Potential New Members, New Members, Brothers-to-Be, Recruitment, etc.

InHocYall · #1 12-08-2005, 04:37 PM

The Greek community as a whole is going crazy with this. Call me a reactionary, but I rush rushees, pin pledges, and initiate those who deserve to be called brother. For a system that exists because of the tradition set forth by our respective founders, I think change for the sake of change is dangerous, even in name. A bad fraternity is a bad fraternity will continue to bring in eggs whether they recruit or rush. Brothers and leaders are forged within the framework already set-up by the founders and by striving for those values, not conforming those values to make them accessible and acceptable.

ZZ-kai- · #2 12-08-2005, 04:59 PM

So...what are your intentions with this thread?

InHocYall · #3 12-08-2005, 05:07 PM

Good point. Why do we as a community feel these names are necessary? I think think it is a trendy attempt to be politically correct. Agree, disagree, discuss.

33girl · #4 12-08-2005, 05:14 PM

Previous discussions on this...

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=29470

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=45371

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=13730

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...threadid=41412

Tom Earp · #5 12-08-2005, 06:48 PM

InHocYall,

actually no matter waht name any of us may call it, if there is Hazing envolved it is not good.

Pledgeing or New Association, todays PC is the Norm even though some are getting tired of it.

Rush or Recruitment? Which is proper?

Kevin · #6 12-08-2005, 07:59 PM

What you state is not universally true. Not every fraternity refers to its pledges as "pledge" -- or at least that's not what their organization's national norms prescribe. Sigma Nu, for example refers to pledges as candidates (although often pledge is used). The words mean the same thing.

I agree as to the PC bullcrap though. Candidates or pledges have no guarantee, and in some chapters, not even a likelihood of being initiated. To call them a BS name like "Brothers to Be" is silly. Of course, in some organizations (not judging rightness or wrongness) initiation is actually guaranteed after you become a "brother to be".

Personally, I think the phrase is a little silly sounding. As for not calling it "rush", and instead "recruitment", I see no difference. Whatever is the norm where you're from is what should be used. Speaking from a semantics standpoint though, I prefer "recruitment". For fraternities, it's more accurate as on most campuses, I'd recommend a chapter actively recruit members that would complement their chapter rather than to have "rush" which implies they come to you.

Change for the sake of change is bad, but so is tradition for the sake of tradition.

Glitter650 · #7 12-08-2005, 08:22 PM

While some of it is admittedly a bit crazy, IMO... it's not "change for the sake of change" It's change to get back to the core values our founders wanted... I doubt the 10 founders of my org. circled the fat of the women came after them..

That is all.

Kevin · #8 12-08-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Glitter650
While some of it is admittedly a bit crazy, IMO... it's not "change for the sake of change" It's change to get back to the core values our founders wanted... I doubt the 10 founders of my org. circled the fat of the women came after them.. That is all.

That's outside the scope of the conversation. I don't think anyone here is advocating hazing. Did your founders require new members to go through a period in which they were trial members after which they were accepted or they won't? I have no idea, but mine did.

As for our core values, the trial period is to ensure that the men that we initiate are able to uphold those core values. Sometimes I question whether the pledging periods restricted by so many organizations adequately allow for that.

Inhoc has a point, and I think that there is some movement of Greek Life away from what we have been in the past towards resembling social clubs.

33girl · #9 12-08-2005, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Glitter650
While some of it is admittedly a bit crazy, IMO... it's not "change for the sake of change" It's change to get back to the core values our founders wanted... I doubt the 10 founders of my org. circled the fat of the women came after them.. That is all.

Whaaat???

Changing the terminology from "rush" to "recruitment" (even when what is actually happening changes very little) and "pledge" to "insert individual sorority PC term here" has nothing to do with circling fat or our founders. Who do you think thought up those terms anyway??

Most of the terminology changes are the DEFINITION of "change for the sake of change" as evidenced by the fact that hazing and the craziest parts of rush still go on. Nothing has changed but what you say.

ZZ-kai- · #10 12-09-2005, 08:50 AM

I see your point. But, you can jump on either side of the line here. Yeah, 'new member' is preferred today over 'pledge or puke' and the process of pledging and rushing (ah, excuse me, recruiting) are different today than they were 50 years ago, than they were 150 years ago, than they will be in 50 years.

Why don't we just go back to the days of our founding? In your close group of associates, those who are not members of your 'secret' GLO - you'd decide if he's worthy, then sit him down and read him your constitution, covering your beliefs (secrets), mottos, meeting times, secret handshakes..etc. Then he's an initiated brother. No recruiting. No Pledging. About a 2 hour process, and he's in.

Thing is - things change. It's inevitable; you just gotta roll with it. Like it or not, Sigma Chi will go on whether you like their vision or not. And that goes for all GLO's.

adpiucf · #11 12-09-2005, 12:20 PM

I think the names change group to group for a variety of reasons-- you have to change with the times, build your image if your numbers and public perception are waning, and then you have volunteers in power who just want to change names to change names...

I believe if it's not broke, don't fix it. But over the years, negative connotations have been associated with Greek Life. So we're changing our image in different areas in order to preserve the legacy. I have no problem with the current classifications-- I think their purpose is treat prospective members and members with respect and to help remove some of the mystery associated with pursuing membership to encourage more people to come out.

33girl · #12 12-09-2005, 12:39 PM

My main problem is that changing the names DOESN'T equate to change in the actual practices, so to me it's all a big lie. It's like Kentucky Fried Chicken going by "KFC" to take out the "fried" and seem more healthy - without changing their menu. People still know that you go there and the majority of the menu is fried chicken.

It's ridiculous to call what goes on at SEC schools "sorority recruitment." It's nothing like what that term is supposed to mean. If it was, the skits and decorations and big celebration bid days would be gone and replaced by year-round member selection.

As for "new member" replacing the negative connotations of "pledge" - any term can be used in a negative or positive way. You can make "new member" or "pearl" or "membership candidate" sound just as nasty as pledge ever could, if your chapter is bound and determined to treat people that way.

Kevin · #13 12-09-2005, 12:54 PM

33 -- I concur 100%!

Glitter650 · #14 12-09-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 33girl
Whaaat???

Changing the terminology from "rush" to "recruitment" (even when what is actually happening changes very little) and "pledge" to "insert individual sorority PC term here" has nothing to do with circling fat or our founders. Who do you think thought up those terms anyway??

Most of the terminology changes are the DEFINITION of "change for the sake of change" as evidenced by the fact that hazing and the craziest parts of rush still go on. Nothing has changed but what you say.

I agree. I don't think I made myself clear in that post. I was trying to state the changes WERE supposedly made in order to try and get away from the terms which brought up thoughts of hazing and to try and prevent situations where hazing could occur, does it work ? Of course not... people will still haze.
My thought was that they did change the name for a reason, not jsut for the hell of it.

NebraskaDelt · #15 12-09-2005, 02:25 PM

My chapter stopped using "Rush" when we learned of what the history of the term meant. And since we do not do the sorority style events and pretty much recruit members, I don't think changing the name is ridiculous. In fact, in the 19th century, when a lot of our GLO's were getting started, there wasn't such a thing as rush, there was recruitment, so if the argument is that we should maintain tradition, then potentially "recruiting" is the better use of the word. "Rush," remember is a slang term for recruiting, so in goes without saying that recruiting would be the more appropriate term.

I have no opinion on the pledge, new member, associate member, brother to be. If you are making a pledge to an organization it seems to me that you are a member or at least a new member, or perhaps a neophyte, or an associate. None of them relinquishes the fact that the person is new to the organization.