tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83840467050464715702024-03-24T05:52:41.612-07:00Doctor Gentry's BlogDoctor Gentry's Blog covers a variety of topics related to student affairs and the fraternity/sorority industry, including hazing prevention, brother/sisterhood, Title IX, student development and more. Follow Dr. Gentry McCreary on twitter @doctorgentryGentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-57773670514952197802021-04-14T13:35:00.000-07:002021-04-14T13:35:07.836-07:00We Need to Make it Easier for Fraternity Leaders to Get Rid of Bad Apples<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc3tKU0CZVHrRXJRfQTiWq74fP1QSuWTOAY-NUh6KCErHuU0Db6Dv5sYa2yWNrC_wrBLp2fwwuwedrGTwuUIy0w3kqvd-z44k_ZRt2hy0mwWqlUpzYRpX7JsCOfaMj-OnetSI1xUz78vKY/s800/bad+apple.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc3tKU0CZVHrRXJRfQTiWq74fP1QSuWTOAY-NUh6KCErHuU0Db6Dv5sYa2yWNrC_wrBLp2fwwuwedrGTwuUIy0w3kqvd-z44k_ZRt2hy0mwWqlUpzYRpX7JsCOfaMj-OnetSI1xUz78vKY/s320/bad+apple.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br />I haven’t posted anything to this blog in a long time. Most
of my writing time these days is devoted to reports for clients, although I was
able to carve out some time recently to publish our Dyad Strategies Whitepaper
(which you need to read <a href="https://www.dyadstrategies.com/news/whitepaper" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">here</span></a>, if you haven’t already, because it provides valuable
context for this post) as well as a companion commentary piece in the Chronicle
of Higher Education (which you also need to read and can be found <a href="https://www.chronicle.com/article/what-can-campus-leaders-do-about-a-surge-in-fraternity-hazing?cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">here</span></a>). We also
launched the Dyad Podcast in the last year, and most of my creative energies have been
applied there. So, the blog has just sat and gathered virtual dust for a while.<p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If you read the piece I published in the Chronicle, you will see that I lay out three things that we need to be thinking about as we approach the
return to “normal” in the Fall. To summarize, we have to rethink our approach to recruitment
and incentivize our chapters to go out and find more maybe and never joiners,
we need to be prepared to provide some intensive alcohol dependency
interventions, and we need to get serious about addressing the power
differential inherent in a two-tiered active/pledge membership structure. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Over the next few weeks, I’m going to drop a few blog posts
as an addendum to the Chronicle article. There are a lot of other things we
can/should be doing to prepare for the post-COVID environment, and I can be a
bit more candid on my blog that I might be in a Chronicle piece. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This week, I want to talk about systems of accountability.
We’ve been preaching accountability for years, but during that time we have not
done much to update or improve our systems of accountability to meet the unique
needs of a new generation of students. In my <a href="https://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2019/01/why-are-things-so-bad-four-problematic.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #2b00fe;">last blog post</span></a> (written over two
years ago) I highlight some of the research emerging around post-millennial
students and their developmental inability to engage in meaningful
confrontation. Traditional systems of accountability (which rely heavily on
dated notions of self-governance) just aren’t working like they used to. As a
result, more bad members are able to stay around chapters and inflict more damage
than ever before. We have to make it easier for chapters to get rid of their
bad apples. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When I speak to fraternity members about hazing, one of the
things I always do is ask them to close their eyes and picture the faces of the
guys in their chapter who are the most likely to cross the line with a new
member and do something that might actually hurt someone. Interestingly, no one
ever has any difficulty with this task. Our chapter leaders know who their bad
apples are, but in most organizations, they feel completely powerless to do
anything about them. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here is the the reality – in most groups, it takes a two-thirds
vote of the entire chapter to expel a member. Even before the post-millennial
generation and their inability to navigate healthy confrontation showed up on
campus, a 2/3 vote by a chapter to expel someone was a tall order, but at this
point it’s nearly impossible to expel someone short of them actually doing something truly awful. Because they are not gluttons for punishment, most chapter presidents are
not willing to jump through the hoops necessary to even try to expel someone if they know the
process is bound for failure. Why expend the emotional energy and political
capital to expel someone when the process is destined to fail and half of the
chapter is going to hate you when the process is over? Most chapter leaders
feel completely powerless to do anything to rein in the behavior of their worst
members. The result is that these bad apples are allowed to sit around and
contaminate the other apples around them until they finally do something bad enough
to get them expelled. But at that point, it is generally too late, because the
thing that would finally get them expelled ends up with someone getting hurt
and the chapter being closed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think Phi Delta Theta has a really good model for how we
can make getting rid of bad members easier for chapters. In their process, all a
chapter president has to do is ask their regional director (a high-level volunteer
position) to remove a member. No trial by chapter. No 2/3 majority. The regional
director simply talks to a few people, and if he decides the expulsion is
warranted, he signs off on it. Of course, there is an appeal process to ensure
that the ease of this process is not abused by a chapter president out seeking
retribution on his enemies, which is all you really need in terms of a safety
net. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Until we acknowledge that what might have worked 25 years
ago in terms of self-governance isn’t going to work today, our chapters are going
to struggle to effectively deal with their bad apples. We are living in a
period in which those rogue members have felt increasingly empowered to take
matters into their own hands, behind closed doors, in private residences away
from campus (as appears to be the case in the deaths of both Adam Oakes and
Stone Foltz). If we want to avoid further disaster in our fraternity chapters
this Fall, we have to take proactive steps now to make the process of expelling
problem members easier. <o:p></o:p></p>Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-62907938686558046132019-01-03T09:01:00.001-08:002019-01-07T09:14:52.414-08:00Why Are Things So Bad? Four Problematic Trends Impacting the Fraternity/Sorority Experience<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjDB5x1FH4WoQMA2QdPs2wRLClv_iQv4z57nY2pejzQXJnTrfEAka9MrkYk2M90PpANFSnd8X1WgMiSktYCxFMBcFyjCaG_88gTqJwoYPkQZVR-cll8nIoJaENsVL8Ji3-BTAHAGEtwjqT/s1600/rock+bottom.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="507" data-original-width="676" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjDB5x1FH4WoQMA2QdPs2wRLClv_iQv4z57nY2pejzQXJnTrfEAka9MrkYk2M90PpANFSnd8X1WgMiSktYCxFMBcFyjCaG_88gTqJwoYPkQZVR-cll8nIoJaENsVL8Ji3-BTAHAGEtwjqT/s320/rock+bottom.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Those of us who have spent a decade or more working in the
fraternity/sorority industry will all point to 2017 as a watershed year. 2017
changed everything. Five hazing deaths. Dozens of system-wide shutdowns.
