[23134] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Issue Two
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brown Michael-EMB021)
Thu Nov 7 14:31:28 2002
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:31:15 -0500
Reply-To: Brown Michael-EMB021 <Michael.R.Brown@MOTOROLA.COM>
From: Brown Michael-EMB021 <Michael.R.Brown@MOTOROLA.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
>From: Jason Risner <jason_risner@ATT.NET>
>
>Quote: "Some people think that you have to pledge hard to get dedicated
>brothers, and that's what we must have been doing. That's been the extent
>of most investigations. Hard to explain? No. We just know how to pledge
>individuals and this pledging develops dedication. Is that the issue here?"
>
>Well, I'll state for the record that I have no problem with stringent
>pledging requirements. Some of the requirements the chapter I pledged made
>of those seeking membership at the time included:
>- at least 40 service hours
>- at least 5 "fellowship" hours
>- attendance at all chapter & pledge meetings (excepting extenuating circumstances)
>- carrying a blackbook at all times to be signed by all actives
>- creating a plaque signed by every active member,
>
>My chapter has had to defend the practice at Nationals because some saw it
>as a form of hazing - we were luckily able to demonstrate otherwise. We
>substantiated that we were not asking the pledges to do things that the
>actives were not being asked to do.
Jason-
You make some very good points, but the problem is that JayBEE has once again misunderstood what I thought was a fairly clear message. Read Mike Walton's response to mine. He got it.
To me 'stringent pledge requirements' do NOT equal hazing. Your chapter follows the 'rule' that I agree with, that pledges should not be asked to do something you would not ask a Brother to do. Pledge requirements should mirror the requirements we expect Brothers to follow, both written and not. The aim of the pledge program is to create Brothers, and get them into the 'habits' of LFS in APO.
But the issue I was pointing out has nothing to do with pledge requirements.
The issue is with the OTHER behaviors and actions that occur during pledging. Many of which the National Fraternity has clearly set out as hazing in our policies and forbid. Stuff like road trips, scavenger hunts, paddling, 'hell night/week', branding, etc. The problem is that some chapters/Brothers haven't 'gotten the message' that such practices are hazing. Or they strongly argue that they are unfairly being called hazing and should be allowed to continue. Some APO Brothers who come to us from social GLOs many times bring with them such unacceptable behaviors. The APQs brought with them the practices that existed among the 'historically Black Social GLOs' (not sure the proper term for them then this), which created their own traditions of pledging separate from the 'white social GLOs'. This is NOT to say that all their traditions are bad, however. But some are now unacceptable, which some seem to have problems accepting.
This is not an issue unique to APO (or APQ), but a larger issue that all GLOs are dealing with. This is why I recommended that people read some of the discussions on the www.greekchat.com site. This gives you a chance to see how other GLOs are dealing with it. I think that APO has come up with very reasonable policies regarding this, which are set down in the Membership Policies, Risk Management Policies, and National Pledging Standards (ALL available at the National website. READ THEM!!). Our definition of hazing and unacceptable behavior is very reasonable, IMO. In other GLOs, they've gone with a criteria of hazing being "anything a person would not normally do", which means they can't be required to wear a pledge pin or gather signatures and the like. Some GLOs even consider called a pledge a "pledge" hazing. I personally find this method ridiculous.
As I said, the problem I've seen within APO is where chapters and Brothers have not read over the above 3 documents and realized that things have changed in how we deal with our pledges. (Personally I feel that APO has always dealt with our pledges differently from the socials, but that some Chapters/Brothers never followed this, so now we have these documents to make sure we're doing what we should have always been doing) Comments I've read on-line by some Ques show me that either they haven't read these docs, or if they have they feel their practices are being unfairly called hazing. They need to 'get with the program' and realize that things have changed. Back in the 20s & 30s they might have been ok, maybe back in the 50s, but no longer.
YiLFS
Michael Brown
APO LM & TB
former Pledge, former Pledgemaster
current Chapter Advisor & Alum
