[23161] in APO-L
[APO-L] Fwd: Re: [APO-L] Issue Two
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Charles Brace)
Tue Nov 12 16:50:50 2002
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:50:46 -0500
Reply-To: Charles Brace <brace347@HOTMAIL.COM>
From: Charles Brace <brace347@HOTMAIL.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV>>From: Sherrie Vander Vliet <SAVANDER@HOLLY.COLOSTATE.EDU></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: Sherrie Vander Vliet <SAVANDER@HOLLY.COLOSTATE.EDU>
<DIV></DIV>>To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: [APO-L] Issue Two
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:25:32 -0700
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Around here, our pledges don't just collect signatures. We have notebooks
<DIV></DIV>>made up by our big brothers filled with interview questions. There are
<DIV></DIV>>different interviews for different groups of people
<DIV></DIV>>(pledges/actives/advisors). The questions are like ice-breakers. This
<DIV></DIV>>helps encourage pledges to get to know both each other (through pledge
<DIV></DIV>>interviews), actives (through active interviews) and advisors (through
<DIV></DIV>>advisor interviews). This also helps the actives get to know, and spend
<DIV></DIV>>some time with, the new pledges. I don't consider this hazing. Does anyone
<DIV></DIV>>else?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't see how having pledges interview themselves and brothers could be considered as hazing. If it was, most APO chapters would have to redo its pledging process.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As far as the "all" issue goes, obtaining "all" the signatures of the brothers is not per se a problem. I know of a number of chapters that require pledges to (for example) interview "all" active brothers. I think as has been previously stated, "all" shouldn't be an inflexible standard, especially when circumstances warrant. Therefore, I am not opposed to an "all" standard.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now, for the "blackballing" issue....no one brother should have to power to veto a pledge. There needs to be a percentage of "no" votes to not activate a pledge (conversely, there needs to be a percentage of "yes" votes to activate a pledge). Let's say a 2/3 yes vote is required to activate. The only instance that i can think of that a single brother would have the power to veto is if there was only 2 active brothers in the chapter. Since under this situation, the chapter would most likely want to get all the bodies it can get, i don't think that this is a very big problem in the fraternity at large....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>in LFS</DIV>
<DIV>--chuck brace</DIV>
<DIV>Alum, Pi Chi Chapter</DIV>
<DIV>Honorary, Phi Chapter</DIV>
<DIV>LD Coord, Sec. 89</DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Add photos to your e-mail with <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMTEN/2022">MSN 8.</a> Get 2 months FREE*.</html>