Hundreds of closed chapters. If rock bottom is a thing, 2017 was it for the
fraternity and sorority industry. And while 2018 represented a great step in
the right direction (major steps forward in terms of policies around alcohol
and the partnership with the Piazza, Gruver, and Braham families – both major
wins for the NIC), those of us who have been doing this work for a while are
all asking ourselves the same thing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How did things get so bad?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Don’t get me wrong – we’ve always had our problems. We
didn’t just wake up in 2017 and, out of nowhere, we had all of these new
problems with hazing and alcohol abuse. The problems have always been there,
but in recent years, those issues have become much more acute. Things are worse
than they’ve ever been, and the rise in problematic behavior has spiked in recent
years compared to the relatively stable nature of these problems in the
previous decade. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, what has occurred in the last 3-5 years to catalyze the
downward spiral in FSL? Below, I offer four interconnected trends that I think
are the most responsible for the challenges we see in FSL today. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u>Trend 1 – Students’ Developmental Inability to Self-Govern</u></b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Much has been written of the post-millennial generation –
both good and bad. While there is still much we don’t know about the group,
they now represent the overwhelming majority of students on most campuses, and an even larger majority of students
in our fraternity/sorority chapters. While the research on Gen Z is mixed and
many of their characteristics remain unclear, one character trait that has
become clear should strike all of us in FSL as particularly problematic – members of Gen Z lack basic confrontation and conflict resolution skills. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="mso-comment-date: 20190101T1718; mso-comment-done: yes; mso-comment-reference: MOU_3;"><br /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here is what the
<a href="https://search.proquest.com/openview/5c1756245d726378f2c94231b4b6f8da/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=42913"><span style="color: blue;">research in this area points</span></a> to - because of their helicopter parents, members
of Gen Z received much less of what psychologists call “unsupervised,
unstructured playtime” during their childhood and adolescent years. Their
parents or other adults were almost always around. As a result, any time
conflict emerged between a group of Gen Z kids, parents would almost inevitably
jump in and resolve the conflict. Because of this, members of Gen Z acquired
much less experience than previous generations resolving conflicts with their
peers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-comment-continuation: 3;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, they show up on campus and join our organizations and
we tell them to “self-govern” and “hold one another accountable” while the
research tells us that they are uniquely unprepared to do either of those
things. Self-governance and peer-to-peer accountability requires navigating
conflict, something that these students are wholly unprepared to do.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This inability to self-govern is one of the primary reasons
that things have gotten worse in the last few years. In the not so distant
past, chapters were much more willing to confront members who engaged in
problematic behavior through both formal and informal systems of accountability
(I’ve written about those two systems <a href="https://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2018/02/lessons-on-accountability.html"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>). Now, those confrontations are few
and far between. Members are much less likely to be called to task for their
problematic behaviors, are much less likely to be punished for any wrong-doing,
and as a result are more and more emboldened to carry out their anti-social
behaviors without any meaningful checks or balances. The pressure to conform to
pro-social group norms is much less pronounced than it was even just a few
years ago, when millennials made up the majority of our chapters. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u>Trend 2 – Motivation to Join is Becoming Increasingly
Social</u></b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" style="mso-comment-date: 20190101T1720; mso-comment-done: yes; mso-comment-reference: MOU_4;"><br /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Technology has had a tremendous impact on the amount of
information available to would-be consumers of the fraternity and sorority
experience. Again, this is a relatively new change. Ten years ago, before the
onset of social media, the available information related to the
fraternity/sorority experience was limited to a handful of websites, the TV
show “Greek” and a handful of movies. Not anymore. Today, the market is flooded
with websites and social media accounts, many of which promote some of the more
unsavory aspects of the fraternity/sorority experience: Old Row, Total
Frat/Sorority Move and GreekRank, just to name a few. In addition, we’ve seen
increasing national media coverage of the fraternity/sorority industry. Stories
that, only a few years ago, would have been limited to campus or local
newspapers are now viral stories on major national media outlets. Would-be
consumers of the fraternity/sorority experience are bombarded with negative
images and messages about the fraternity/sorority experience – hazing, alcohol
abuse, sexual assault, racism – and are choosing to join us in spite of all
that. Or, as our research at Dyad suggests, they are now choosing to join us
BECAUSE of all that. They are fully aware of the stereotype and the
“problematic” aspects of fraternity/sorority life, and they are signing up for
the experience. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of the new measures our research team at Dyad Strategies
has developed in the last year captures “motivation to join.” Students are
motivated by a variety of factors – some join for involvement/leadership
opportunities, some join for a home/sense of belonging, others join for
networking opportunities, and others join for the social aspects of the
fraternity/sorority experience. While the data we have gathered thus far is not
longitudinal, they suggest a problematic trend – that students today are very
likely to be joining for social reasons as opposed to leadership, involvement,
or sense of belonging. Over time, we’ve seen tremendous spikes in the last few
years on brother/sisterhood based on the shared social experience. Students are
increasingly prioritizing the social aspects of membership over the other, more
altruistic aspects of the experience. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why does this matter? Ten years ago, we had a lot more
students in organizations who cared about more than just the party scene. This change causes problems of its own, but it is not solely responsible for our challenges
today. We have always had a certain percentage of members who only cared about,
or at least prioritized, the social aspects of membership. Historically, there
have generally been enough responsible leaders in chapters to keep those
members at bay and to keep things, for the most part, from running off the
rails. But because of the negative publicity and the promulgation of the negative
stereotypes, students who are serious about both leadership and their academic
pursuits and careers after college are becoming increasingly less likely to
join fraternities and sororities. This is magnified by the availability of
other options on campus for those students – living learning communities,
academically focused honor societies, and student programming boards are all
thriving on campuses where only a decade ago, Greek Life was the only
leadership game in town. For many students, fraternity/sorority membership on a
resume’ looks much less glamorous than it did a decade ago. As a result, we
have a smaller percentage of chapter leaders fighting back against the negative
cultures in their chapters. At best, chapter leaders feel completely
overwhelmed by the challenges within their chapters and eventually give up. At
worst, chapter leaders are complicit with the issues and are part of the
problem. This toxic combination – more members motivated by social pursuits, a
dip in leadership quality resulting from less students joining for altruistic
reasons, and the aforementioned lack of confrontation skills – has been a
recipe for disaster. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This problem, on its own, may represent our single greatest
