Defining pledging vs. NM education/development

[gpb1874]

Since we often talk about pledging vs. new member education, i thought i would offer this thread. it is from San Diego State University:

http://www.greeklife.sdsu.edu/docume...pmentChart.pdf

offers some interesting points on how the two CONCEPTS are different (not just talking what you call the new peeps). I think it goes right along with how GPB tries to be inclusive with their new members. it's not seen as "earning your letters" but as educating them on what it means to be a member by having them do lots of things with the whole chapter.

any other thoughts? what about those from the varrying types of ORGS - NPC, NIC, NPHC, NALFO, locals? would be interested to see how you view your process as a whole.

[33girl]

I'm sorry but that chart is complete bullshit!!

"Hell Week" was NOT the high point of my pledge training (we didn't have one) and I certainly wasn't trained to become subservient or obedient. Oh, and my motivator was wanting to become part of something I loved and learn as much about it as I could - not fear.

We were responsible for things as a class, but we weren't set apart or prevented from doing things with the sisters. It all goes back to learning to be part of a small group before you can learn to be part of a bigger group.

It's obvious the author never went through a real, effective pledge program and is just regurgitating what they've been told about it - whether it is true or not.

This is one of the most offensive things I've ever read.

[AXiDTrish]

I don't know if this is BS as earlier stated, but I find it generalized from the very best to the very worst. This isn't going to come out right, but I would think the truth would be the in the middle, though heavily leaning toward the new member development side.

[AGDee]

The chart points out that there is a continuum with both extremes defined. Most programs dofall somewhere in the middle. If some of the elements of "pledging" didn't happen in your experience, then your program was not to that extreme on the continuum. In the early 80's, most of the programs were exactly what is described on the right hand side of the chart, with fear, intimidation and subservience being the hallmarks of being a pledge. It was extremely offensive and that is why we, as Greeks, have had to change it.

I agree with the NM education/development side of the continuum and believe with all my heart that it is more effective.

Dee

[33girl]

Maybe "most" of the programs on your campus or in your GLO did that Dee, but I think to say it was that way everywhere and in every GLO is untrue.

I just think that anything that uses extremes like this accomplishes the complete opposite of what it is trying to do. It's like telling kids that if they smoke cigarettes they're going to be selling their bodies for heroin in a week.

[UNLDelt]

You know it IS a generalization to say a name change constitutes a large difference in programming...but in some instances the contrast between what bringing new guys in to your fraternity is INTENDED to do...and what some GLO chapters have as pointless tasks known as "traditions" REALLY do is frightening.

I think that we would all agree that the period before initiation, no matter what you call it, is really supposed to education these men and women into what the organization is about (history, values, purpose, opportunities, standards) and how to successfully operate it on their own once they become the leadership as well as give them a sense of duty to that organization (brotherhood and sisterhood) so that they find meaning in taking the leadership roles on in the future.

My chapter has always said that you cannot build good Delts, and theirfore good men, by tearing them down first.

While there are some aspects of the "pledge" column that still have value in the education of future brothers and sisters, it is HOW GLO's are going about trying to "teach" them these points that becomes the problem. You can still emphasize "duty to the group" without secluding pledges in their own activities, or by putting them through activites that can be considered hazing because their participation is "loyalty" to the group.

Although some may see it as merely a name change, sometimes that can provide the spark needed to bring about a change in the feeling or attitude towards something. (kind of a marketing tactic)

If you give something dignity and respect from the outside...then it drives you to work towards making sure it fulfills that dignity and respect from the inside. I think that would force us to make our "pledge programs" live up to their new titles and ensure that what they are doing really falls under the purpose we claim they have and frankly should have.

It's the same idea behind "getting back to our foundations" if we are constantly reminded of the higher things our GLO's claim to aspire to, provide, or reflect, it drives us to actually live up to them. That's why nearly all GLO's have bylaws that require Ritual education programs even for active members and regular performance of their Ritual during "formal chapters"...it's to act as a regular reminder of our values, purposes, opportunities, standards, etc. so that we work to live up to them.

I say a small change in how we talk about our programs for "pledges" or "new members" along with a real look at the philosophy behind their purpose will lead to better results not only in our new initiates, but also in our organizations as a whole.

[JenMarie]

While there are some aspects of the "pledge" column that still have value in the education of future brothers and sisters, it is HOW GLO's are going about trying to "teach" them these points that becomes the problem. You can still emphasize "duty to the group" without secluding pledges in their own activities, or by putting them through activites that can be considered hazing because their participation is "loyalty" to the group.

I'll agree to that. I looked at that list and at the "pledge" column and said "wait we do that..." But then I looked at the comparison and said "well, wait, we do that too."

Granted these are the extremes of it. But I'm wondering if this campus is emphasizing that all their chapters are "New Member" programs, hense the need to package it all in a nice PDF chart? Because honestly, can any chapter be THAT perfect?

