Pledging Deadline

[Sahara27]

If at any point we feel as though our new ladies won't get everything done in time for their scheduled intiation, we sit down with them and try to figure out what to do (extend the MIT period, have more meetings to make the deadline, etc.) We try to never make a decision without their thoughts/concerns in mind. Anything to make them most comfortable.
We do have a test at the end of the period, but since it's now considered hazing by our Nationals to use the scores as a way to decide if they should pass, we've turned it into a fun little event where everyone (actives included) take the test just for fun -- and the new member and active with the highest scores get a little prize. It'd be nice to have some measure of how the girls have done over their new member period, but usually we can tell that throughout the weeks with them.

[CarolinaCutie]

Originally posted by 33girl
I thought that every sorority had a yearly membership exam that EVERYONE (pledges and sisters) took. If everyone does it, it wouldn't be hazing. I don't know how else you could ascertain that your membership knows the basic information of the sorority.

Phi Mu also does not CURRENTLY have an exam taken during pledgeship. We used to have one, and last time I heard, Nationals was in the process of creating one as a part of the revamped new member program. BUT as of right now, there is no exam and any chapter who is giving one is hazing. Because there is nothing standardized, it's impossible to regulate, thus giving it the same preventative purpose as outlawing scavenger hunts ("it's not always bad... but it COULD be").

In my chapter, we play games like Phi Mu Jeopardy, recite the Creed, and turn in weekly homework, to make sure that the girls are learning the history. The new members also have study groups where they focus for one hour a week on learning the material. But when it comes right down to it, there is not a 100% valid way of ensuring that new members know everything before inititation.

[mommag2]

OK , some of the post that I have read have mentioned that your sororities/fraternities have done away with test for NM because it is considered hazing if actives don't take a yearly membership test.

Here's my question. How is that Hazing?

I know I did what I needed to do to become a sister of my org, I would have done almost anything that was legal to get in, because I wanted my org so bad. I never considered it hazing, we all had to take a test to get in so to me that's not hazing.

It seems to me that everything we do as sorors and fraters is considered hazing.

pretty soon we're not going to be able to have new member pins, because that would be hazing, since actives don't wear them.

[CarolinaCutie]

Originally posted by mommag2
pretty soon we're not going to be able to have new member pins, because that would be hazing, since actives don't wear them.

As a matter of fact, we do not enforce the wearing of the Phi ribbons. We make ribbons AVAILABLE so that new members may show their pride for the organization, and we can even suggest that they could wear them every day to class, to the gym, to the cafeteria, etc., but it's pretty much unenforceable. Because what happens if a girl is seen without her ribbon? Any sort of punishment that would ensue would be considered hazing.

However, I see your point. Like I mentioned earlier though, many of the rules about hazing may not seem practical at first glance. New member tests are one of those examples. When a standardized new member test prepared by the national organization is given, I wouldn't consider it hazing in any way. Most NPC organizations agree; Phi Mu and AZD are exceptions to the rule, I think.

But here's a different example: Suzy Pledge Educator has a feeling that some of her pledges don't have their heart in the right place and aren't being pledged hard enough. She wants to make sure that the new girls realize how important it is to know the history of ABC sorority. So she creates a test... a test so hard that probably the majority of the chapter would fail. She asks questions about obscure dates that aren't mentioned in the pledge manual; she requires rote memorization of entire subsections of the Constitution and Bylaws; she asks the hometown and major of every single sister in the chapter. And she tells them that if ONE of their fellow pledges doesn't make 80% or above, they all have to take the test over and over again until they all meet her standards.

Granted, this is an exaggerated example meant to prove a point. My point is that many of our regulations about hazing are created to cover all our bases. A lot of things outlawed (like my original example of scavenger hunts) could be a positive, haze-free new member activity. But things could also go very, very wrong. Our national organizations avoid these types of incidents in ONE of the only ways they can- by eliminating the activity completely.

[mommag2]

Originally posted by CarolinaCutie


But here's a different example: Suzy Pledge Educator has a feeling that some of her pledges don't have their heart in the right place and aren't being pledged hard enough. She wants to make sure that the new girls realize how important it is to know the history of ABC sorority. So she creates a test... a test so hard that probably the majority of the chapter would fail. She asks questions about obscure dates that aren't mentioned in the pledge manual; she requires rote memorization of entire subsections of the Constitution and Bylaws; she asks the hometown and major of every single sister in the chapter. And she tells them that if ONE of their fellow pledges doesn't make 80% or above, they all have to take the test over and over again until they all meet her standards.

