Alpha Chapter Woes

[Oldest_Pledge]

This is an interesting chain of events.

While this is a sad moment in our Fraternity, maybe if the actualy facts are published, all members can learn from it and our Brotherhood can heal and grow from it.

Maybe one of our journalistic Brothers from NBC, ABC, CBS or FOX can interview both sides and create a POD cast for us.

[Coramoor]

Since when are drinking games illegal?

Why does it seem that the new Beta is trying to kill any and all aspects of being social?

There is nothing wrong with drinking! It can be a lot of fun done responsibily. Hell, it can even be a lot of fun staying up to 7 in the morning killing several bottles and getting fall down drunk with guys you haven't seen in several years!

[EE-BO]

Hi Coramoor,

I do not think drinking or drinking games are the issue. Forgive me posting over and over on this thread, but I hope it is worth being very precise about positions on a matter like this because it is being considered in the grander scheme of Beta's direction.

1. First off, let me please offer a real-life example with a hypothetical event that reflects how I see the drinking game/keg incident that one of the suspended brothers admits happened.

I started experimenting with drinking in high school, as most kids do. It was not legal for me to do so, but it was the reality of how life works.

My parents had their fun growing up and they knew I would do the same.

So they had a simple rule. I was not to drink and drive. If I did, the car was gone and I would have a curfew. I could call home at any time of night and get a safe ride home with no questions asked and no punishment. I had no curfew either. I only got fussed at once when I road-tripped to Austin one night with some friends on the spur of the moment and did not come home until noon the next day. The new rule was that if I was going to stay out overnight I needed to let them know in advance- or call early in the AM to say I was okay.

I was the most fortunate kid you could imagine. I had more freedom than almost anyone else I knew. But that ONE rule was there, and it was absolute for reasons even I at that age could understand.

Some of my friends got DWIs in high school and college. One friend of mine actually killed someone when he drove drunk. Most people I knew drove drunk a time or two. But I never did, and I never got in trouble.

My parents' approach worked because they treated me as an adult to the greatest extent possible without creating a risk for society at large or allowing me to put myself in a situation where my limited age and experience could not give me a reasonable chance to make the right decision.

GF's Risk Management Policy strikes this critical balance and gives young men a chance to prove themselves responsible and able to make these kinds of decisions without interfering with their ability to function and grow as young adults.

Chapters do not exist without alumni support- often reaching into the millions- to buy and manage homes, nor without GF support and guidance. This world of Greek Life does not exist without them. So like it or not, there are going to be rules. And most of the time, they will be put in place by men who remember the value of their fraternity experience and seek to protect these young men from harm while allowing them the vital step of maturation and self-governance that a fraternity can provide- an experience no other collegiate aspect of life can provide.

Let's go back to me in high school.

What do you think would have happened to my freedom if my parents had woken up on a Sunday morning, walked down the hall and seen 3 empty beer cans on the floor in front of my bedroom?

In strictly legal terms, all that proves is that someone drank 3 cans of beer- maybe me- and left the cans in the hall.

But in practical terms, what do you think that would have suggested to my parents to see such an openly indiscrete act?

The answer to that question is why this incident (that an Alpha member has disclosed as fact) is so very troubling.

Perception is reality, and in a world where parents or a General Fraternity place great trust in those who live under their financial and spiritual protection- so unthinking an act must naturally provoke a strong response.

2. Second, there are many other incidents besides this one that contributed to the current situation. The blog makes reference to at least two others.

3. Third, and also important, the blog- if you read very closely- infers in several places that this member review was requested from within. In other words, this looks to have started within the chapter.

I remember my life as an active Beta well. We stuck together. Even if we liked our advisors and GF representatives, we looked out for each other first. It is what makes a strong brotherhood, and it is the same kind of human reaction you will find in the business world with groups of people who work well together and are loyal to each other.

My chapter that I advise today is the same. And I would not have it any other way.

I can think of few things that would concern me more than if a group of actives from my chapter came to me seeking help in dealing with another group of actives within the chapter. It would be a pretty bad situation for that to have to happen.


In the big picture, I just hope this is not seeded in the minds of actives and alumni as a situation that reflects some large battle over Beta's future. It is being presented that way, hence my voluminous commentary, but I do not see this as a good example to reference. It is out there for discussion, courtesy of some indiscrete suspended members, but as more facts become known it is increasingly clear that this is not a battleground situation.

JMHO as always- with gratitude for the substantive discussion we have had here.

___ kai ___

[EE-BO]

a.e.B.O.T. has deleted his post, so I have deleted my reply. No worries- it is just duplicative to have mine here since it is basically what I said to Coramoor.

[Oldest_Pledge]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

...The real sin here is that this has been made public- and with one-sided accounts that are so stupidly written that they are already self-contradictory.

I agree.