challenge as an industry. Until we are able to address who joins and why they
join, our struggles with social culture will continue. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u>Trend 3 – Increasing Societal Political Polarization Impacting
FSL</u></b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Much has been written about the increasing political
polarization in our society, and the impact that polarization is having on our
relationships, our voting patterns, and digestion of news. What has not been
written about, until now, is how increasing political polarization is impacting
the fraternity/sorority experience. While what I’m about to lay out here is
anecdotal and based purely on my own observations, I believe we will soon have
data to confirm what has been happening for the last few years. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While fraternity and sorority members have historically been
<a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/article/543148/summary"><span style="color: blue;">more culturally conservative than their unaffiliated peers</span></a>, those differences
are becoming more pronounced. Unaffiliated students are increasingly
progressive, and fraternity (and to some extent, sorority) members are
increasingly conservative. Even within the fraternity/sorority community, there
is less ideological diversity than there was 10 years ago, and chapters are now
more or less divided along ideological lines. Within any given
fraternity/sorority community (excluding culturally-based groups), you’ll see a
handful (approximately 10-15 percent of chapters) in which a majority of members
align left-of-center politically, and a majority of groups that view themselves
as a bulwark against what they perceive to be an increasingly liberal student
body and a biased university administration obsessed with political
correctness and the advancement of a liberal agenda. A majority of IFC fraternities on most
campuses could be best described as MAGA, ultra-conservative counter-cultures
fighting against what they believe is the liberal establishment on their
campuses. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a zero-sum game where making my opponent suffer is good for me
and my team, this political polarization manifests itself in increasingly
unhealthy ways. Anything that fraternity members perceive to be a product of
liberalism on the other team is met with resistance and skepticism, if not
outright hostility. And some really important things end up getting filtered by
this partisan political lens through which everything is viewed – sexual
assault prevention, diversity and inclusion initiatives, conversations around
masculinity, etc. You name it. If students perceive it to be the product of
doctrinaire liberalism, they will ignore it, resist it, or fight back against
it, especially when <a href="https://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2015/12/im-sick-and-tired-of-hearing-about-h.html"><span style="color: blue;">we begin hurling names at them</span></a> and making them feel like
part of the problem. And because of the increasing political homogeneity within
our organizations, it is increasingly less likely that one of these groups will
have voices of moderation to push back against the MAGA voices in their
chapters. These opinions are increasingly likely to be held in a vacuum where
no one dare challenge the mind guards who dominate the political viewpoints of
the group. And because of the aforementioned deficit of conflict resolution
skills in our chapters, those who disagree with the mind guards will likely do so in silence. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the political polarization doesn’t stop there. As I’ve
noted before, in the last decade we have seen a significant
shift to the left among student affairs practitioners. <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/10/17/student-affairs-administrators-even-more-liberal-professors-survey-shows"><span style="color: blue;">Studies have shown</span></a> that student affairs
administrators are even more likely than faculty members to describe themselves
as “liberal” or “very liberal.” I think one the greatest challenges in our
industry today is the inability of increasingly liberal fraternity/sorority
advisors to meaningfully connect with, support, and provide meaningful support
for student groups that are culturally much more conservative. In our world of
tribal politics, many FSA’s, particularly younger millennials in the
profession, struggle to build relationships with students and alumni/volunteers
because they come from completely different political tribes. Most
fraternity/sorority advisors are speaking a completely different language than the majority of their students. The disconnect between many advisors and
their communities has never been more pronounced than it is today, and the
problem appears to only be getting worse. As I travel the country and meet
undergraduate students, I meet a lot of chapter leaders who are operating
without any sort of meaningful, trusting relationships with the fraternity/sorority
office on their campuses. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This problem is closely connected to the fourth and final
trend I will discuss. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u>Trend 4 - The FSL Talent Gap</u></b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some of my colleagues made a lot of hay over the fact that I
had the audacity to suggest, in advance of the AFA Annual Meeting, that our
industry suffers from a talent gap. I do not think it is outlandish to suggest
that, just maybe, we could all be a little better at our jobs. In fact, this
wasn’t even the first time I’ve talked about this issue. A few years ago, <a href="https://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2014/10/building-case-for-careers-in.html"><span style="color: blue;">I wrote about</span></a> the fact that we expect the youngest, lowest-paid and least
experienced people in student affairs to do one of the hardest jobs on campus,
and we scratch our heads and wonder why things are so bad.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I said that there is a talent gap in FSL, did I mean that we have dumb, untalented people working in our industry? Of course not.<span class="MsoCommentReference"><span style="font-size: 8.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><span style="mso-special-character: comment;"> </span></span></span>What I DID mean is that we have a lot of
young people who lack experience holding many of these critical positions on
our campuses, and that many of our best and brightest leave the field within a
few years. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The talent gap manifests itself in many ways. For example:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;">- </span><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Fraternity/sorority </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">directors </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">(assuming the campus even has a director-level
position for FSL) are the youngest and lowest paid directors in student affairs.
Because of this, a majority of fraternity/sorority professionals leave the
industry within five years.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">- Campuses, particularly at Power 5 schools,
routinely fail searches for directors because there are so few people with the
experience and skills necessary to do those jobs who are actually interested in
having those jobs.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">- I can count on my two hands the number of
talented, capable people doing this work who have been doing it for 15 years or
more, and even fewer who have been doing it that long on the same campus.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The talent gap in and of itself is not new. But there are a
few aspects of the talent gap that are new, and have only begun manifesting in
the last few years. I’ve already discussed one new feature – the political gulf
between many FSA’s and most of their students. But there is another element of
the talent gap that is even more problematic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Millennials. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Millennials now make up a majority of the workforce among
fraternity/sorority advisors. And we know that millennials bring to the
workforce a number of traits that most workplaces have not seen
in the past. In particular, two
millennial workplace trends have worked in combination to take a bad situation
in fraternity and sorority life and somehow make it worse.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, millennials are interested in pursing their passions.
