Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
Dnall, I applaud your enthusiasm. Most fraternities are, indeed, badass in their own right.
The blackfeet though...
ATO used to seem to be pretty lax when it came to enforcing hazing rules, but in the last few years, at least here locally, they've taken a hard line. My younger brother is an ATO from (I think) your Zeta Nu chapter. They lost their charter a few years back for hazing, same thing happened to the chapter at the University of Oklahoma.
So you'd be smart to get a handle on that, but it seems you have.
I'd be careful about alumni advisory boards though, especially when your chapter has a history of hazing. Some of your alumni are definitely going to see hazing as an essential part of the fraternal experience, and in some places are even active participants in the hazing. An advisory board need not be composed of members only. Parents can be on it, professors can be on it, etc. If you're looking to change your organization's culture, sometimes that change needs to come from the outside.
As far as the shit talking about founders' purpose goes, I'd stay away from that one. Most folks aren't joining up with organizations whose purpose they find to be pointless.
ATO's own initial purpose didn't seem to have much to do with Christian brotherhood, at least not in the history books on my shelf. I will of course admit that the authors of said sources are slightly biased.
|
Kevin,
With respect to a fellow triad member (and I really mean that), given the founding history of your organization, and that experience with our Alpha chapter, I can understand why there might be some bias on your end & think maybe history is not where we're going to be most likely to find agreement.
I appreciate your concern about the alumni advisory aspect. It is a balance thing. There is a part of me that does believe a balanced application of physical & mental stressors is the most productive way to train a new member. In fact, I know absolutely that to be true from military experience. But, it's illegal, so we can with extra effort find another way to achieve the same goals. That said, even if it were legal, I would be very concerned with the tendency over time of it to get out of hand when executed by people with too little experience or knowledge of how to do so productively. So, I don't support it. It has been many years since my chapter was in that situation. We're by no means a cakewalk now, but in the clear legally & with headquarters.
ATO has always had a Christian brotherhood, but a brotherhood in a purpose of achieving certain specific Christian goals. The brotherhood is more a function of that shared purpose, that and just a little bit of time hanging out together.
That said, I wish you the best of luck, and to your brother.
To whomever was saying something about whites only... that rule for us was the same one requiring members to be Christians. Change was voted down in the 40s based on the Christianity aspect of it. I hope I've expressed the degree of Christian basis for which we exist, and so I hope you're understand why it took us some time to be open to other religions. There was not open opposition to desegregation in the 40s, even with what is still today a predominantly southern organization. We are not perfect in that regard. Few organizations of this age are. All I can say is I hope we've learned from that aspect of our history and become better for it.
Threaded Mode
