University of Alabama Alpha Phi Expelled for Racist Video

[Kevin]

It makes you question national priorities. Are national organizations about shorter pledge periods to maximize initiation fees paid or are they about quality brotherhood/sisterhood? I know that's a simplistic way of laying things out, but I would argue there's a correlation between a challenging new member process (not one involving hazing [but let's be honest, things which according to the FIPG are "hazing" are not hazing as described in any criminal statutes]) and members getting out of the organization the things they joined for.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It makes you question national priorities. Are national organizations about shorter pledge periods to maximize initiation fees paid or are they about quality brotherhood/sisterhood? I know that's a simplistic way of laying things out, but I would argue there's a correlation between a challenging new member process (not one involving hazing [but let's be honest, things which according to the FIPG are "hazing" are not hazing as described in any criminal statutes]) and members getting out of the organization the things they joined for.

As long as at least one definition of "hazing" is "making pledges do (or expecting pledges to do) something actives are not required to" the periods will get shorter and shorter. That's an easy solution to one facet, and organizations are, in general, open to easy solutions."

When you can require a pledge to learn something; when you can expect her to show her willingness to contribute as well as to receive; when you can expect her to make an effort to get to know something about her sisters, and show something fo herself in the process, you can make better decisions about women you're bonding yourself to for life.

Today's over-reaction to "Oh, no, someone might consider that hazing" has significantly contributed to this. Deferred rush can help, by giving initiated women longer to observe character prior to rush activities, but organizations lose money with deferred rush.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DGTess

As long as at least one definition of "hazing" is "making pledges do (or expecting pledges to do) something actives are not required to" the periods will get shorter and shorter. That's an easy solution to one facet, and organizations are, in general, open to easy solutions."

Is the above-stated definition really your organization's rules or is it folklore? As far as I know, basically everyone is reading from the FIPG definition for our official hazing definition. Do NPC groups go beyond that definition officially, or is it more a directive in that if you don't ask pledges to do something actives are not required to do, then you're probably okay?

I can appreciate something Sigma Nu has done with its new member program in creating meaningful programming for new members while trying to retain as much control over the candidate process as possible. Our new member program is available to new members online. That is where they complete their reading and submit feedback. We then have sessions facilitated by alumni and guest speakers about the various subjects in our program. I think our HQ has made a decent attempt at trying to retain some meaningful new member programming while trying to also retain control over the subject matter of that programming.

When you can require a pledge to learn something; when you can expect her to show her willingness to contribute as well as to receive; when you can expect her to make an effort to get to know something about her sisters, and show something fo herself in the process, you can make better decisions about women you're bonding yourself to for life.

Today's over-reaction to "Oh, no, someone might consider that hazing" has significantly contributed to this. Deferred rush can help, by giving initiated women longer to observe character prior to rush activities, but organizations lose money with deferred rush.

Right. This policy, if it exists, reminds me a lot of the 'zero tolerance' business we see in our school systems from time to time where the governing body seems incapable of considering that there are degrees of things. Asking a new member to take a test over local and national history is not the same as lineups involving circling the fat, forced drinking and forced calisthenics--and those things should be seen as different.

It would really amaze me if things were as zero tolerance as I believe some think they are as I have found the capabilities, resources and expertise of my NPC counterparts I've dealt with in my years as an alumnus volunteer to be far beyond anything we have ever dreamed of having. That said, considering that level of competence, I can't see why it would be the case, if it is the case, that your respective HQs would place so little value on their alumnae volunteers when it comes to allowing quality and meaningful programming for new members while being able to still avoid true RM problem areas.

[PhilTau]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Is the above-stated definition really your organization's rules or is it folklore? As far as I know, basically everyone is reading from the FIPG definition for our official hazing definition. Do NPC groups go beyond that definition officially, or is it more a directive in that if you don't ask pledges to do something actives are not required to do, then you're probably okay?