[PhoenixAzul]

I would like to argue the pledge-class unity thing...it is EXTREMELY important to bond and unite the pledge class. You're with those sisters for the rest of your college days, and as upperclassmen, you're going to be running exec and what have you, and I'd rather the girls unify themselves or have their knock-down-drag-outs as freshmen, rather than waiting till they're stuck together again to find out that they have no idea how to communicate with each other.

[UNLDelt]

Agreed that pledge class unity is very important...but we all know our GLO's are made up of more than one class...that unity has to go beyond 4 factions in a chapter. While a great practice round for this important element comes from creating the unity of one pledge class through specific program characteristics such as having their own officers, planning and carrying out their own events, adressing them as a group in REAL issues that effect them as a group (NOT just a group punishment mantality) and any group/team building excercises are great things to have in place in order to assist in building and instilling that important feeling of being a part of something bigger then themselves and having a duty to it.

But it has to also build outward towards the rest of the house...otherwise once they are initiated they may see that they are part of something bigger than themselves...but can they clearly see that they are part of something bigger than their pledge class? And that their loyalty needs to also lay with those classes older and younger than them and the fraternity as a whole and all it represents.

I think every GLO has had the class based "unity" cause issues, especially when dealing with the dicipline of problem members. Sometimes one class can block the chapter's vote from doing the right thing in diciplining a problem member just because he/she is a pledge brother or sister and they "don't want to be the bad guy to a pledge brother". But if the true purpose of unity was realized and achieved...they would have more loyalty to the chapter and its standards rather than one individual pledge brother/sister who truely did mess up.

Sometime the wrong kind of pledge class unity can cause a class to alienate ITSELF from the rest of the chapter...and when you have responsibility and leadership that spans age and pledge classes you have to make sure that in the end the unity is with the entire chapter as a whole...and not just one class. You don't want seniors who cannot respect the authority of juniors or even the reverse of that senario.

Again, the basis of the principle is there...but the tools we use to instill, or how we use them, can cause us to fall just short of the true goal.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by UNLDelt
Agreed that pledge class unity is very important...but we all know our GLO's are made up of more than one class...that unity has to go beyond 4 factions in a chapter. While a great practice round for this important element comes from creating the unity of one pledge class through specific program characteristics such as having their own officers, planning and carrying out their own events, adressing them as a group in REAL issues that effect them as a group (NOT just a group punishment mantality) and any group/team building excercises are great things to have in place in order to assist in building and instilling that important feeling of being a part of something bigger then themselves and having a duty to it.

But it has to also build outward towards the rest of the house...otherwise once they are initiated they may see that they are part of something bigger than themselves...but can they clearly see that they are part of something bigger than their pledge class? And that their loyalty needs to also lay with those classes older and younger than them and the fraternity as a whole and all it represents.

I think every GLO has had the class based "unity" cause issues, especially when dealing with the dicipline of problem members. Sometimes one class can block the chapter's vote from doing the right thing in diciplining a problem member just because he/she is a pledge brother or sister and they "don't want to be the bad guy to a pledge brother". But if the true purpose of unity was realized and achieved...they would have more loyalty to the chapter and its standards rather than one individual pledge brother/sister who truely did mess up.

Sometime the wrong kind of pledge class unity can cause a class to alienate ITSELF from the rest of the chapter...and when you have responsibility and leadership that spans age and pledge classes you have to make sure that in the end the unity is with the entire chapter as a whole...and not just one class. You don't want seniors who cannot respect the authority of juniors or even the reverse of that senario.

Again, the basis of the principle is there...but the tools we use to instill, or how we use them, can cause us to fall just short of the true goal.

I was going to say the same thing, only not as well as you did.

"Too much unity" can often create cliques in a chapter. While I adored my "pledge sisters" I also made sure I got to know the older actives and when the time came, the newer members. It makes for a more positive experience if you can get along and be close with as much of the chapter as possible. Cliques will only bring the chapter down.

[33girl]

I think it depends, also, on how big your pledge classes are. Also if you are at a school where anything but freshmen pledging is outside the norm. The fact that all the seniors hang out together isn't pledge class cliquiness, it's probably the fact that they're all seniors.

We never had problems with class unity overriding sorority unity. Yes, there were cliques in the chapter - every chapter has them - but they were rarely if ever based on pledge class.

I just think this is something used as an excuse that for many chapters is a complete nonissue.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by 33girl
I think it depends, also, on how big your pledge classes are. Also if you are at a school where anything but freshmen pledging is outside the norm. The fact that all the seniors hang out together isn't pledge class cliquiness, it's probably the fact that they're all seniors.

We never had problems with class unity overriding sorority unity. Yes, there were cliques in the chapter - every chapter has them - but they were rarely if ever based on pledge class.

I just think this is something used as an excuse that for many chapters is a complete nonissue.

I think you're right. It does depend on the chapter, pledge class size etc. Some times cliques won't be a problem. Sometimes they will.

[UNLDelt]

yes...it may be a chapter by chapter issue...and perhaps this is more of a large chapter issue.

But it is still good to keep the purpose of "unity building" and other aspects of pledge programs in perspective.