They are altruistic in that they are more motivated by doing work that they
find interesting and meaningful than in just making money. Good, right? However, new research in student affairs by Ardoin, Crandall & Shinn (2018) reveals a gap between what early
career professionals are bringing to student affairs and what senior student affairs
officers expect and need from them. Many young fraternity/sorority advisors are more
interested in doing work that aligns with their passions, regardless of whether
or not that work is needed with their students, whether or not that work is a
priority for their departments/divisions, and whether or not that work makes a
difference in terms of moving the needle related to social culture on campus.
For example, young fraternity/sorority advisors passionate about traditional
gender roles and hypermasculinity are going to try to find ways to work conversations/programs about hypermasculinity into almost everything they
do, regardless of whether or not those conversations are needed, whether or not
students are prepared to listen to the message, and whether or not those
conversations are helping move the needle with regards to the important issues
in their community. While conversations about hypermasculinity (and other
topics) are important, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem
looks like a nail. Name the topic – hyper-masculinity, social justice, authenticity/vulnerability,
whatever – and many young FSA’s would rather spend a significant amount of their
working hours talking about and doing work involving whatever topic it is that
drives their passion. Then, this trend intersects with the other problematic
trend with millennials in the workforce.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Job-hopping. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.gallup.com/workplace/231587/millennials-job-hopping-generation.aspx"><span style="color: blue;">Research has shown a very clear trend on this issue</span></a> –
millennials are much more likely to leave their jobs after a short period of
time than previous generations. In our industry, after pursuing their passions
for a year or two without any tangible results, they jump ship and move on to
what they perceive to be greener pastures, only to continue to be unfulfilled
and – this is the important part – the problems on their campuses get worse and
worse. It is nearly impossible to build meaningful, trusting relationships with
students and stakeholders and then be able to leverage those relationships in
meaningful ways in order to push back against the negative social cultures on
campus in a period of less than two years. So a new FSA comes to campus, spends
a majority of their time doing what they are most interested in doing
regardless of need, quickly grows disillusioned because they feel that they
aren’t making an impact, and then leaves their job within two years. Little
progress is made, and then the campus hires someone new to come in and the
process repeats itself. No continuity, no progress, and no change. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Meanwhile, as we are spinning our wheels with constant staff
turnover, the challenges within the campus social cultures continue to spiral
downward, which inevitably leads to campus professionals pointing their fingers
at national headquarters staff for not doing enough to correct these social
problems. Then things get so bad that campuses institute system-wide shutdowns,
angering students, alumni, and national organizations who see decreasing value
in the support that campuses provide their chapters, further hampering campus
professionals’ ability to build the trusting, meaningful relationships required
to move the needle in a positive direction. Some (not all) national groups and
alumni are increasingly willing to operate chapters unrecognized by their
campuses because they see diminishing value in the support and services that
are attached to campus recognition. Some national organizations feel that, on
many campuses, they can support their chapters from afar better than on-campus
professionals can support them. This leads to a lack of trust within the
profession, which leads to AFA Business Meetings devolving into childish bickering
about who can and cannot hold leadership positions within AFA. All while the social
culture in our communities continues to spiral downward. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Each of these four trends are interconnected. They are
intertwined in complicated ways. Further, we are only beginning to understand
the impact of some of these trends. What will happen when post-millennials
begin entering the workforce? What will happen if national fraternities become
increasingly supportive of independent IFC’s? What will happen when the women’s
groups begin seeing the same behavioral challenges as the men’s groups as the
sorority experience becomes increasingly social (as our research indicates it
already is)? There are many things we do not yet know about these four trends,
how they will morph over the coming years, or what, exactly, should be done
about them. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All of this leads to an obvious question – what can/should
be done about these trends? While space does not allow me to tackle that
question here, I hope to attempt tackle that question in future posts. The
answers are complicated, but a good step forward in finding solutions is having
an accurate description of the problems. That is what I have attempted to lay
out here – an accurate description of what I see as the four intersecting
problems that have led to our current environment. By understanding these four
trends and their consequences, we can begin to work collectively as a field to
find those answers. I look forward to serious conversations with serious people
about the steps that need to be taken as we seek out those answers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div style="mso-element: comment-list;">
<div style="mso-element: comment;">
<div class="msocomtxt" id="_com_15" language="JavaScript">
<!--[if !supportAnnotations]--></div>
<!--[endif]--></div>
</div>
<br />Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-79050957514882752862018-09-19T09:32:00.000-07:002018-09-20T05:17:47.737-07:00Structural Barriers to Diversity in Panhellenic Sororities <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj88vNRIkOjm7oXgzj8fD03f6K1q1PY3AdGAuex48EtWSlFl7-NTReJPsgd-F_Mruj8s-JF5h1MTRnxyELLNCyfu5_0kkjVmJWgBZ5ktUAdcOg96SITEcTf1XPuCuVt4Q2d2mxNYiMLGsTO/s1600/diversity.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="900" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj88vNRIkOjm7oXgzj8fD03f6K1q1PY3AdGAuex48EtWSlFl7-NTReJPsgd-F_Mruj8s-JF5h1MTRnxyELLNCyfu5_0kkjVmJWgBZ5ktUAdcOg96SITEcTf1XPuCuVt4Q2d2mxNYiMLGsTO/s320/diversity.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I was visiting a campus recently, and in a conversation with
a group of Panhellenic women, a conversation came up about diversity. It was an
unexpected conversation, but one in which, given <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2013/09/sorority-recruitment-and-discrimination.html"><span style="color: blue;">my previous experiences with the topic</span></a> during my time at Alabama, I was eager to engage. This was a large
community on a campus that hosts Panhellenic recruitment before classes start.
As we were discussing some efforts the University was making with regards to
diversity and inclusion, a young woman asked the following question:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Since our recruitment is such an organized system, and
chapters aren’t really engaged in recruiting women to participate in the
process, isn’t the lack of diversity in our community more of a systemic issue
instead of a chapter issue? Is there anything we can do about that?”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The question spawned a great conversation, and some ideas
that I’ll share in a minute. But the conversation also got me thinking – are
there structural barriers to diversity in Panhellenic sorority chapters? If so,
what are they? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, I wanted to check the data, so I logged into <a href="https://www.dyadstrategies.com/"><span style="color: blue;">Dyad’s data dashboard</span></a> to check out the demographics of our fraternity and sorority
samples. Here’s what I found.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fraternities, on average, are 27 percent non-white in terms
of their membership. Sororities, on the other hand, are 16 percent non-white.
