non greeks posing as greeks

[gwen1982]

Originally posted by adpiucf
I actually think wearing letters as a new member is a beneficial way to promote your chapter, making it more prominent and top of mind in the campus population because you have more and more people in letters. It's also making new members acclimated to the organization and not feeling segregated, leading to cliques within pledge years, leading to divided chapters ... All members should be allowed to wear letters to embody the concept that that recruitment is a 365 day-a-year process.

Imagine not being able to wear your university emblems until you graduated... they want to make sure you get a degree first and truly represent the university, after all! I understand a university is not a secret society, but you understand the similiarities here.

I DO believe in good risk management to avoid your letters falling into the wrong hands. It does happen where members drop out or cancel their memberships, and it is unfortunate, but I think it is the chapter's responsibility to educate members on the etiquette of letters and to instill in sisters/brothers that if they leave the organization, they are to return all lettered items with no expectation of compensation. For example, if you quit ADPi, you are expected to return your badge to HQ. New members and initiated members alike should be reminded of the importance of letters, and that letters shouldn't be donated to charities, given to non-members, etc, and that if a member leaves the org, all letter items stay with the organization.

This makes a lot of sense but preciousjeni had a good point as well regarding wearing letters before initiation. I do think there has to be a happy medium. Most pledge sister/brother education periods these days are 9 weeks or less. New, unitiated members do not have to be given letters their first day. Most girls in my chapter either bought their own or got stuff as gifts from their Bigs, and that didn't happen on day one. Maybe the importance of the letters, badges, etc. are stressed first in the pledge education period, it would help. Then there is no excuse not to know the significance.

[Adelie]

Maybe the importance of the letters, badges, etc. are stressed first in the pledge education period, it would help. Then there is no excuse not to know the significance.

That's an excellent idea!

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by Adelie
It comes down to a legal issue, really. NPC regulated that telling a new member (new = non-initiated person going through the pledging period of education) that they can NOT wear the organization's letters is considered "hazing".

But legally.... it is considered hazing.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but no, it would not be considered hazing "legally," unless by "legally" you mean legal with respect to NPC rules (although even that seems a stretch based on the wording of the NPC policy). But telling new members that they can't wear letters is not hazing by any legal definition I've ever heard of.

Just my opinion, and not trying to criticize any other org's policies, but it seems to me that if it's hazing to tell new members that they can't wear letters, then it's also hazing to say that they can't wear the badge. What's the difference? It would seem arbitrary to say that "until you're initiated you don't know the meaning of the badge" because until you're initiated you probably don't know the meaning of the letters either.

I think perhaps the more critical distinction is the definition of "member." NPC, as best I can tell, has made the decision to treat new members, for most intents and purposes, as full members. Most fraternities I know of (including mine, but not including all fraternities, I realize) do not treat probationary members (our term), pledges, candidates, or whatever they may call them as full members. That comes at initiation, and until initiation, one cannot wear the insignia of the org, including letters.

Ah well. It would be a boring world if we all did everything alike.

[33girl]

Originally posted by MysticCat81
Just my opinion, and not trying to criticize any other org's policies, but it seems to me that if it's hazing to tell new members that they can't wear letters, then it's also hazing to say that they can't wear the badge. What's the difference? It would seem arbitrary to say that "until you're initiated you don't know the meaning of the badge" because until you're initiated you probably don't know the meaning of the letters either.

Some orgs (like ASA & AST) have an open motto that corresponds to the letters, so that argument doesn't hold water for us. I've never had any problem with people wearing letters before they were initiated, for the above reason, but not the crest.

On the other hand, if your letters have no correlation to anything OPEN, I would understand why you'd be against pledges wearing them. I don't presume to tell any other sorority what they should do.

At any rate - regarding Leigh Ann's original example, that girl should not be wearing any kind of letters. She's not a sister, pledge, or alumna. Her pledge was broken when the chapter was closed.

[MysticCat]

Good points, 33girl.