Maybe this deserves a discussion

[amillionlights]

I.... can't believe what I just read.

[DubaiSis]

I know she's gone, but I'm wondering if she knows that some sororities in certain circumstances allow for a return to good standing after disaffiliating. One of my alumnae association members did this. Now, admittedly, she's still a flake, but she was able to pay up and become a member again. I'm wondering if her (and do we even know if she was actually in an NPC?) sorority would allow her to re-join as an alumna and if she'd take it now that she's understanding the value of membership in a larger perspective.

But speaking to the issue at hand 1-yes, most of us here think the 6 week new member periods are too short so you actually have us on that one
2-this will have been at least the second major contract these girls will have signed in their lives (the MRABA being the first, the intent to initiate being the second) and possibly more if their schools has an ethics contract or they bought a car. They should know by this point in their life to read and understand the terms of a contract and the repercussions of breaking said contract. The fact that they didn't/don't does not mean that NPC should change their rules after all these years of success. But this does go to defense of the whole testing to qualify for initiation thing. If they can't display an understanding of the terms of membership, they can't initiate. Who has a problem with that?
3-learn how to fight a battle. You lost here because you didn't know who your enemy was. What you are asking for (in my interpretation of what was said here) is an NPHC style recruitment where it can take YEARS to get accepted into membership. The one thing they know for sure is a member is committed by the time they join. But then you'd be complaining that the NPC sororities are too exclusive, to exclusionary. And there's the rub. We take chances on potential flakes. You decide if you're going to be a flake or not. So you're enemy is your own ability to commit and accept consequences.

Now we can go back to our lives, quaking in our boots over the changes afoot with NPC. Not.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Speaking off the cuff, here, I think it would be reasonable for member orgs. to have the right to release someone from their commitment. For example, XYZ initiates new pledges after six weeks, and the week after they initiate, it's discovered that they were horribly hazed, and the chapter is closed down. Maybe XYZ nationals should have the right to say, "yup, we'll release them to go join other groups."

[DubaiSis]

I would concede that. But in conjunction should be sanctions to the offensive chapter. If the accusations aren't serious enough to result in punishment to the chapter, then they probably aren't serious enough to merit this sort of get out of jail free card.