Sigma Alpha Epsilon Announces Historic Change for membership experience

[DeltaBetaBaby]

One question that I'm hoping an SAE can answer, but slap my hand if I'm too close to membership selection:

How difficult is it, comparatively, to remove a pledge? Does the fact that someone has been initiated make it much harder to throw them out of your chapter?

My experience on the NPC side has been that it takes a *lot* to get rid of an NM, and that most orgs don't let chapters make that decision on their own (i.e. it has to be run up the volunteer alumnae chain), so initiating early wouldn't make a huge difference in terms of kicking someone out.

Of course, if a chapter really wants to get rid of someone, they pressure her to leave "voluntarily," but I am curious how much the early initiation matters on this issue alone.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

One question that I'm hoping an SAE can answer, but slap my hand if I'm too close to membership selection:

How difficult is it, comparatively, to remove a pledge? Does the fact that someone has been initiated make it much harder to throw them out of your chapter?

My experience on the NPC side has been that it takes a *lot* to get rid of an NM, and that most orgs don't let chapters make that decision on their own (i.e. it has to be run up the volunteer alumnae chain), so initiating early wouldn't make a huge difference in terms of kicking someone out.

Of course, if a chapter really wants to get rid of someone, they pressure her to leave "voluntarily," but I am curious how much the early initiation matters on this issue alone.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The NPC made the change years ago to equate a bid with a PROMISE to initiate. Essentially by issuing a bid you have decided that the new member has all the qualifications to become a member of the organization. The new member period is not a time for the NM to EARN her letters or prove herself but to learn about the organization and decide if SHE wants to continue on to initiation.

It sounds like SAE is trying to change to this model and have its chapters have more of a values based approach. Bid equals initiation. Fit is no longer the goal and prospective members no longer need to prove their worth with tasks but by their merit.

It's a big change, and unfortunately the idea of proving yourself by doing physical and mental challenges is hard wired by this point in the fraternity system. Friendships outside the fraternal movement don't rely on this model but somehow we expect it in a fraternity. The biggest problem is that no one likes change. It may not be this change, but I will say that change isn't going to come from the collegiate members. In the end, change is needed to avoid the harsh realities of liability issues. There is only so far you can go with paying higher and higher insurance rates before at some point you can no longer afford those rates or obtain a policy to cover you.

[33girl]

SAEalumnus - semi touchy question (shock). Are the guys on the Supreme Council from chapters that do everything by HQ's book, chapters that might not follow all the rules explicitly but pull huge numbers, or a mix of both? I know we all have those "chapters that can do no wrong" and wondered if they were coming from that vantage point.

[ASTalumna06]

It's hit the front page of NBC news: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...ledging-n48406

[itb2a]

Originally Posted by 33girl

SAEalumnus - semi touchy question (shock). Are the guys on the Supreme Council from chapters that do everything by HQ's book, chapters that might not follow all the rules explicitly but pull huge numbers, or a mix of both? I know we all have those "chapters that can do no wrong" and wondered if they were coming from that vantage point.

It would also be interesting to know the chapters of the Supreme Council members to gauge what kind of history they were exposed to in their own experiences. For example, if the chapter was relatively 'young' then maybe that chapter had little or minimal contact with older alumni that could help guide them.

Might also be interesting to know if SAE's alumni associations were involved in the Supreme Council's decision making.

[SAEalumnus]

Originally Posted by 33girl

SAEalumnus - semi touchy question (shock). Are the guys on the Supreme Council from chapters that do everything by HQ's book, chapters that might not follow all the rules explicitly but pull huge numbers, or a mix of both? I know we all have those "chapters that can do no wrong" and wondered if they were coming from that vantage point.

33: One of the Supreme Council member's chapter is currently closed due to hazing and alcohol violations. I'm not conversant about the others, but suspect SOM may be in a better position to answer that.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

It sounds like SAE is trying to change to this model and have its chapters have more of a values based approach. Bid equals initiation. Fit is no longer the goal and prospective members no longer need to prove their worth with tasks but by their merit.

It's a big change, and unfortunately the idea of proving yourself by doing physical and mental challenges is hard wired by this point in the fraternity system.

A values-based approach and a pledge period are not mutually exclusive. A values-based approach and bidding without a promise to initiate are not mutually exclusive. And a pledge period that is, in part, a time where the chapter can determine if the pledge is truly a good fit does not have to include proving oneself by physical and mental challenges. It is possible to have a pledge period that is values-based, that builds bonds, that is respectful, that doesn't haze and that still enables pledges to come to initiation feeling like they have accomplished something and have earned the right to be called "brother."

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

A values-based approach and a pledge period are not mutually exclusive. A values-based approach and bidding without a promise to initiate are not mutually exclusive. And a pledge period that is, in part, a time where the chapter can determine if the pledge is truly a good fit does not have to include proving oneself by physical and mental challenges. It is possible to have a pledge period that is values-based, that builds bonds, that is respectful, that doesn't haze and that still enables pledges to come to initiation feeling like they have accomplished something and have earned the right to be called "brother."

