[20083] in APO-L
Re: Pledge Period Length
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jgrossi)
Mon Feb 1 09:05:21 1999
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 08:57:19 -0500
Reply-To: jgrossi <jgrossi@bbnplanet.com>
From: jgrossi <jgrossi@BBNPLANET.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
> I am troubled by some recent posts by Brothers, especially Section Chairs,
> regarding Pledges Standards.
I think we are ALL troubled by those posts that look like a Section
Chair and a Regional Director having it out over APO-L. I would suggest to BOTH
of them that they sit down and resolve their differences in a LESS public forum,
and remember that ultimately we are here to serve the STUDENTS, and that right
or wrong the final decision belongs to the STUDENTS, and we the staff serve at
their sufferance.
> 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.
I would VERY MUCH disagree here Brother Hahn.
Section 2, which prohibits hazing is not open to interpretation... there shall
be no hazing PERIOD, and there are other sections in the document which also
are MUCH tighter in interpretation. In regards to the section we've been
debating, you had better have a good reason for going outside of it *if* your
going to violate it, such as your school calendar does not allow you to meet it.
i.e. ANY going outside this "standard" has to be under the clause of the school
rules superceed the APO ones.
The point of this "standard" is to ensure that we're initiating brother
who are educated, and that chapters do not create "perma-pledges" This bylaw
enforces TWO key concepts of our brotherhood. These concepts being that the
pledge in question on brothering up is educated enough to function as an active
and productive member of ANY of our chapters, and that pledge membership is
solely a transitional phase and not a permanent one.
> 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
It is not their "right". It is their right to say, School rules (academic
calendar) indicate that we can not meet the standard and school rules superceed
APO ones. They do not have the "right" to pick and choose what National Rules
they follow. You sign documentation EVERY year which indicates very clearly you
WILL follow all National Rules, except in those cases where they violate the
Schools Rules.
> 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.
You touch on another key issue here, which is local control, exectly how much
local "discretion" does a chapter have in this case. The answer is dependent on
their Sectional Chair and Regional Director.
> 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???]
Jim, two points here, one you can't say how ANY board member would vote until
after they have, as ANY vote of that nature is HIGHLY situation dependent.
Secondly you must be smoking crack to think that ANY board member is going to
touch this public discussion with a ten foot poll, I myself am seriously
questioning my sanity in getting involved.
> 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 would highly disagree here. Brotherhood in Alpha Phi Omega is a privelige,
and rushing people through pledging is not doing them or the chapter any
service. One your creating "brothers" who have no idea of what a brother *IS*,
secondly your perpetuating a chapter that may or may not be meeting the
standards we hold for our chapters, and if they are it's solely by luck and
someone following the pattern that's been held before. In this case I feel it's
worth waiting the couple of extra weeks and taking a risk of them not
completeing pledging, than to ramrod them through to save the charter. The goal
is not "saving the charter" it's doing service. If you "save" the charter by
meeting the paperwork requirements, you will still have to go through the whole
chartering program to re-grow the chapter. It may be better to let the charter
go and let it go through the extension program again so that instead of creating
a paperwork chapter, you create a strong chapter that will stand the test of
time.
> 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.
As I said in an earlier post, Section Chairs no longer have the power to
disagree as of this past convention. Section Chairs work for the Regional
Director, and as such can either acquise to the Regional Director or create a
paralysis in their Section for the remainder of their term or the Regional
Directors.
> 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.
There are four "levels" in the fraternity,
National
Regional
Sectional
and chapter, and I fail to see how and why the Regional level is more important
than any one of the other three, I'd more suggest that the Chapter is primary
followed by the National, and that the Regional and Sectional are if anything
administrative divisions that are six of one a half dozen of another.
Yours in Service
-John Grossi
Section 94 Chairman