In other words, in terms of the percentage of members, fraternities are nearly
twice as diverse as sororities. Fraternities are much more representative, in
terms of racial diversity, of the demographic breakdowns on the campuses at
which they exist than campus sororities, which are much more white. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why? Are sorority members more racist than fraternity
members? Of course not – this notion should be immediately dismissed out of
hand as absurd. If anything, my experience tells me that sorority members are
much more attune to issues of inclusion and, if left to their own devices,
sororities would, in fact, be more diverse than fraternities. Our data at Dyad
shows no difference between fraternity and sorority members on the measure of
Openness to Diversity. But there are structural barriers inhibiting this
openness to diversity from manifesting into actual diversity. When I think
about what those structural barriers might be, three likely candidates
immediately come to mind. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>1. Formal Recruitment and the Quota/Total System</b> – The entire
formal recruitment process, including the total/quota system, particularly on
campuses where formal recruitment happens at or even before the beginning of
the Fall semester, is filled with structural barriers. First, many campuses
charge rather high fees in order to participate in formal sorority recruitment,
asking women to invest in a process with no guarantees that the process will
end in an invitation to membership. This is rarely the case with fraternities,
who charge small fees, if any, to participate in the process. Next, the timing
likely plays an issue. By hosting recruitment at the beginning of the semester,
or even before classes begin, we eliminate a large segment of potential members
who have little to no knowledge about the process based on information gleaned
from family and friends, and are thus less likely to know about registering in
time. Once they get to campus and find out about recruitment, we charge them an exorbitant late registration fee if they want to go through the process. Many chapters on
many campuses then require letters of recommendation, which can present a
significant barrier if the student comes from a family/community where not a
lot of people they know were in sororities. Then, because of the total/quota
system, very few chapters on any given campus will participate in any sort of
informal recruitment process. The COB process often involves only a handful of
chapters with a small number of open spots that are often hastily offered to
women who participated in the formal recruitment process, because there is a
negative stigma in having to continue actually recruiting people once the
formal recruitment process is over. Those chapters above total are given no
opportunity to look for and recruit a more diverse membership – they are left
to only choose from those women who participate in formal recruitment each
year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that pool lacks diversity,
their chapter will be left with few, if any, options to recruit a more diverse
membership. This is all in stark contrast to fraternities, who generally have
less structured processes, often wait to recruit members until after the Fall
semester has begun, are more open to and willing to recruit other potential
members throughout the year without fear of stigma, are more likely to recruit
a second new member class in the spring semester, and are not governed by the
quota/total system. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>2. Advisor Involvement in Recruitment</b> – The challenge associated with too much advisor involvement in the recruitment process <a href="http://cw.ua.edu/16498/news/the-final-barrier-50-years-later-segregation-still-exists/?src=longreads"><span style="color: blue;">has been well-documented</span></a>. On many campuses, advisors’ outlooks on diversity and
inclusion are more representative of 1978 than of 2018, and when we give these
advisors too much authority in the membership selection process, a lack of
diversity is the inevitable result. Advisors play a valuable role in assisting
their chapters during recruitment, but they themselves should not be involved
in the process of selections and voting, and national organizations and
campuses should do more to limit the role that advisors play with regards to
membership selection. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>3. Lack of Diversity in Extension</b> – The biggest distinction
between fraternities and sororities may very well lie in the manner in which
they conduct extension. Several structural barriers to diversity exist in the
manner in which many sororities conduct the extension process. First, because
of the obsession with parity, many national sororities approach extension with
a simple, but limiting philosophy – we want our new chapter to look very
similar to the other chapters on campus. If those other chapters are mostly
white, then there is a high probability that the new sorority will also be
mostly white. The philosophy of fraternity expansion is basically the opposite –
how can we carve out a unique niche in a crowded market? If fraternities on
campus lack diversity, then a new chapter will very often come in and present a
much more diversified alternative. Over time, this adds a great deal of
cultural diversity within a community. Next, sororities tend to rely heavily on
women who participated in formal recruitment when adding a new chapter. If this
pool of women lacks diversity, the new chapter will likely reflect that.
Fraternity expansions, on the other hand, tend to focus in on students who previously
expressed no interest in fraternities because of the stereotypes, but who might
be interested in being part of something new and different. This lends itself
to much more diversity – not only in terms of racial diversity but also with
regards to socio-economic background and sexual orientation. Lastly, and
perhaps most importantly, decisions about members in fraternity extension tend
to be made by the younger staff members who are recruiting perspective members.
These younger staff members tend to be very open to racial diversity. On the sorority
side, however, the decisions for membership are very often not made by the
young consultants doing the recruiting, but by a much older committee of
volunteers and alumnae who, again, hold dated attitudes related to diversity and
inclusion. This presents a tremendous barrier for diversity. I have seen this
play out first-hand. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We see a number of structural barriers that limit diversity
in campus sororities. This leads to an obvious question - what can/should be
done about the lack of diversity in sororities? Here are just a few thoughts,
more designed around starting a conversation rather than being considered
full-blown policy recommendations. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Allow sororities to actually "recruit"</b> – this seems rather
obvious, but on campuses that do not have recruitment before classes start, it
makes sense to allow sorority members to meet with and talk to prospective
members on campus in order to recruit a more diverse pool of women to be part
of the experience. Dated rules about “no contact” should be thrown out the window
and sorority members should be incentivized to go out and recruit women who
they think would add diversity to their chapters. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Eliminate letters of recommendation</b> – Frankly, this should
have happened years ago. Requiring rec letters does nothing to educate chapters
about prospective members and ONLY serves as a barrier for women coming from
families and communities who lack connection to the sorority experience. It
adversely affects minorities and first-generation students alike. Rec letters
are a vestige of days gone by and their elimination would remove a tremendous
hurdle for would-be members from less privileged backgrounds. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Limit role of older alums in recruitment and extension</b> – this
one seems like a no-brainer to me, and is probably the easiest to implement.
