Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
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.