Granted, this is an exaggerated example meant to prove a point. My point is that many of our regulations about hazing are created to cover all our bases. A lot of things outlawed (like my original example of scavenger hunts) could be a positive, haze-free new member activity. But things could also go very, very wrong. Our national organizations avoid these types of incidents in ONE of the only ways they can- by eliminating the activity completely.

I see your point about the test. I would hate to be a NM being guided by Suzy Pledge Educator. What would she do if all the NM's decided to drop right after taking that test? How would she explain that to her house?

I wouldn't want to be her when her house finds out why all the NM's dropped.

Could you imagine what would happen if some PE actually did do this? Heads would roll

[KSUViolet06]

Sigma does have a NM exam. To be initiated,you need an 85%. Actives also re-take the test every time it's given. They also have to get a certain score, or they lose some member points. So it's not really hazing since everyone takes it.

[WCUgirl]

Originally posted by JocelynC
Sigma does have a NM exam. To be initiated,you need an 85%. Actives also re-take the test every time it's given. They also have to get a certain score, or they lose some member points. So it's not really hazing since everyone takes it.

Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second. Just for the sake of argument, couldn't the testing of initiated members also be considered hazing? We talk on this board about how you can haze active members too...wouldn't requiring active members to achieve a certain score on the test be an example of this? If the actives don't achieve a certain score, then there is a negative consequence (in this example, the loss of member points).

Thoughts?

ETA: Another thought. Wouldn't it be better to be preventive and not do anything questionable than to run the risk of being shut down b/c you've been hazing?

[mommag2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AXiD670
Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second. Just for the sake of argument, couldn't the testing of initiated members also be considered hazing? We talk on this board about how you can haze active members too...wouldn't requiring active members to achieve a certain score on the test be an example of this? If the actives don't achieve a certain score, then there is a negative consequence (in this example, the loss of member points).

Thoughts? [/QUOTE

My thoughts are this. No it would not be considered hazing because everyone has to take it and yes there are consequences for the actives, but there are also consequences for NM.

So if I understand the derfinition of Hazing, then as long as there is a consequence for all that take the test when it is given, then correct me if I am wrong, it cannot be considered hazing.

NM need 85%....NO 85%, no initiation....consequence
Active need certain score....no good score points taken..consequence.

[CarolinaCutie]

Originally posted by AXiD670
Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second. Just for the sake of argument, couldn't the testing of initiated members also be considered hazing? We talk on this board about how you can haze active members too...wouldn't requiring active members to achieve a certain score on the test be an example of this? If the actives don't achieve a certain score, then there is a negative consequence (in this example, the loss of member points).

Thoughts?

I don't think this is the case. We require members to have a certain GPA, and if they do not meet those standards, there are negative consequences. Personally, I don't see this as being any different.

I like the idea of taking away member points. If you give the test to the entire chapter, but the initiated members know that nothing will happen to them if they fail, but there is a negative consequence for only the new members, I would still consider that hazing.

Edited: It does matter, I think, how many member points it might be. Not being initiated is a serious, drastic consequence. If only, say, 5 member points are deducted, and those can be made up by doing an extra study hour... well, that seems unfair.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally posted by CarolinaCutie


Edited: It does matter, I think, how many member points it might be. Not being initiated is a serious, drastic consequence. If only, say, 5 member points are deducted, and those can be made up by doing an extra study hour... well, that seems unfair.

FYI: If a NM doesn't pass, they can retake it before initiation. They WILL get initiated, just not with everyone who took it with them, since they had to retake it.

Also, the actives lose at least 75 points. Our VP- Ed wants us to remember that member ed. is still important for actives too.

[CarolinaCutie]

Originally posted by JocelynC
FYI: If a NM doesn't pass, they can retake it before initiation. They WILL get initiated, just not with everyone who took it with them, since they had to retake it.

Also, the actives lose at least 75 points. Our VP- Ed wants us to remember that member ed. is still important for actives too.

In this case, I really think this is an excellent way to do things!

