians b/c this stuff is ugly!

I'm with you, D. I've never even heard of these types of things going on. It's not that I don't believe that they do, it's just so different from how things were on my campus. Everyone got along just fine. I guess I should consider myself lucky in that regard.

I think someone said it's against the greenbook rules, but I think just taking away the chapter's right to continue with Recruitment that semester and entirely denying them a pledge class would do the trick. I mean if you can't "play fair" then you shouldn't be allowed to "play" at all. Obviously that wouldn't fly though, so it's not helpful. Sorry.

[twinkle555]

Recently, there was a rumor going around here about one of the houses losing their social priviledges (sp?) for next semester b/c during recruitment they gave a PNM a piece of jewelry ($$$) and a bid promise. I was shocked, but then again I have heard that this house has a budget for infractions b/c they get them so much. Who knows..

p.s- the girl that was promised a bid, went to a different house.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by twinkle555

Recently, there was a rumor going around here about one of the houses losing their social priviledges (sp?) for next semester b/c during recruitment they gave a PNM a piece of jewelry ($$$) and a bid promise. I was shocked, but then again I have heard that this house has a budget for infractions b/c they get them so much. Who knows..

p.s- the girl that was promised a bid, went to a different house.

Don't we teach our sisters - in every house - not to spread RUMORS?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

I think someone said it's against the greenbook rules, but I think just taking away the chapter's right to continue with Recruitment that semester and entirely denying them a pledge class would do the trick.

It's not just the Green Book, it's a freedom of association issue.

They can be denied the right to participate in formal recruitment (as it's a Panhellenically run event) but they are still allowed to recruit members in other ways - COB, etc. Something like this can actually backfire, because it would allow the "penalized" group to hold whatever kind of parties they want, without rules on frills and time limits and such.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Something like this can actually backfire, because it would allow the "penalized" group to hold whatever kind of parties they want, without rules on frills and time limits and such.

Yeah - the only way that it's an actual penalty is if they are close to or above total, and taking quota would have allowed them to take more than total. Or if it's just a campus that's entirely unfriendly for COB.

[Leslie Anne]

Originally Posted by 33girl

It's not just the Green Book, it's a freedom of association issue.

They can be denied the right to participate in formal recruitment (as it's a Panhellenically run event) but they are still allowed to recruit members in other ways - COB, etc. Something like this can actually backfire, because it would allow the "penalized" group to hold whatever kind of parties they want, without rules on frills and time limits and such.

How would it allow a chapter to hold whatever kind of parties they want? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I honestly just don't get it. Aren't there rules for COB that would still apply?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Leslie Anne

How would it allow a chapter to hold whatever kind of parties they want? I'm not trying to be argumentative. I honestly just don't get it. Aren't there rules for COB that would still apply?

The rules about how much money you can spend, how many balloons, what you can wear, etc etc are for formal rush only. They aren't set by the individual groups, they're set by Panhellenic.

If a sorority does nothing but COB, they can have whatever kind of parties they want, spend as much as they want, etc - there are no rules when it comes to COB.

Think of participating in formal rush as being a store in a mall - you have certain signage requirements, hours you go by, etc etc. When you move out of the mall, if you want to have a 10 foot sign and stay open 24/7, you can.

[violetpretty]

Originally Posted by arkadpi

A few houses have consistently released more women than allowed on the first and second nights of recruitment.

How would this be a problem? It sounds like your campus uses release figures. Release figures suggest a different number of PNMs for each chapter to invite back based on retention. Chapters are allowed to invite fewer than the suggested number, but they can't invite more. If a chapter wants to release more PNMs than their suggested number, that's their problem IMO, because it's a risk they're willing to take.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by violetpretty

How would this be a problem? It sounds like your campus uses release figures. Release figures suggest a different number of PNMs for each chapter to invite back based on retention. Chapters are allowed to invite fewer than the suggested number, but they can't invite more. If a chapter wants to release more PNMs than their suggested number, that's their problem IMO, because it's a risk they're willing to take.

Exactly. Just because your "number" is zero, doesn't mean you actually want to accept everyone or can particularly when it comes down to grades.

[acuisla]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Exactly. Just because your "number" is zero, doesn't mean you actually want to accept everyone or can particularly when it comes down to grades.

Well, what it meant to a chapter I advised is that the NPC Area Rep *and* the release figure expert were calling me and the folks above me in the organization....and then my NPC Delegate called me....and all of them wanted to know why in the heck my chapter was cutting more women than the release figures said they were supposed to. And then there was the visit after recruitment....

Despite the fact that the chapter took quota +1 - the women happened to be really good recruiters and the chapter was consistently one of the "top 3" on campus, and so they could technically afford to be a little more picky.

That said, it was a calculated risk they ran, and I let them do it. But after the NPC backlash, I didn't let them do it again. Too much drama during a high-drama time of the year.