Older alums and volunteers definitely have a role to play, but selecting
members of a chapter is not one of them. Allow current members, or the young
consultants doing most of the recruiting (in the case of expansion projects) to be
the ones to select members.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Allow diversity-based exceptions to quota/total</b> – This is by
far the least fleshed-out of my thoughts, but stick with me here. I get that
totally blowing up the total/quota system is not going to happen any time soon.
But what if we allowed each chapter to set its own goals with regards to
diversity and inclusion? And then, what if we allowed chapters to recruit
beyond total/quota in order to meet their own goals with regards to diversity
and inclusion if the pool of women in formal recruitment did not allow them to
meet those goals? What if chapters who felt their lack of diversity was a
problem and wanted to do something about it were allowed to work outside of the
formal recruitment process to go out and recruit those diverse members, even if
they made quota in formal recruitment and were at or above total? Some broad
questions, I know, but I think if we gave chapters the option to work outside
of formal recruitment to strengthen their diversity, many chapters would
willingly and eagerly take advantage of that opportunity. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a world that is increasingly multi-cultural, and in a
workplace that requires our students to be culturally competent, we should all
be concerned about the lack of diversity in our campus sororities. We are doing
our sorority members no favors when we stick them in chapters full of women exactly
like themselves. The antiquated systems we use to recruit new members into our
chapters are barriers to that diversity. I hope we can begin a conversation
about what changes need to occur in order for those structural barriers to be eliminated.
<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-76020284628505223512018-08-21T12:46:00.000-07:002018-08-22T09:59:11.877-07:00The McNamara Fallacy in Fraternity/Sorority Life<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZJG3Am7DNVhiJcaBYnx1DOWpGUco0bv4AVR4mmy1vO3iNu8G3qhYGVh8Nfay-5E-Fvm87HHyw8x_OP3P9gijadq12gED-5iZo7YEQGaqtBEiGDnPKf1KB_5D8mMpYquy3I_nDzGuoqS2n/s1600/robert_s_mcnamara.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="288" data-original-width="512" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZJG3Am7DNVhiJcaBYnx1DOWpGUco0bv4AVR4mmy1vO3iNu8G3qhYGVh8Nfay-5E-Fvm87HHyw8x_OP3P9gijadq12gED-5iZo7YEQGaqtBEiGDnPKf1KB_5D8mMpYquy3I_nDzGuoqS2n/s320/robert_s_mcnamara.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><b>McNamara Fallacy</b> – Those things which can be easily measured
will be given greater priority over those things which can not be easily
measured. </i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I recently watched the Ken Burns documentary on the Vietnam
War on Netflix (which I highly recommend). One of the key themes that emerges during the series is the priority
that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara placed on quantitative metrics, specifically body count,
during the war. McNamara was obsessed with
statistics and, given the Pentagon’s new computing technology, he devised a series
of metrics related to the success of the war effort it Vietnam. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the documentary, Ken Burns recounts a conversation that
McNamara had with his generals in the early stages of the war, after he had put
together the metrics for success. He gave the generals a printout of all of the
metrics he wanted to track, and asked them if he had missed anything. The
generals poured over his materials, and then one of the generals stated, “as
far as I can tell, you’re only missing one thing…the <i>hearts and minds</i> of the
Vietnamese people.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Well I’m not sure how we can measure that,” McNamara is
said to have replied. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thus was born the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy"><span style="color: blue;">McNamara Fallacy</span></a>. <b>Those things that can be
easily measured receive priority over those things which can’t be easily
measured. And things that can’t be easily measured are deemed unimportant.</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As I pondered the McNamara Fallacy and its broad
implications, I realized that we operate under our own version of the McNamara
Fallacy in the fraternity and sorority world. We rely too heavily upon
data points that are easy to measure, often neglecting those metrics that are a
bit harder to measure but are actually much more important in understanding
what is really going on in our chapters. We have seen this problem magnified in the last year, as more and more campuses are moving towards the publication of chapter "report cards" showing metrics which tell us little, if anything, about chapter culture.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What are some of those easy-to-measure metrics that we have
grown to rely on but which do not really tell the story of what is happening in
our communities and in our chapters? Like McNamara’s body counts, what are
those data points we are using to try to tell our story but that don’t tell the
full story, and what metrics should we be using instead? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here are four metrics upon which we have become overly
reliant, followed by four metrics that are a bit harder to gather, but that tell a much
more robust story about the culture of our chapters. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>1. GPA</b> – Grade point average is not a bad metric. In fact, GPA can
tell us some things about a chapter culture – namely, how smart the people in a
chapter are, and how much time they spend studying. But there is an over-reliance
in our industry on GPA as a proxy for chapter culture. I would suggest that we
rely WAY too much on GPA as an indicator of chapter quality. This is especially
true in sororities. In our research, we see a strong correlation between
relative recruiting strength and GPA in Panhellenic communities. The
stronger-recruiting sororities on any given campus tend to recruit women with
stronger high school GPA’s. System strugglers and bottom-third chapters in
terms of recruiting strength tend to have lower GPA’s because they tend to not
get the top scholastic performers out of high school, most of whom get bids to
top-tier sororities. They end up with a larger portion of members with
questionable high school grades - members that the top-tier chapters pass over. Does this
mean those chapters have a bad culture? Are their members partying all the time instead of studying? Are they distracting their members from
their academic pursuits just because their GPA is a little lower than the top
chapters on campus? Not likely. The GPA disparity in sorority world likely has
much more to do with the quality of members that chapters are able to recruit and
very little, if anything, to do with the chapter culture. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On the fraternity side, we generally see a bell-curve
associated with GPA. Again, we often see top-tier chapters selecting those
members with stronger high school achievements, but we also see newer chapters
selecting academically talented students who may not socially fit in with
“top-tier” groups (i.e. the nerdy fraternities). We also generally see a
bell-curve, with a lot of chapters tightly bunched around the center and only a
few outliers on either side. At the campus level, those low-GPA outliers almost
certainly have cultural challenges, but outside of those few groups, GPA tells
us very little. On a campus with an all-fraternity average of 3.0, with a few
fraternities around a 3.2 and another few fraternities at a 2.6, and everyone
else between a 2.8 and a 3.1, what is the real difference between and among those
groups bunched up in the middle, and how does GPA account for the differences
in their culture? And at the national level, comparing between chapters on different campuses is not an apples-to-apples comparison. A 2.8 at Middle Tennessee State is not the same as a 2.8 just up the road at Vanderbilt. Understanding grades within the context of the natural academic ability of the students on that campus is important.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I would offer that, for both fraternities and sororities,
chapter GPA would be a much more reliable predictor of chapter culture if we
looked at chapter GPA after controlling for the high school GPA’s of the
members of that chapter. This data would tell us if a chapter is
