[13097] in APO-L
Re: Voting on Pledges...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Liston Bias)
Fri Oct 27 12:26:43 1995
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:11:37 -0500
Reply-To: bias@OSUUNX.UCC.OKSTATE.EDU
From: Liston Bias <bias@OSUUNX.UCC.OKSTATE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.PMDF.3.91.951027101220.539207454A-100000
@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
On Fri, 27 Oct 1995, Randy Finder wrote:
> > 19. METHOD OF SELECTION following pledging. An appropriate period of
> > pledging includes objective determinations for eligibility to receive
> > active membership based upon the individual's successful completion of
> > program requirements. The completion by a pledge of all chapter
> > requirements established at the beginning of the pledging experience is a
> > strong indivation that active membership may not be denied by the chapter.
>
> What that ends up meaning in real terms is the following...
> 1)A chapter should have a purely objective set of requirements.
I actually thought to interpret differently... First of all, can one have
an objective determination of subjective requirements? I was thinking one
could say they do if one of the criteria was "meets the spirit of the
principles." Secondly, if pledging is "more than a set of requirements"
then we add to above a subjective factor and then vote.
> 2)If a pledge passes them, the chapter better have a damn good reason to
> deny them membership. (Doesn't need to be quite as strong as reasons for
> suspending a brother from chapter membership, but should be close)
Interesting... Does Robert's Rules provide for suspending membership? I
know you can kick someone out of meeting with Robert's Rules.
> 3)If a pledge does not pass them, a chapter still has the right to vote
> them in.
Hey that is what OSU is doing :-)
> 4)However the pledge requirements should not be set so high that the
> chapter ends up being able to vote on all (or most) pledges on a regular
> basis.
OSU actually set their standards quite high (we think) even though we ask
nothing of pledges we don't ask of brothers (other than signatures and
knowledge stuff we already did). We expect their actions to convey their
interest. If they are not serious about us then we will not be serious
about them.
In closing, I don't think the above means much of anything.... The
rationale behind it is obviously to prevent black-balling or popularity
votes, but whenever you have a vote you risk this. Tell me to trust my
brother... I have enough trouble trusting self with voting. I vote with
instincts...
What are we being subjective about?
* does this person fit in
* do they meet the "spirit" of the principles
* are they like us
* are they a threat
* do we think they are a bad person
I'm not saying that above isn't valid. I think they are. Our group just
doesn't want to go there. Guaranteeing someone (whether international,
black, white, male, female, homo-sexual, smart, dum, etc.) that they will
be inviting into our active membership if they complete x,y,z is more
important. Maybe my experience is strongly skued, but people like
guarantees... it is difficult enought to get involved with people unlike
you without knowing they will except you if you don't "gel." I keep
hearing how many chapters are subjective in their voting but they have not
ever seen anyone voted down - it's just there to protect them. I think we
loose people (diversity) way before voting when we are subjective.
If voting works in your chapter, go for it!
Just my 3 cents... I think I got winded :-)
============================================================================
-- Liston Bias The mark of a true professional
Oklahoma State University is giving more than you get.
Alumni of Florida State Univ
bias@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu
http://www.vsl.ist.ucf.edu/~hillis/liston.html
============================================================================