That being said, since this has been brought out, please take the high road and publish only the facts from boths sides and let the rest of us have "the rest of the story."

I have often felt that the full detail of a chapter closing, reorg etc needs to be edited to protect the names (use Bro. Alpha Beta etc) and published for all Betas to see. This way future Betas can learn from history and not make the same mistakes.

[furmanbeta]

So you're all aware, the blog has been updated to give a concrete series of events. It's a pretty interesting read if you get the chance.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

As for the blog, read closely. I am not speaking off inside information- there are very clear indications this member review was in part driven by a request within the chapter.

" The Administrative Office sent the chapter a letter which outlined a “Member Reorganization” in which members in the chapter were to choose to participate in order to continue under active status."

it was the AO not the chapter

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by furmanbeta

So you're all aware, the blog has been updated to give a concrete series of events. It's a pretty interesting read if you get the chance.

Thanks for the good word- I had given up checking figuring it would go away.

Seems this is much as I figured.

1. This post does in fact confirm that this whole matter started within the chapter.

2. Despite that, it seems like AO and the advisors are all bad guys and not one nice thing can be said about them. They are also named individually.

3. All of the disciplined members are presented in the highest terms- not a word against any of them or even an admission there might have been some bad judgement calls. And while the AO and advisors involved all get named, we have yet to see a list of those who were disciplined.

4. The post also confirms, as I suspected, that the entire intent of having the two separate houses (I did not know one was rented from a Beta alum) was to circumvent the chapter risk management policy- which many ACTIVES clearly did not like because they instigated this whole process.

Taking the new pledges over to an annex house and having communal alcohol is absolutely an RM violation under the chapter's own rules- and puts the chapter, advisors and GF at the same legal risks as if that event had happened in the house. That is very clearly where you go from having a house rented by some Betas and get into the territory of having a Beta house "on the side".

Whether any of us agree with the dry house concept, some actives at this chapter clearly felt they were entitled to circumvent a policy that was in place when they first pledged! If they did not like it, they could have pledged somewhere else.

5. Again we hear about how the keg was empty and how so few people knew about the alleged incidents. These are excuses, not defenses.

The keg was on the porch in plain sight. Empty or full does not matter.

And perhaps noone knew about the alleged incidents because a small faction of the chapter chose to establish 2 annex houses to do things that clearly many in the chapter would not agree with.


I read this and I see the anger of a small group of people who hate our GF, who hate their advisors and alumni who make the chapter possible, and even seem to have disregard for many of their own brothers. Is this a debate with two sides or some malcontents who have resentment towards everyone else?

And who on the other side directly involved is going to post in response? What is there to gain. These young men have created a platform from which they can say whatever they want and they know darn well that the opposing view can do nothing to effectively and meaningfully respond.

They should consider themselves lucky to be on alumni status- that is a gift at this point. The original incidents might not have been that severe, but the attitude we are seeing now suggests there was quite a bit of after-the fact denial and lack of contrition that made this far worse- all crowned with a vicious online smear campaign.

[Oldest_Pledge]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

And who on the other side directly involved is going to post in response? What is there to gain?

I challenge you to provide the other side of the issue to the Brothers At Large. This is a very important issue the entire membership. It is clear that you feel the issue should have never been publicized. I agree with you on that point.

However, since this has been made a public issue, show the rest of world that all Betas are not petty, vindictive people. Step back from your own opinion of the situation and write a good 5-10 page white paper that can be shared with all.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by Oldest_Pledge

I challenge you to provide the other side of the issue to the Brothers At Large. This is a very important issue the entire membership. It is clear that you feel the issue should have never been publicized. I agree with you on that point.

However, since this has been made a public issue, show the rest of world that all Betas are not petty, vindictive people. Step back from your own opinion of the situation and write a good 5-10 page white paper that can be shared with all.

Hi Oldest Pledge,

It is impossible for me to provide the "other side" of the issue as I was not involved directly in any way.

However, I am happy to offer some observations based on what has been released- which at this point includes everything I was aware of.

I read the blog again and it just becomes even more clear to me that the real core issue here is strife within the chapter over how it should be managed.

This strife is most obvious to the outside observer by the fact that two groups of members felt compelled to establish "Beta houses" at separate addresses.

That in and of itself is not a big deal. It is quite common for groups of fraternity men to pitch in and get their own place at some point for a variety of obvious reasons. Living in a chapter house, even a dry one, has its own distractions. And Alpha is substance free- not just dry- meaning no tobacco products on site. So maybe a few guys like to smoke and wanted to live where they could do that. And of course if you are going to find a place of your own, naturally some of your fraternity brothers make ideal potential roommates much of the time.