* * *

Any good policy must go beyond the "if you don't ask pledges to do something actives are not required to do * * *."

To easy for creative college students to get around. For example, from my own long ago experiences, well led and organized pledge classes would haze the actives back.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by PhilTau

To easy for creative college students to get around. For example, from my own long ago experiences, well led and organized pledge classes would haze the actives back.

Right. My father's pledge class got so pissed at their pledge educator that they kidnapped him and actually flew him out to northwest Oklahoma and handcuffed him in his underwear to an oil rig.

Checks and balances.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by DGTess

As long as at least one definition of "hazing" is "making pledges do (or expecting pledges to do) something actives are not required to" the periods will get shorter and shorter. That's an easy solution to one facet, and organizations are, in general, open to easy solutions."

Originally Posted by Kevin

Is the above-stated definition really your organization's rules or is it folklore? As far as I know, basically everyone is reading from the FIPG definition for our official hazing definition. Do NPC groups go beyond that definition officially, or is it more a directive in that if you don't ask pledges to do something actives are not required to do, then you're probably okay?

When I was pledging, my class was required to plan our own fundraiser and take part in our own philanthropy or community service project. We had help from our new member educators, but we essentially did everything on our own - planning and execution. Then we were no longer allowed to do this because it meant we were requiring new members to do things that weren't required of the initiated sisters. However, we can have new members help the initiated sisters plan and attend fundraisers and philanthropy projects in which the rest of the chapter is involved.

I loved participating in those events with my pledge sisters. It gave us ownership over the projects, helped us understand some of the hard work that goes into being an active member, and we simply had fun.

It's crazy to think that something like that could be considered "hazing". But yes, I think organizations are aiming for the unambiguous, all-or-nothing approach.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

It's crazy to think that something like that could be considered "hazing". But yes, I think organizations are aiming for the unambiguous, all-or-nothing approach.

The things you described would absolutely not be hazing with Sigma Nu, assuming that other aspects of the weren't hazing as defined by the standard FIPG definition. I suppose our national office and legislative assemblies trust our members and advisers enough to know the difference.

And if the answer is "If I told you, I'd have to kill you," I totally understand, but I'm wondering how exactly Alpha Sigma Theta has this rule stating you can't require a new member to do anything different from an initiate legislated.

My interest here is to see whether this is an actual promulgated rule similar in all NPC groups or it is unwritten policy.

[DaffyKD]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

When I was pledging, my class was required to plan our own fundraiser and take part in our own philanthropy or community service project. We had help from our new member educators, but we essentially did everything on our own - planning and execution. Then we were no longer allowed to do this because it meant we were requiring new members to do things that weren't required of the initiated sisters. However, we can have new members help the initiated sisters plan and attend fundraisers and philanthropy projects in which the rest of the chapter is involved.

I loved participating in those events with my pledge sisters. It gave us ownership over the projects, helped us understand some of the hard work that goes into being an active member, and we simply had fun.

It's crazy to think that something like that could be considered "hazing". But yes, I think organizations are aiming for the unambiguous, all-or-nothing approach.

Back in the prehistoric days when I was a pledge, one of our requirements for initiation was to put on a party for the initiated members. Since this meant we had to have some cash available, one of my pledge sisters talked to a donut store about giving us donuts. They gave us a ton of stale donuts. We went to all the Greek houses and dorms and sold every last one of them. My best friend and I still laugh about it today.

DaffyKD

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by DaffyKD

Back in the prehistoric days when I was a pledge, one of our requirements for initiation was to put on a party for the initiated members. Since this meant we had to have some cash available, one of my pledge sisters talked to a donut store about giving us donuts. They gave us a ton of stale donuts. We went to all the Greek houses and dorms and sold every last one of them. My best friend and I still laugh about it today.

DaffyKD

But I bet they were still delicious!

[NYCMS]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Today's over-reaction to "Oh, no, someone might consider that hazing" has significantly contributed to this. Deferred rush can help, by giving initiated women longer to observe character prior to rush activities, but organizations lose money with deferred rush.

