[9696] in APO-L
Subjective vs. Objective Pledging Standards.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (packy Anderson)
Fri Oct 7 08:38:57 1994
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 08:37:21 -0400
Reply-To: packy Anderson <anderpa@RPI.EDU>
From: packy Anderson <anderpa@RPI.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: apo-l@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU,C2MXALL@FRE.TOWSON.EDU
Subj: Subjective vs. Objective Pledging Standards.
Jonathan brings up a valid point.
It is my understanding that the current to-do about pledging standards comes
from schools and states getting tougher on the "H"-word: Hazing.
The reducto ad absurdum argument to eliminate hazing goes like this: Hazing
happens whenever something happens to differentiate a brother from a pledge.
In theory, this sets up pledges as second-class members, which is
discriminitory and hurts the pledges.
Now, nobody wants to cast pledges as second-class citizens. Unfortunately,
we are a Fraternity based on principles, and we would expect that pledges
demonstrate understanding and committment to those principles before becoming
Brothers. Some would do that exclusively though pre-determined, enumerative
standards. Other chapters would like to have subjective standards as well.
How can we do this without making people upset about unattainable or uneven
standards for pledging? Well, we need to look at another situation that we
should all be familiar with where we are judged by how well we demonstrate our
understanding and fulfill expectations: school.
Does anyone argue that Bachelors degrees are unevenly awarded? Ok, maybe some
people do, but most don't. Schools have set standards that students are
judged by. Ok, here's the example:
I'm a doctoral student at XYZ U. I'm working on a thesis; I do research, I
write my paper, I talk with my thesis advsors. Eventually, I have my thesis
defense. My advisors have questions and I don't answer all of them to their
satisfaction. They tell me what they don't like and send me back to do more
research.
Is this unreasonable? I've done all the work--but I didn't demonstrate
sufficient understanding to satisfy the professors. So I do some more
research. I revise my paper, and three months later I re-present it.
They ask questions, I answer them, they deliberate, and I'm granted the PhD.
Voila! I'm in.
Now apply this to pledging. Pledges do research (participating in Chapter
Leadership, Fellowship and Service activities), they talk to advisors (the
Brothers), and they write a thesis paper (their Pledge Book). Eventually,
a pledge needs to come up for approval. They've done the research, but should
they be granted the degree? Only if the Brothers think so. If the Brothers
of a chapter think that the pledge demonstrates understanding of their
research, they are granted Brotherhood. If not, they get sent back to do more
research.
The problem comes from establishing standards and procedures so the review and
approval of pledges isn't uneven or unfair. Such a task requires compassion,
wisdom, and sensitivity toward the expectations of others (namely, the school).
Yours Fraternally,
In LF&S,
-packy
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| packy, "Cookie Monster" anderpa@rpi.edu |
| EZ alum, Nat#240135, Chap#797 1516 Jacob St., Troy, NY 12180 |
| Section 88 Staff W: (518) 436-2754 |
| ABX Section Representative H: (518) 274-5939 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