over/under-performing in relation to their members’ natural academic abilities. We also need to look at trends over time - is a group consistent in terms of their GPA, with only minor fluctuations between semesters, or is there a trend in one direction or another? A steady downward trend should be a red flag. Short of that, GPA tells us very little about chapter culture. In the national
data set compiled through our research at Dyad Strategies, GPA has a very weak
correlation with any of the measures related to chapter culture, including
hazing, sexual assault and alcohol use. We see chapters at all ends of the GPA
spectrum struggle with these and other cultural issues. Our industry
places far too much emphasis on GPA because it is the easiest data point for us
to gather, but outside of the extreme fraternity outliers, it actually tells us
very little about chapter culture. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>2. Recruitment Stats</b> – Both campus and headquarters-based
professionals place far too much emphasis on recruitment stats. On the national
side, many sorority headquarters do not allow chapters that fail to make quota
on their respective campuses to be eligible for national awards. On the
fraternity side, we see national organizations regularly touting the
recruitment prowess of their top chapters, often placing that metric at or near
the top of their national recognition. I’ve <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-tale-of-two-sororities-or-perhaps-its.html"><span style="color: blue;">written before</span></a> of the folly of
placing too much emphasis on recruitment stats as a measure of chapter quality,
but we continue to see organizations prioritize the number of new members over the
quality of the experience those new members are going to be a part of. If you
recruit 100 new members into a toxic culture, what have you accomplished? Is
that something to be celebrated? I would suggest the opposite, yet we see both campus and organizational leaders investing much more heavily in recruitment training than in any other areas connected to chapter culture. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On the campus side, I regularly see campus-based fraternity
and sorority advisors taking WAYYYY too much credit for the growth in their
communities. I feel like I am uniquely qualified to comment on this. During my
five years as Director of Greek Life at Alabama, our fraternity/sorority
community nearly doubled in size, and we became the largest community in the
country. It would be easy for me to pound my chest and take a lot of credit for
that growth, but the fact of the matter is that I had almost nothing to do with
it. The University was growing. We were recruiting more and more out-of-state
students, many of whom wanted to be in fraternities/sororities. The University
seriously invested in fraternity/sorority housing. This was all the doing of
the University President and the folks in the admissions office. While I will
take some credit for boosting recruitment retention and placement rates during
my time there, I can not take any credit at all for growth in the community, because
almost all of it had to do with factors beyond my control. I would venture to
guess that the same could be said of 90 percent of colleges in the country that
experienced growth in their communities in the last decade. Growing or
declining communities are less a sign of an effective or ineffective fraternity/sorority
advisor and more an indicator of the demographics of an institution’s student
body. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>3. Community Service Hours/Philanthropy Dollars Raised</b> – Like GPA,
Community service and philanthropic contributions are not a bad metric. They
tell us something about a chapter – specifically, how much community service/philanthropy
in which the chapter is engaged. But we see a lot of people use
service/philanthropy statistics as a proxy for chapter culture, and there are a
few problems associated with reading too much into these numbers. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, the data are over-inflated. How many national organizations or
campuses are calling up community partners to verify the monetary contributions
or hours of service reported by chapters? My guess is that this rarely, if ever,
happens. Chapters may raise a lot of money at an event, but when they report
those totals, are they subtracting out the costs associated with that event? Are
they reporting gross revenues or net revenues? I suspect that, if we took a really
hard look at the actual philanthropic activity of our chapters, the numbers
would not be nearly as impressive as what we often report.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Secondly, the fact is that service is a core value for some
of our organizations, but not for all. I think we should be encouraging our
chapters to pursue and live out their espoused values and to reward them if and
when they do that. If service to others is an espoused value of an
organization, then we should reward those chapters for engaging in that service.
If it is not an espoused value of that organization, then we should be rewarding
them for doing activities that support their own mission and values and not superimposing
our own values onto them. And I've seen no data that convinces me of any connection between service/philanthropy and other areas of chapter culture.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>4. Involvement in Other Student Orgs</b> – Almost every campus or
organization has a requirement (or at least a strong suggestion) that all
members of fraternities and sororities be involved in at least one other campus
organization. Inevitably, this leads to chapters submitting a chapter roster,
listing off each member and the names of the other organizations of which they
are a part. When I worked at Alabama, approximately 90 percent of the entire
Greek community was in the College Republicans. I assume the College
Republicans held their meetings in the basketball arena, because according to
my count they had at least 10,000 active members.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Using involvement in other orgs as a success metric is easy because
chapters can just tell us how many different organizations their members are a
part of, but the data are absolutely meaningless. They tell us nothing. Most of
us are not verifying membership rosters. We are not examining the quality (Time
on Task) of their involvement in these other groups. We are simply grabbing a
data point that is easy to capture and then reporting some asinine statistic
like “93 percent of fraternity/sorority members are involved in another
organization on campus,” and we report it knowing that the number is a complete
and total lie. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, if over-reliance on the metrics above is problematic,
then what harder-to-measure metrics should we be focused on gathering and
reporting? How do we accurately capture the “hearts and minds” of the fraternity
sorority members under our purview? What attitudes and beliefs are really at
the heart of understanding the culture of an organization and the experience
that students are having as part of a fraternity or sorority chapter? Here I
offer the four measures that I think show the most promise.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>1. Sense of Belonging</b> – So much of a student’s experience in a
fraternity or sorority is predicated upon their sense of belonging. In the
research we are doing at Dyad Strategies, we find that Belonging as a function
of brother/sisterhood is the <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-power-of-belonging.html"><span style="color: blue;">single most important predictor</span></a> of so many other
outcomes, including organizational commitment, satisfaction, retention, and organizational
accountability. The depth and the quality of the relationships between and
among members is the single biggest driver of chapter culture. The fact is that
some chapters do an incredible job creating a sense of belonging in their members,
and some chapters do an awful job. Understanding which chapters are and are not
creating a sense of belonging – a feeling of mattering – is the single most
important metric for both campuses and national organizations to have in order
to understand what is really going on in a chapter. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>2. Social Status Importance</b> – I’ve <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2017/05/can-fraternities-become-victims-of.html"><span style="color: blue;">previously written</span></a> about the
campus social hierarchy and how chapters can fall victim to their own success.