Just as these young men and women must eventually make the leap from "new member" or "pledge" to a full fledged brother or sister with all the rights and responsibilites that entails...so must the all of the lessons that we attempt to teach them during this early period make that same leap from pledge class operations to chapter wide operations.

[Tom Earp]

Originally posted by UNLDelt
yes...it may be a chapter by chapter issue...and perhaps this is more of a large chapter issue.

But it is still good to keep the purpose of "unity building" and other aspects of pledge programs in perspective.

Just as these young men and women must eventually make the leap from "new member" or "pledge" to a full fledged brother or sister with all the rights and responsibilites that entails...so must the all of the lessons that we attempt to teach them during this early period make that same leap from pledge class operations to chapter wide operations.

To True!
Learning via Education is a far cry from intimidation and beating it into the New PNMs.

But because of So many Hazing situations, so many things are outlawed as "they may" be Considered Hazing!

Outlawed Study Periods for one. What is the main reason that a Person goes to College? To Learn more and move on. It also means that said PNM must attain a certain GPA to be Initiated and an Active to Keep it up to stay Active and Graduate.

Building NM Unity, is another thing that often comes up. Cant make or do, or have them do anything that may seem like Hazing. Learning to Live and Work together as a Group should be a major part of The Learning Process.

We used tpo have Member Class Officers who in turn would learn responsibily on a smaller scale befor they became Initiated and had to take of all of the things that it took to Run a Business.

Yes, Each HQ is or should be run like a business as each Chapter should be or they will bankrupt.

What are The Main Positions?

1. Pres.
2.Vice Pres. to be groomed to take over.
3. Treasure to make sure Bills and expenses are paid.
4. Secretary, to keep records of what has been transcribed so that they can refer to them in case of questions.
5. Recruiter to make plans to get New Members.
6. Alum Chair who will keep sad Members involved and updated to help promote and try to collect donations.
7. Enterainment Chair to plan Social Events.
8. House Manager who will keep the facility in repair and fees and rent paid.
9. Scholarship Chair to make sure Grades are attained to stay in school and Active.

I cant think of another or two, but this is what it takes to Keep a Chapter and An IHQ functioning.

Does this sound like a Major Corporate Structure?

It is and We are all part of it at one time or another when We Deal with Our GLOs.

[emb021]

Originally posted by gpb1874
Since we often talk about pledging vs. new member education, i thought i would offer this thread. it is from San Diego State University:

http://www.greeklife.sdsu.edu/docume...pmentChart.pdf

offers some interesting points on how the two CONCEPTS are different (not just talking what you call the new peeps). I think it goes right along with how GPB tries to be inclusive with their new members. it's not seen as "earning your letters" but as educating them on what it means to be a member by having them do lots of things with the whole chapter.

any other thoughts? what about those from the varrying types of ORGS - NPC, NIC, NPHC, NALFO, locals? would be interested to see how you view your process as a whole.

I have to agree with others that this list, while interesting, has some major flaws.

Biggest, to me, is that "pledging" and "new member education" are NOT "two concepts". They are mearly 2 lapels for how we deal with new people coming into our organization. They seem to have taken all that some call bad and say 'this is pledging' and all that some call good and say 'this is new member education'. And to lapel it 'traditional pledge program' doesn't work, because the concept of pledge programs HAS changed in the 200 years of GLO, and can be very different amoung certain groups of GLOs (BGLO vs everyone else, etc)

Let me touch on each one point.

* Assimiliation/rite of passage. Sorry, but rite of passage has never been a part of my orgs official pledging program. It has always been about bringing the pledge into the organization. (sadly, there are always some chapters who didn't/don't get this)

* Emphasis. Ideally, these should be equal in a group. You develop the individual so they can help the group. My org has always been about developing the individual thru the work we do.

* Unity. Pledge class unity was only stressed when it came toward getting the pledge class to work together as a group and achieve their projects, which would lead to the larger group goals. We could also criticise that chapter unity has been stressed at the expense of national unity of our organizations. I've seen this in some members who put their chapter before the national organization.

* Responsibility. Its always been the responsibility of all the members to ensure the success of the pledges. The pledgemaster (and the pledge's Big) have a specific responsibility in this area.

* Training. rote vs real learning. Well, this issue is true of our larger education system. Its up to each chapter to truely teach the material, not make pledges memorize stuff, and especially meaningless stuff (favorite color of all the members vs understanding the fundamentals of the organization)

* Communication. Again, this will depend on the chapter. Yes, some chapters too often go with the one-way method. Many chapters will make it clear it should be two-way.

* Development. Again, as with our education system, there is an issue with having people think education ends when their class end or they graduate, rather then being on-going. Many organizations will follow up pledge programs with on-going membership education programs to ensure this happens.

* High point of program. Sorry, but "Hell Week" is not part of my organization's national pledge program, never has been.

* Prime motivators. Again, fear and intimidation have never been part of my organization's national pledge program.

* New members as brothers/sisters vs subservient pledges. Again, in some organization/chapters, the attitude of the subservient pledge may exist or used to exist. In my organization, it never had a part, however, there have been some chapters/brothers that 'didn't get the message'.