But apparently they haven't been able to enforce a pledge period free of serious hazing at a large number of their chapters. We obviously know that these concepts don't have to be mutually exclusively nor is it mandatory to have a pledge program to have a good member experience. Just like everyone has been arguing that this program sounds great in THEORY but won't work in practice, your statement is the same. It works at a group of chapters that uphold the ideal of non hazing, but the rest practice a spectrum of hazing that ranges from harmless depending on who is judging to deadly. I worry about the numbers that practice serious hazing. Not only does it risk the lives of students, it risks the entire Greek system. I query whether SAE is moving towards an unsustainable risk management and liability position and took at desperate act to mitigate those issues.

[33girl]

But as everyone has said, this does nothing to change a hazing culture. The most recent brothers will be the ones who get the brunt, as full membership doesn't mean you can't be hazed. Unless they're hoping this weeds those members out. The problem is, there are plenty of GOOD members who will leave as well.

[SOM]

My jaw dropped when I first heard of this. This is so far out of dumb, dumber and dumbest. Down right stupid and so unnecessary. Why did one of our Chapters get involved with a Sorority hazing? http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/l...249127751.html

[LillyPhi]

SOM: My jaw dropped when I first heard of this. This is so far out of dumb, dumber and dumbest. Down right stupid and so unnecessary. Why did one of our Chapters get involved with a Sorority hazing? http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/UConn-Investigating-Possible-Hazing-at-Sorority-249127751.html[/QUOTE]

This adds more fuel to the fire. Now I see why SAE National made their decision to eliminate pledging. It just gets snowballing semester for SAE. When will this stop!!! I hope all SAE chapters/Colonies start realizing that it does NOT pay to haze or get involved with any hazing activities and why your National made their bold decision.

[NutBrnHair]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

How difficult is it, comparatively, to remove a pledge? Does the fact that someone has been initiated make it much harder to throw them out of your chapter?

My experience on the NPC side has been that it takes a *lot* to get rid of an NM, and that most orgs don't let chapters make that decision on their own (i.e. it has to be run up the volunteer alumnae chain), so initiating early wouldn't make a huge difference in terms of kicking someone out.

From a legal standpoint, a "pledge" could be viewed as a "probationary member" and thus, easier to remove than a full member. That being said, any group would have to follow their own procedure.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

But apparently they haven't been able to enforce a pledge period free of serious hazing at a large number of their chapters. We obviously know that these concepts don't have to be mutually exclusively nor is it mandatory to have a pledge program to have a good member experience. Just like everyone has been arguing that this program sounds great in THEORY but won't work in practice, your statement is the same. It works at a group of chapters that uphold the ideal of non hazing, but the rest practice a spectrum of hazing that ranges from harmless depending on who is judging to deadly.

I get what you're saying better now. Thanks.

I think clearly the issue is how to move away from a culture of hazing. I don't know that there's one answer. A move like the True Gentleman Experience may be the right answer for some groups, but not for others.

But I still think in this instance, the process of reaching and implementing this decision may trump any merits of the new way of doing things. Pronouncements like this, after no consultation with stakeholders and with questions about authority, are not the way to go about changing the culture. To be honest, I fear that the way this was handled may actually reinforce the culture of hazing.

I query whether SAE is moving towards an unsustainable risk management and liability position and took at desperate act to mitigate those issues.

The fact that this drastic change was announced Friday to take effect today makes me think something bad must have been on the horizon.

[DEVODUDE]

MysticCat: The fact that this drastic change was announced Friday to take effect today makes me think something bad must have been on the horizon.

That could be true, however, no one knows for sure if that was the main reason behind the decision. I know it took ZBT 3 years to roll out their New Membership Program.....the idea was introduced in 1986, the first rough outline was developed and presented at the 1987 convention, the final outline was developed and present at the 1988 convention for everyone (Grand Supreme Council, National Assembly of Advisors, Alumni Clubs/Association, Foundation Directors, Executive Staff and undergraduate Delegation) to vote and finalize and in the Fall 1989 the New Membership program was launched. Chapters & Colonies had extensive training on the new program before if was launch. Even though it has been over 25 years since the initial rollout, the new membership program did go through at least 2 minor enhancements to keep up with changing times on college campuses.

ZBT:"BROTHERHODD & BEYOND"

[SAEalumnus]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

One question that I'm hoping an SAE can answer, but slap my hand if I'm too close to membership selection:

How difficult is it, comparatively, to remove a pledge? Does the fact that someone has been initiated make it much harder to throw them out of your chapter?

My experience on the NPC side has been that it takes a *lot* to get rid of an NM, and that most orgs don't let chapters make that decision on their own (i.e. it has to be run up the volunteer alumnae chain), so initiating early wouldn't make a huge difference in terms of kicking someone out.

Of course, if a chapter really wants to get rid of someone, they pressure her to leave "voluntarily," but I am curious how much the early initiation matters on this issue alone.

Prior to its recent repeal, Section 47C1 of our national Fraternity Laws provided that a vote of 1/4 of those eligible to vote was sufficient to rescind a pledgeship. If doing so was warranted, it was relatively easy to accomplish.