I finally looked at one of the videos. I do hope her chapter also identifies the women who were with her, agreeing and sharing.

This is a tough one because in my experience, NPC groups are extremely private about how they handle internal discipline and internal investigations. If I was advising this group, I'd be focused on how this individual made it all the way through the new member process without her obvious race issues being dealt with or brought to anyone's attention.

The finsta posts could not possibly have been the first time she willy nilly dropped n bombs which leads one to speculate, not unreasonably, I think, that this kind of language and attitude is tolerated within this chapter.

Agree, Kevin - it's not that I want to know about the other women agreeing, egging her on, etc. It does make me realize she is not a loner in this chapter, and the first step to cleaning the chapter up would be to identify the roots. She's not a single root.

I suspect that we've heard all we will ever hear from Alabama Alpha Phi on the subject. I suppose if they can get away with that without having to answer to any protesters or activists on campus, that probably tells us a lot about that particular campus.

I browsed that other site out of curiosity, and word on the street says the other girls are not Alpha Phi: one is a different NPC sorority, and one is not Greek.

Also the APhi girls seem to be taking up the "she was a loner, we didn't know her" defense.

We have discussed this type of stuff before:

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...highlight=word


Long, long ago, southerners constantly griped about Yankees coming down to the south and acting crass. Those memories crossed my mind after watching about 20 seconds of the video of this stupid rant.

Please help me out here. I can't really tell if she was allegedly dismissed from her sorority only for using the "n-word" OR if she was dismissed as a result of using the "n-word" plus all the other crass language she spewed forth (e.g., generally "conduct unbecoming of a * * *").

Being Alabama, I'd bet there are plenty of other people in attendance at that school who think the same way, but were raised in polite southern culture where those ugly thoughts are expressed only in a voting booth.

Hopefully both!
Seriously not sure how she made it through the whole pledge process without her chapter realizing what she really was, but since the new member period is only a few weeks long now, that could be part of the issue.

It’s sad. I work with many of our chapters and the new member period is too short in my opinion.

This is the issue that I have with initiation happening so fast. You don't really know girls unless they're girls many actives already knew from high school (even then you never know how girls can let loose once on their own - I've seen that happen), but particularly in cases like this one where it seems that no-one knew this girl pre-pledging. Hard to vet someone like this, even if she had recs.

I also think when you had to work to be initiated - making your grades, learning about the sorority, getting to know your sisters - attaining membership was a richer experience. Goes back to you can't appreciate something in the same way when it's given to you. And being initiated so quickly feels like girls are "given" membership. I can't imagine being initiated that fast - pledgeship was so special, bonding with my pledge sisters while also getting to know the actives and our sorority. And that's not to say that actives initiated quickly don't appreciate their sorority - they do, but I think delayed initiation had many merits.

Delayed initiation was also protection. I knew a girl from my dorm who went wild after pledging her sorority...dancing on tabletops at frat parties, sleeping with guy after guy, getting sloppy drunk at every party....it was bad. She was de-pledged in short order. And if you met her under 'regular circumstances' you would be charmed. Like her former sorority was.

It makes you question national priorities. Are national organizations about shorter pledge periods to maximize initiation fees paid or are they about quality brotherhood/sisterhood? I know that's a simplistic way of laying things out, but I would argue there's a correlation between a challenging new member process (not one involving hazing [but let's be honest, things which according to the FIPG are "hazing" are not hazing as described in any criminal statutes]) and members getting out of the organization the things they joined for.

As long as at least one definition of "hazing" is "making pledges do (or expecting pledges to do) something actives are not required to" the periods will get shorter and shorter. That's an easy solution to one facet, and organizations are, in general, open to easy solutions."

When you can require a pledge to learn something; when you can expect her to show her willingness to contribute as well as to receive; when you can expect her to make an effort to get to know something about her sisters, and show something fo herself in the process, you can make better decisions about women you're bonding yourself to for life.

Today's over-reaction to "Oh, no, someone might consider that hazing" has significantly contributed to this. Deferred rush can help, by giving initiated women longer to observe character prior to rush activities, but organizations lose money with deferred rush.

Is the above-stated definition really your organization's rules or is it folklore? As far as I know, basically everyone is reading from the FIPG definition for our official hazing definition. Do NPC groups go beyond that definition officially, or is it more a directive in that if you don't ask pledges to do something actives are not required to do, then you're probably okay?

I can appreciate something Sigma Nu has done with its new member program in creating meaningful programming for new members while trying to retain as much control over the candidate process as possible. Our new member program is available to new members online. That is where they complete their reading and submit feedback. We then have sessions facilitated by alumni and guest speakers about the various subjects in our program. I think our HQ has made a decent attempt at trying to retain some meaningful new member programming while trying to also retain control over the subject matter of that programming.

Right. This policy, if it exists, reminds me a lot of the 'zero tolerance' business we see in our school systems from time to time where the governing body seems incapable of considering that there are degrees of things. Asking a new member to take a test over local and national history is not the same as lineups involving circling the fat, forced drinking and forced calisthenics--and those things should be seen as different.

It would really amaze me if things were as zero tolerance as I believe some think they are as I have found the capabilities, resources and expertise of my NPC counterparts I've dealt with in my years as an alumnus volunteer to be far beyond anything we have ever dreamed of having. That said, considering that level of competence, I can't see why it would be the case, if it is the case, that your respective HQs would place so little value on their alumnae volunteers when it comes to allowing quality and meaningful programming for new members while being able to still avoid true RM problem areas.

Last night on the PBS Newshour, Judy Woodruff interviewed a panel of 6 Virginians about President Trump's Tweets and comments about "****hole countries," and asked if his comments have set a tone whereby "Joe Public" feels free to share what he really thinks.

One of the panelists expressed exactly this view -- she said she thinks these things, but she doesn't say them -- she said what's startling about President Trump is that he says them publicly.

Agree. I would also suggest - and I'm not saying this is true of all parents - that because there is such an environment of helicopter parents who will intervene at the drop of a hat for things that they shouldn't (including things that aren't hazing), that this could contribute to initiating in short order after pledging.

There's a reason why "adjustment disorder" is a real thing among many college students and new grads. Some students are so used to their parents doing everything that they struggle to adjust to life without them and expect to have things done for them without any effort. Again, this isn't all students, but it is a reality today.

I think it's sad. I got so much out of my pledgeship and having to earn it made it all the more meaningful.

Any good policy must go beyond the "if you don't ask pledges to do something actives are not required to do * * *."

To easy for creative college students to get around. For example, from my own long ago experiences, well led and organized pledge classes would haze the actives back.