Quote:
Originally Posted by Senusret I
All in all, good work. I still see some major problems and loopholes for hazers, though.
When I imagined a similar process for Alpha, there was a much shorter window for selection, and a longer period for education with biweekly benchmarks that would have to be met to proceed.
Basically a 2-7-2 process = 2 for selection, 7 for education, 2 for embellishment.
Also (and I'm so not being picky, trust me) I really think that the way to go for NPHC fraternities is going to be the notion of continuous values-based member development, with life-long learning as a goal. I don't see the Lampados Club doing this, and I don't expect Alpha to wise up and do it either.
|
Okay, I hear what you're saying. They're all good points. It would be better to have a longer pledge period but the thinking is, I presume, this is the way to cut down on exposure to risk. Whether this is correct or not is another issue.
And no process (and in-built safeguards) is going to cut out hazing. I think that point is made clear here. I think this is attempting to lessen the negative unintended consequences of the post-1990 NPHC intake processes, which were addressed.
