[20076] in APO-L
Re: Pledge Period Length
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (JimBeKind@AOL.COM)
Sun Jan 31 12:58:05 1999
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:57:50 EST
Reply-To: JimBeKind@AOL.COM
From: JimBeKind@AOL.COM
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Brothers--
I am troubled by some recent posts by Brothers, especially Section Chairs,
regarding Pledges Standards. By way of recent history -- the current title
"National Pledge Standards" is a modified version of its previous incarnation
which added the words "And Guidelines." That said, the key word here is
"should" not MUST.
A pledge period of 6-10 weeks has been made the standard since it has been
determined to be the time which seems to be required to fulfill the necessary
preparation for active membership of pledges. "Pledges" and "neophytes" are
interchangeable terms for the same people according to the national membership
policy statement also.
BUT, and this is a BIG "BUT," this Fraternity belongs to its undergraduate
members who are its supreme authority. And the National Standards cannot take
into account the vast differences between school calendars and school
enrollments. Therefore, the National Pledge Standards do not in fact "dictate"
much of ANYTHING. If a chapter at a mostly commuter school with no lengthy
pledge period in recent history determines for itself that a five week period
is sufficient -- it is their right. And a section chair may rightly point out
the standard and suggest they add a week to meet it, but I would not want any
section chair to "TELL" the chapter to do it or suggest threateningly that to
not do as suggested might cost them their charter.
I have had the great pleasure of befriending a great number of National Board
members over the last 15 years, and I KNOW OF NO NATIONAL BOARD MEMBER IN THAT
TIME who would vote to suspend an active charter for this "violation" alone!!!
[Board Members -- anyone disagree???]
Some standards are appropriately more resolute and inviolable-- "an
appropriate period of pledging has no place for hazing...." Note: it does not
say "should not include hazing."
As a former section chair, national LDW director, and long time staffer, I
believe the Regional Director who suggested this standard could be compromised
in a specific circumstance did the right thing -- particularly in a case where
a chapter is about to fold [drastic times call for drastic measures], and
having a chapter on a campus was made a higher priority than enforcing a
standard at the cost of a chapter. I'd suggest that this is one of the reasons
we elect Regional Directors and that Section Chairs should heed their guidance
whenever possible: reserving the right to ask for the "reasons 'Why?'" and to
ultimately disagree. We must honor the motives -- which are to better the
region and build the Fraternity, even when we don't agree on the means to
achieve the goal.
I welcome your responses to me personally as well as the list.
Fraternally,
- Jim Hahn, proud alumnus
LAMBDA OMICRON CHAPTER
[R. L. "Pops" Brittain Class, Fall '83]