But where things get different is in the fact that a party for the new pledge class took place at one of these properties and that in several comments all over the blog there are indications these properties were used as social centers for Beta activity. They were not places where active members happened to live- they appear to have been secured with the specific intent of frequent use for social events that, even if legal and acceptable to other chapters, were not acceptable to the Alpha chapter as a whole or its advisory team.

Add in the fact that some of the alleged incidents were reported by chapter members who did not live in these annex properties, and I think you have the basis for the core of the matter.


The disclosure on the internet is unfortunate, but I have been more concerned with the tone of the disclosure than the content. And, for the record, it would be nice if we had the old forum back at the Beta site. That would have been the perfect setting for this kind of discussion, and without that kind of forum I suppose it is inevitable that open internet discussions on matters such as these will pop up from time to time.

The specific content and facts presented in the most recent blog post seem reasonable to me. I have no idea how accurate they are, but they do not seem to be unrealistic. And they do not indicate to me inappropriate action was taken.

The difficulty however is in the tone and in the combative attitude about GF. This happened weeks ago, and these blog posts are exceptionally well written. They indicate a very deep sense of anger and resentment which goes well beyond the forgivable in-the-heat-of-the-moment comments of frustrated individuals.

Remember that the second annex property was named the "slippery slope" in honor of what the chapter advisor originally said about it when he learned of its existence.

This raises two key questions.

First, why was the chapter advisor even aware of or concerned about a few guys who happen to be Betas renting a house? The answer may be revealed in part by the fact the blog admits that getting the first annex house across the street was a "red flag" and that the second property would not create such a stir. This again suggests that there was a specific intent behind renting these properties to conduct chapter activities inconsistent with the chapter's own policies- and that the chapter advisor knew about it and at some point made the "slippery slope" comment.

Second question, given these early concerns were obviously raised- why name the house "slippery slope" and be proud of it? This may well be the "attitude problem" that the GF investigation seems so often to refer to. It is one thing to disagree with the advisor and rent the house anyway (which noone can prevent)- but to then use it as it was used and also openly and mockingly name it in reference to the chapter advisor takes away much potential for a reasonable future discourse. I know it seems a minor point, but just consider how disrespectful that was. In one of my companies, an employee with that kind of disrespect is gone- and it is the one circumstance when I almost enjoy firing somebody. There is just no reasoning with someone who resorts to immature cockiness over issues that affect a broad range of people.


And this brings us to the GF (AO is the term used in the blog) reaction to all of this. The words of the blog betray the fact that there was almost certainly a discourse about the wisdom of the annex houses early on. The words of the blog also indicate that the RM reports related to the annex houses came from within the chapter. The words of the blog also very clearly indicate that even weeks later there is zero contrition or understanding of why this happened by the suspended members. These guys just don't get it. This also suggests they were, in some part, existing outside the spirit of the rest of the chapter already. Hard to say for sure, but it sure looks that way.

How does an advisor or GF react to this? Given the language and tone used in this blog, would any of you have a discussion with a suspended member at this point in the process? I probably would not. What more can be said?

And note most especially that the blog indicates the suspensions were for all members living in the annex properties and one guy in the chapter house.

This is the final proof that I and many others removed from this matter have been right all along in our suspicions and analysis of what little info is out there. And the more that is disclosed, the more obvious it all becomes.

If the suspended members who were there and in the middle of all this cannot even begin to see what is so obvious to the outside world, I am not sure there is any reasonable discussion to have with them.

These guys are raising a big question, but they already have the answer. So that reduces any further disclosure, especially given the tone involved, to some kind of vengence or payback. I do not think that is the intent- surely these guys are still very upset and may need to time to sort it out. But once you go public, it is only natural that others are going to want to respond and try and sort out the real story.

LONG STORY SHORT,

1. There was strife within the chapter.

2. Some members, against advice and common sense, came up with a bad solution to that and chose to create a fractionalized set of environments for chapter activities.

3. Guidance from above to not do that was ignored and openly mocked.

4. Action was taken as RM reports started piling up.

5. Those suspended are no longer part of the debate. Yet they try to continue it in a very inappropriate forum and in a tone that suggests their suspension was justified. If they are this angry now, imagine how they were in the months leading up to the review.

6. In the aftermath there are a few items worth discussing for future direction, but not in places where non-Betas can read them. And most of that needs to happen within Alpha. These kinds of internal battles are just not to be found at other chapters to this extent. All the more reason this does not need to form the basis for future chapter vs GF resentment where there is no reason for it to exist.

[fratstarBETA]

I think that our nationals need to lighten up, this same thing hapened to our chapter. and we got turned in by our own advisors... that says nothing about brotherhood. I didnt join a fraternity to be told by some guys i dont know, or care to know, how to have fun. As long as noone gets hurt, and risk is managed in a reasonable way, i think nationals should back off. I sympathize heavily with the miami chapter. and cooramoor is right, in my opinion beta is going downhill. I have no interest in this new initiative, i believe it is all political. I think our elder brothers should afford us the same opportunities they had while in college. They can not say they didnt drink and party. An no times havnt changed. Thats and excuse to keep us down.

