[23146] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Issue Two
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric R Field)
Tue Nov 12 00:37:04 2002
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 23:26:58 -0600
Reply-To: Eric R Field <efield@STUDENTS.DEPAUL.EDU>
From: Eric R Field <efield@STUDENTS.DEPAUL.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.1021111233307.538999778E-100000@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
I am very middle of the road on this issue. I see Randy's concern about
"blackballing" and actives sabotaging a pledge's entry into the
fraternity, but the signatures is a good method to show the pledge is
taking initiative to actually meet the brothers and that the brothers are
getting to meet the pledges. What my chapter did was require a certain
number of active signatures (25-40 signatures, depending on the semester
since we fluctuated between 80 and 140 members) and the entire pledge
class's signatures. We have never had any problems in chapter history of
pledges blackballing each other, but if the matter did come up, our
Pledgemasters and Membership VP's would have been on top of putting an end
to the problem.
When you get a PORTION of the active signatures, I think there is less to
worry about actives sabotaging since the pledge doesn't need EVERY
signature. This can equally apply for the smaller chapters by requiring
perhaps signatures from 75% of the chapter. The requirement should allow
some flexibility since pledges completing requirements aren't always black
and white. By making it "a good portion" instead of "all," that still
allows the pledges to complete their requirements.
iLFS,
Eric Field
Section 48 Staff
Alumnus, Alpha Phi chapter, Washington University