Agree. I would also suggest - and I'm not saying this is true of all parents - that because there is such an environment of helicopter parents who will intervene at the drop of a hat for things that they shouldn't (including things that aren't hazing), that this could contribute to initiating in short order after pledging.

There's a reason why "adjustment disorder" is a real thing among many college students and new grads. Some students are so used to their parents doing everything that they struggle to adjust to life without them and expect to have things done for them without any effort. Again, this isn't all students, but it is a reality today.

I think it's sad. I got so much out of my pledgeship and having to earn it made it all the more meaningful.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It makes you question national priorities. Are national organizations about shorter pledge periods to maximize initiation fees paid or are they about quality brotherhood/sisterhood? I know that's a simplistic way of laying things out, but I would argue there's a correlation between a challenging new member process (not one involving hazing [but let's be honest, things which according to the FIPG are "hazing" are not hazing as described in any criminal statutes]) and members getting out of the organization the things they joined for.

Many moons ago, our Greek advisor (who sucked) pushed for first semester freshmen women to rush "so we can get them before they know better." I definitely think that's part of it.

I only pledged for 6 weeks, but there were also only 35 active sisters to get to know. I can't imagine that would be enough time to get to know the members in a SEC size chapter, let alone feel you were becoming an active part of the chapter and the Greek community. It's like the objective is to get the pledges (and the initiated sisters) so caught up in a whirlwind that you don't have time to think twice (on either side) before initiation.

[AnchorAlumna]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Are national organizations about shorter pledge periods to maximize initiation fees paid or are they about quality brotherhood/sisterhood?

Neither.
From what I've been told, it was about university administrations pushing to shorten the pledge period as a way to deter hazing.
Never mind that sororities rarely have hazing issues, and that all sororities forbid hazing. College administrators lump all Greeks - men and women - together.
That is, so I'm told, we now have the three-syllable "recruitment" for the single syllable "rush," "new member" instead of "pledge" and short new member periods that barely expose members to history, policies, and procedures instead of thoroughly grounding them.

[NYCMS]

Originally Posted by AnchorAlumna

Neither.
From what I've been told, it was about university administrations pushing to shorten the pledge period as a way to deter hazing.
Never mind that sororities rarely have hazing issues, and that all sororities forbid hazing. College administrators lump all Greeks - men and women - together.
That is, so I'm told, we now have the three-syllable "recruitment" for the single syllable "rush," "new member" instead of "pledge" and short new member periods that barely expose members to history, policies, and procedures instead of thoroughly grounding them.

This is what saddens me. I know one poster thought "earning" membership sounded like younger members aren't "as good" as those from decades ago, but as many have posted, it's not. It's about earning membership through learning the responsibilities of membership, bonding with your pledge and active sisters over time, making your grades, going through the "day-to-day" of your pledge-ship, not just the "thrill of six weeks and boom! you're initiated." It was also about finding out if membership really was for you so you could de-pledge versus de-activate.

I wonder what retention rates are these days because everything is so fast and many young women might not be as fully aware of what membership entails -- through no fault of their own, but through the changes of how things are done now. I think that's when members and parents stress about membership costs and time invested in events that houses participate in to a degree I never saw during my chapter days. No wonder some moms post here about their concern of their daughters achieving good grades.

I'm sorry that today's members aren't getting the full immersion via a longer pledge-ship and for many/most, just a lot of fanfare before initiation. I liken that to dating a guy for six weeks versus six months. How well can you know and appreciate him in such a short time? Some might think that's a silly comparison but I like it. It speaks to our "instantaneous" society where things can be gotten fast and often without the investment that would be best for the long run.

There are, no doubt, many outstanding younger members these days, so to any younger members reading this, I am not saying that there aren't. But some things do make for a richer experience and there's no substitute for time, in my experience and opinion.