[WCUgirl]

Okay, just so we're all on the same page regarding the definition of hazing, I copied the definition from the NPC's website. It reads:

"Hazing is defined as any action or situation with or without consent which recklessly, intentionally or unintentionally endangers the mental or physical health or safety of a student, or creates risk of injury, or causes discomfort, embarrassment, harassment or ridicule or which willfully destroys or removes public or private property for the purpose of initiation or admission into or affiliation with, or as a condition for continued membership in a chapter or colony of an NPC member fraternity."

I agree w/ CarolinaCutie that there is a difference b/w preventing someone from being initiated b/c they can't attain a certain score on a test and docking say 5 or 10 points from an initiated member for not passing the test. But how do we determine how many points are fair and would be equivalent to no initiation? In this case, it's 75. What about 50? Or even 25?

What happens if the new member still can't pass the test after the 2nd try? How many attempts do they have to pass the test?

The way hazing has always been explained to me, any kind of separation of new members and active members is hazing. Just b/c both initiated and non-initiated members take the test, if there is a different consequence (for example, no initiation for new members versus losing points for active members), then it could be considered hazing. Why couldn't we just deduct points from the new members for not passing the test instead of preventing them from or delaying initiation?

For the record, I'm not trying to argue that testing new members or initiated members is wrong or that it's hazing, because obviously many of the NPC groups think it's okay since it's a requirement. I'm just trying to present possible arguments and point out that the gray area is probably a bit larger than we sometimes realize.

Also - thoughts as to ensuring that our members know the history. I agree that it's important that we all know the history of our organizations. In fact, some things are hard to forget when you see them every day (i.e. your org's colors, your symbols and mascots are common b/c they're on every piece of 'nalia you own!). But really, are you going to consider someone who has a 4.0 GPA, is chapter president, has 100% participation and a true leader and asset to your GLO a bad sister b/c she can only recite the names of 3 of your 8 founders? What advantage is being able to recite from memory the name of all of your founders anyways? The meaning of the ritual that you hold inside your heart is not something on which you can be tested.

Again - I'm not trying to argue it's not important to know your history or information, I'm just curious as to what people think how practical it is to require memorization of facts for membership.

[Diamond Delta]

If they can't pass the test after the 2nd try, then I guess they need to take it a third. If they really do not know that information after a 2nd try then:1) they are an idiot and you don't need an idiot in your chapter, 2) your PE is an idiot and a bad leader. A good leader will motivate those who need to know, to know. They will make fun jeopardy type games and give little prizes to those who excel. There should be team work and sisterhood involved, not just rote memorization. The NM's big sister (sponsor-whatever) needs to be calling her and saying "Hey! I know we've got that test coming up, let's go get icecream and study together". During NM meetings these things should be discussed and have question answer sessions. Is Suzi NM doesn't know her stuff, someone needs to take her aside and say "Hey, what's going on? Are you stressed out, to busy, confused by the information, have test anxiety-what?" And try to help her.

My chapter made it a really fun thing. We had a contest. First of all we took the test but the chapter was there. Each NM had a few sisters on her Team. The NM who had to have the least amount of help on her test from her Team mates "won" and the whole team got a prize. That way-all NM's passed. But it was very motivating to study and not let your team down. There were no consequences or anything for not being prepared or coming in last, but it was fun and the team mates were encouraging, not down putting. We never had a girl fail. They didn't all get hundreds, but they all passed ligitimately. But knowing you could get a little help alleviated some of the anxiety.

[azdtaxi]

We don't take test but will still do learn the hostory of our org. Sometimes on retreats and stuff we will play jeopardy with the history just to make sure everyone knows it but we don't penalize anyone for not knowing it. Even though we don't have test everyone in my chapter knows almost everything there is to know still.

[33girl]

I think people are interpreting a member exam slightly differently...I don't mean one that the chapters make up, I am talking about a standardized test, the sorority equivalent of the SAT, straight from the national office. Any additional quiz or test is (now) considered hazing. I think quizzes would be beneficial to learn a little at a time, but oh well.

I'm also talking about a minimum % to be made, again decided by the national office.

There should be more to pledgeship than memorizing dates, but unless you are completely uninterested or have a negative IQ, honestly, these tests are NOT that hard to pass. If you can't put forth that little bit of effort why bother joining at all?