[15505] in APO-L
Pledge voting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Laura A Costa)
Tue Nov 12 14:37:38 1996
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:22:33 -0500
Reply-To: Laura A Costa <lcosta@RUNET.EDU>
From: Laura A Costa <lcosta@RUNET.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
I tend to agree with Bill on this one. We need to remember that there
are three cardinal principles: leadership, friendship and service. If a
pledge is routinely rude to brothers, that pledge is definitely not
exemplifying the cardinal principle of friendship. While I do believe
that objective standards are a necessary part of the pledge period, I do
not believe that they should be the only measure of how a pledge is
doing. I believe that there is no place in this fraternity for
selfishness or rudeness or other such behavior. In fact, prospective
pledges and neophytes are asked to set aside all such behavior during the
pledge ritual and initiation ritual. It's right there in the ritual
books! Therefore, if a chapter feels that a pledge is being rude and
making inappropriate comments, particularly about brothers or other
pledges, the chapter should by all means have every right to
involuntarily depledge that person, even if that pledge has met that
chapter's objective pledging standards. To do otherwise could ruin the
chapter and alienate brothers. It could have a disastrous effect on
intrachapter relations. This is why I agree with my chapter's provision
for vote-ins at three separate times during the rush/pledging period:
closed rush, midterms (4 weeks into pledging) and finals (at the end of 8
weeks of pledging). This way we can evaluate the pledges and decide as a
chapter if we feel that these pledges would be deserving of brother
status. We do have objective standards but we also must determine if the
pledges exemplify the cardinal principle of friendship through their
actions and their speech.
In LFS,
Laura (Dot)
Alpha Beta Zeta
Radford University