[fratstarBETA]

and by the way, if you are a big fan of nationals, take whatever is up your ass out. and realize that you shouldnt join a fraternity because of its slogan or bullshit rhetoric. join it for fun, friends, and experiences that will make you want to care about beta forever.

[Oldest_Pledge]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

It is impossible for me to provide the "other side" of the issue as I was not involved directly in any way.

I must disagree with you here. You can do anything you want if you apply yourself.

The fact that you are not directly involved with the situation coupled with your desire to see other issues handled in a more appropriate manner make you a highly qualified individual to share an objective report on the entire issue.

For what I have been ablet o read in the lbogs and here is that some brothers who did not live in the chapter house (reason not given) opted to rent a place to live. The fact that it near the chapter house and owned by a Beta Alum should have nothing to do with this. Then some activities took place at this "annex" that probably should not have.

Now, what is still confusing is the early converstation with the Advisors on this "annex." Since the Chapter and GF/AO have not published the minutes of the meetings, we do not know if they discussed this as a way to get around the dry rules or if they group that did get the "annex" announced they would be living there because they can not get a room in the chapter house.

If the chapter did discuss in official meetings ways to get around the dry house then it is possible that this reorganization is OK.

Maybe things regarding the GF/AO handling of the reorg could have been better. Maybe the Chapter Advisorory team should have been a little more determined in their efforts to get the chapter to operate better.

Just one brother's opinion from the outside looking in.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by Oldest_Pledge

I must disagree with you here. You can do anything you want if you apply yourself.

The fact that you are not directly involved with the situation coupled with your desire to see other issues handled in a more appropriate manner make you a highly qualified individual to share an objective report on the entire issue.

For what I have been ablet o read in the lbogs and here is that some brothers who did not live in the chapter house (reason not given) opted to rent a place to live. The fact that it near the chapter house and owned by a Beta Alum should have nothing to do with this. Then some activities took place at this "annex" that probably should not have.

Now, what is still confusing is the early converstation with the Advisors on this "annex." Since the Chapter and GF/AO have not published the minutes of the meetings, we do not know if they discussed this as a way to get around the dry rules or if they group that did get the "annex" announced they would be living there because they can not get a room in the chapter house.

If the chapter did discuss in official meetings ways to get around the dry house then it is possible that this reorganization is OK.

Hi Oldest Pledge,

When I said I cannot give you the other side of the story, I mean I am not privy to all the details and facts. I never will be- nor will anyone else outside of this situation I am sure.

But in my last post I really and truly gave you my sincere take and position. I am not sure what else I can say.

I would be shocked if there were official chapter meetings and meeting minutes detailing plans to get annex houses to host social events and activities that could not happen in the house. That does not make sense. It sounds like a legal argument to me- something a defense attorney might say.

I get the feeling many are looking at this from a legal standpoint. That is how the suspended members evidently feel. "The keg was empty" might work in a court of law, but not in a brotherhood.

We are not strangers asking strangers to make rulings on fact. This is all about a group of brothers and their advisors who knew each other well and could make reasonable judgements that to a certain extent other chapters have to trust if they wish to also be allowed to self-govern.

I don't know the Miami chapter like its alumni and active brothers do. And GF has to take reports from any chapter about RM issues seriously. If a chapter and its advisors cannot manage itself internally, what is GF to do?

How can people removed from the situation really get into the heads of those who were involved and make a fair decision- especially when both sides of this issue look at the facts and come up with vastly different ideas of what a fair decision is? GF has a list of policies there for a reason. If violations are reported, what else can they do but act? If they were to give Miami a pass here, would they not have to give everyone else a pass?

No system is perfect. And the imperfection in a fraternal order is that when a chapter cannot manage itself and members or alumni feel compelled to report incidents to nationals because they feel a critical boundary has been crossed, then the reality is that a uniform approach of action has to be taken. Truth be told, some might even call that an imperfection- but a practical reality.

The alternative is to pay far more dues to GF and then have them directly manage and oversee every chapter.

The men who were most close to this situation were unable to manage it themselves. And so as I see it, GF had to go in and look at the facts on the face and make a decision based solely on that. And the facts indicate, by the words of the suspended members themselves, that the presence and use of the annex houses was the key to this entire mess.

And from there, what else can you do but provide equal punishment against all who live in those houses? It may not be fair, but then again- what more could GF do to make it fairer? Really and truly, what more?

[EE-BO]

Hi again Oldest Pledge,

Just noticed someone posted some more early this morning- check out comment #8 in reply to the most recent blog post.

I wasn't going to go there because it was not my place- but someone did who apparently was around then, and you will see some insight into the background of all this.