Sigma Alpha Epsilon Announces Historic Change for membership experience

[Griffins&Quills]

Yes, as far as I know, Lambda Chi and Sig Ep do have associate member periods. Is hazing a problem? Yes. But I don't think this is the way to fix it. It undermines and devalues 150 years of traditions and history and all the things you're supposed to learn during the pledge period. Plus since this is so high profile, it could have serious implications for all groups, NIC and NPC. I personally, am not willing to share my ritual, the day after bid day, with Suzy PNM who could turn around 3 days later and quit. Ritual then means nothing, for all of us, it's not secret or sacred or special.

[SAEalumnus]

The primary objection that members are having is not with the merits of the idea, but rather with the method with which it was developed and announced.

This new program made sweeping changes to the national Fraternity Laws and repealed a portion of our Ritual in its entirety, all with zero authority to do so. It also was kept secret from members, alumni, and advisers, except for a privileged few who were given the information a couple of weeks ago. Those who heard rumors and asked national staff were denied information.

Only the biennial national Fraternity Convention, at which the undergraduates own the majority share of votes, has the authority to amend or repeal the Fraternity Laws or the Ritual. Even then, any such proposal must be submitted in writing months in advance, published to the Fraternity, discussed and voted on at the Convention, and achieve a two-thirds majority vote in order to pass. Alternatively, the Supreme Council can submit a proposal to the membership of the Convention via a direct mail vote if the matter can't wait until the next Convention.

The five-member Supreme Council acting on its own does not have the authority to do this. They are attempting to invent this authority by pulling the word "represent" out of context and ignoring the multiple sections of the Fraternity Laws that clearly but inconveniently establish otherwise.

[snowflakemom]

Honestly, I think this is a smart move for SAE. I read the QandA on their website and it makes sense to me why they did this. I can see how this change will be hard and I'm sure there will be breakaway groups but I think they are looking at the longevity of the organization and making sure it will be around in the future.

[SAEalumnus]

Originally Posted by snowflakemom

Honestly, I think this is a smart move for SAE. I read the QandA on their website and it makes sense to me why they did this. I can see how this change will be hard and I'm sure there will be breakaway groups but I think they are looking at the longevity of the organization and making sure it will be around in the future.

I don't necessarily disagree. However, this would be like the president writing his own laws without regard for Congress. The checks and balances are there for a reason.

[snowflakemom]

Originally Posted by SAEalumnus

I don't necessarily disagree. However, this would be like the president writing his own laws without regard for Congress. The checks and balances are there for a reason.

I can absolutely see why members would be upset with the way it was done.

[SAEalumnus]

Originally Posted by snowflakemom

I can absolutely see why members would be upset with the way it was done.

Exactly. Beyond that, the new program is still under development, but was rushed into implementation for what can only have been the convenience of the timing to our national founder's day. Such a radical departure from the usual order of business will have unavoidable hiccups as we work out how to deal with it. Nevertheless, we were all given 48 hours' notice of its implementation, followed by 48 hours to comply. Noncompliance means getting your chapter shut down. Nobody likes an ultimatum.

My hope is that the Supreme Council and Fraternity Service Center reconsider the mandatory nature of this until it can be more thoroughly reviewed and actually discussed by the membership. It could be piloted on a voluntary basis to prove the concept and refine it where appropriate before full-scale implementation. There were so many ways in which this could have been better handled. As it is, I've already heard talk of the entire Supreme Council getting voted out of office at the next Convention over this.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by SAEalumnus

The five-member Supreme Council acting on its own does not have the authority to do this. They are attempting to invent this authority by pulling the word "represent" out of context and ignoring the multiple sections of the Fraternity Laws that clearly but inconveniently establish otherwise.

I fully agree here. Yes, there are reasons to allow a National Board to make certain actions between conventions. However, if a National Board can do this, what CAN'T they do.

I fully expect the Supreme Council to be voted out at the next opportunity.