Plegdes wearing letters???

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Many GLOs use the badge and crest as the symbol of a member who has gone through initiation. Therefore, a member who has not gone through initiation cannot wear them.
As an analogy, only Boy and Girl Scouts who have completed the requirements to earn certain badges or awards may wear them. All members may wear the uniform - only those who have gone through, for example, the Eagle Scout or Gold Award ceremonies may wear those symbols on their uniforms.

The way things are going with the NPC and hazing, I foresee that the entire recruitment/education/initiation process will have to undergo an overhaul where women are initiated on bid day and have a brief orientation process. That's the only way to truly abide by the insane hazing guidelines where pledges have to have equal rights to full members. The only reasonable solution is to have no pledges.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

The way things are going with the NPC and hazing, I foresee that the entire recruitment/education/initiation process will have to undergo an overhaul where women are initiated on bid day and have a brief orientation process. That's the only way to truly abide by the insane hazing guidelines where pledges have to have equal rights to full members. The only reasonable solution is to have no pledges.

I think the NPC groups have it handled, thanks. Insane? Rather harsh take on it.

Just out of curiosity, which NPC gives new members equal rights as initiated members? It's not Gamma Phi Beta.

You seem to have a very unattractive chip on your shoulder.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I know, I know. I debated with myself about using it - but you'll note that I didn't use the dreaded "earn".

Oh but you did:

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

As an analogy, only Boy and Girl Scouts who have completed the requirements to earn certain badges or awards may wear them.

Sorry!

And as an Eagle and Adult Scouter myself, I know well what you mean about it being more than just fulfilling requirements. And I think I like your baptism/confirmation analogy.

My point is that withholding the badge and crest from new members until they have met the criteria for being an initated member is not hazing.

And I thank you for making this point!!

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Just out of curiosity, which NPC gives new members equal rights as initiated members? It's not Gamma Phi Beta.

Well, I remember discussions here at GC where ADPis have said that their new members have full voting and office holding rights. Is it them?

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Oh but you did:
Sorry! Well, I tried to avoid it. My bad!

And as an Eagle and Adult Scouter myself, I know well what you mean about it being more than just fulfilling requirements. And I think I like your baptism/confirmation analogy.

And I thank you for making this point!!

Well, I remember discussions here at GC where ADPis have said that their new members have full voting and office holding rights. Is it them?

I'd be curious to know - do they have voting rights regarding membership? In other words, do new members vote on pnms? I could see a point being made about chapter business other than new members - but surely you have to be an initiated sister to be, say, the new member educator?
We may never know, because that may be secret ADPi knowledge, which is fine, but again, now I'm curious!

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

prejciousjeni, I have to assume at this point you are just trying to be argumentative about the NPC.

You could trade out individual schools and states in there. I'm pointing out that it's kinda ridiculous for any organization to say that new members can wear letters but not the crest or that new members can wear the crest but not the letters. Why restrict them at all if the concern is that restrictions equal hazing? Do you see what I'm saying? My issue is not at all with the NPC itself. As I've said before, the definitions of hazing across the board are completely out of control.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Just out of curiosity, which NPC gives new members equal rights as initiated members? It's not Gamma Phi Beta.

They don't (at least not that I know of) but isn't it hazing that they don't? I said in the future I foresee it getting to the point where NPC organizations along with the rest of Greek Life will have to immediately initiate interests and dismantle the entire concept of pledging. That's the only way to avoid hazing if one of the key definitions of hazing is "deprivation of privileges granted to other members."

You seem to have a very unattractive chip on your shoulder.

That's an odd thing to say.

[Tom Earp]

What is amazing to me, is the the new members cannot wear their Letters.

Some say printed and some say sewn?

I can understand C of A's.

But if you are not proud enough to say hey here is our new members and have them proudly show who the affiliated with you, then why even ask them to join?

They can be bill boards of the proud new members and even maybe get others to join you GLO?

I guess that you nor I understand what the hell is going on for Recruitment!?

So, do you want new recruites or not?

[nittanyalum]

ohdearlordpleaseletthisthreadsubjectsamediscussion overandoverandoveragaindieeeeeee

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

ohdearlordpleaseletthisthreadsubjectsamediscussion overandoverandoveragaindieeeeeee

Tom may've killed it.

[Tom Earp]

Oh, is this like killing the point of being members?

Okay, lets kill being GLOs!

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

You could trade out individual schools and states in there. I'm pointing out that it's kinda ridiculous for any organization to say that new members can wear letters but not the crest or that new members can wear the crest but not the letters. Why restrict them at all if the concern is that restrictions equal hazing? Do you see what I'm saying? My issue is not at all with the NPC itself. As I've said before, the definitions of hazing across the board are completely out of control.
There have been many intelligent responses in this thread addressing the question of GLOs and the reasoning behind the use of crests, letters and badges. If you still find other GLOs' policies "ridiculous" then all I can say is you must not get it. You cannot pretend that you know why a GLO has the policy they do unless you address it to HQ, and as I wrote earlier, it may just be that the GLO says "Because we say so." Good enough for me. I will admit to be perplexed by what I see as a logical inconsistency in some other GLOs' policies, but I would never dream of calling them "insane" or "ridiculous". Maybe this is an example of "stay in your lane".

For as long as Gamma Phi has been in existence, the badge has been restricted to initiated members. I don't know that in 1874 their concern was hazing. Most GLOs got crests a little later, but again, the restriction to initiated members predates modern concern with hazing.

Hazing is really not the point. There are many threads on GC that discuss hazing, and really there is no sense rehashing it here. Having been a part of the depositions of a case involving a fraternity at UT that resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars being paid to the plaintiff, I fully understand why liability issues have resulted in GLOs being strict regarding hazing. Some of the definitions are taken right out of the state legislation - so it's not even the GLOs who are always behind it.

I loved scavenger hunts as an undergraduate. But from a cost/benefit standpoint, it makes far more sense NOT to have them and risk exposing the GLO to possible liability. In a perfect world you could trust all the active members of a college org. to use common sense, but we don't live in a perfect world.

Perhaps you truly don't understand what I and others have written, and if that's the case I don't know that anyone else could do a fuller job of explaining it. If they can, I wish they would.


They don't (at least not that I know of) but isn't it hazing that they don't? I said in the future I foresee it getting to the point where NPC organizations along with the rest of Greek Life will have to immediately initiate interests and dismantle the entire concept of pledging. That's the only way to avoid hazing if one of the key definitions of hazing is "deprivation of privileges granted to other members."

I think the concerns regarding hazing have been addressed pretty well, and I really don't think the NPC will ever be initiating new members right away. NPC history over the last 20 years is very telling. I think fraternities have struggled more with it lately, with various results and levels of success. The "privileges" addressed in that definition are usually understood to be things like making new members only use the back door.

Do you know of an example where this definition has been applied to crests or letters? I'd be interested in knowing the outcome of it.




That's an odd thing to say.

Just my take after re-reading your posts.