Understanding how much chapters care about that social hierarchy – how much they
are motivated by achieving or maintaining social clout – is an important metric
to understand. Chapters with high social status motivation are willing to take
incredible risks in order to achieve/maintain that social status, make poor decisions
in recruitment (will this person boost our social clout vs. will this person be
a good, contributing member), and lose focus on the brother/sisterhood they are
creating as they become more and more motivated by factors external to their chapters.
Seeing this construct modeled over time can help us predict when a chapter may
begin making bad decisions, as it is the driver behind regression to the mean
as newer chapters begin assimilating into their respective campus cultures
(more on that <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2015/03/regression-to-mean-and-single-most.html"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>3. Hazing Motivation</b> – Groups haze for different reasons, and not
all reasons are created equally. <a href="http://aldocimino.com/"><span style="color: blue;">Researcher Aldo Cimino</span></a> has explored hazing
through a sociological lens and offered multiple motivations for hazing of
newcomers in groups. At Dyad Strategies, we have expanded on Cimino’s work,
building an instrument that measures the various motivations of hazing. Are
groups trying to build solidarity or teach new members group-relevant skills
through their hazing? If so, these behaviors are somewhat altruistic and fairly
easy to redirect. Are groups trying to reinforce the social hierarchy within
the group or ensure that new members are properly committed to the group
through their hazing? If so, these motivations are likely to be emblematic of
much deeper cultural problems in a chapter which are much more difficult to
root out through education alone. Understanding what it is groups are trying to
accomplish through their treatment of new members is crucial in any efforts to
prevent or redirect hazing behaviors. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>4. Motivation to Join</b> – What is it that students joining
fraternities and sororities are looking to gain from the experience? Are they merely
looking for a social outlet, or are they interested in leadership, networking,
or a home away from home? Motivated by our research findings indicating
tremendous spikes in recent years related to the social aspect of
brother/sisterhood, our team at Dyad Strategies has now constructed a scale measuring
students’ motivation for joining fraternities and sororities. Any campus
seeking to understand how changes in recruitment, education for potential
members, or overall changes to the social culture in a community is having an
impact, then understanding the motivations of the students seeking to join that
community is of the utmost importance. If would-be fraternity and sorority
members continue to see the fraternity/sorority experience chiefly as a social
experience in spite of changes, then we know those changes are not having the
desired impact. But if we see less of a social motivation and increases in
motivation related to belonging, networking, or campus involvement, then it can
be said that those changes are having a positive impact. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As I began writing this post, I did not intend for it to be
an advertisement for the research we are doing at <a href="https://www.dyadstrategies.com/"><span style="color: blue;"><b>Dyad Strategies</b></span></a>. But, as it
turns out, we have spent a great deal of time in the last few years really
trying to grasp what we need to know about our students’ beliefs, attitudes and
behaviors in order to really understand chapter culture. The things we measure
at Dyad Strategies paint a much more robust picture about what is really going
on in a chapter than the standard metrics upon which we see many campuses and
organizations rely. If your campus or organization is serious about
understanding and measuring the impact of the changes you are implementing,
then I invite you to contact us to find out how we may be able to help. <br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Like the hearts and minds of people in Vietnam, the important
concepts that I have laid out here are not easy to measure. But it IS possible
to measure these concepts. With the scrutiny that fraternities and sororities
are under today, we can no longer rely on simple counts or self-reported
activities. We have to survey our students in order to understand the attitudes
and beliefs that are underlying their behaviors. Once we understand those
attitudes and beliefs, then we can be much more surgical in our approach to
winning the war that must be won – moving fraternity/sorority beyond a social
experience towards the personal development experience that it was intended by
our founders to be. <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-2255612504199612282018-02-07T07:03:00.001-08:002018-02-07T07:14:23.865-08:00Lessons On Accountability<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw-ex7vWLIAMVNkMMyIiYQBKo5ibid9o1y9ZdVEntLinTCkrskaXJf1oQovU9Gk2SpT2anx2ng2HVK8P6ZoJxkWUuWKlX58lCtuXIlfhoab6icCzYZgyAuwSf0pLoO4Btd_eob0dzBkvy1/s1600/Accountability+%25281%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="609" data-original-width="788" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjw-ex7vWLIAMVNkMMyIiYQBKo5ibid9o1y9ZdVEntLinTCkrskaXJf1oQovU9Gk2SpT2anx2ng2HVK8P6ZoJxkWUuWKlX58lCtuXIlfhoab6icCzYZgyAuwSf0pLoO4Btd_eob0dzBkvy1/s320/Accountability+%25281%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As I’ve traveled the country talking with fraternity and
sorority members about brotherhood and sisterhood over the last three
years, I’ve had countless conversations with both chapter leaders as well as
FSL professionals about the challenges associated with accountability and
self-governance in fraternities and sororities. Student leaders are generally
candid and open about the struggles their chapters face with regards to holding
members accountable. Sorority members don’t respect a standards process that is
perceived as impersonal and overly punitive. Fraternity members struggle to
hold one another accountable at all. Meanwhile, campuses are stripping away all
remaining vestiges of student self-governance and imposing top-down,
administratively-driven organizational conduct processes that are unnecessarily
adversarial. Council judicial boards are defunct or on life support.
Stakeholders (alumni, headquarters, advisors) are viewed by overzealous conduct
officers as adversaries not to be trusted. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s a big damn mess. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The research we are doing at <a href="http://www.dyadstrategies.com/"><span style="color: blue;">Dyad Strategies</span></a>, as well as the
conversations I’ve had with both students and administrators over the last
three years, have helped me come to an understanding of three important lessons
when it comes to rebuilding cultures of accountability and self-governance
within our fraternity and sorority community. Over the next few weeks, I’ll be
posting a series of blogs related to those lessons.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Lesson #1 - There are two systems of accountability
operating simultaneously in fraternity and sorority chapters, and one is much
more impactful than the other.</b> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When you mention the word “accountability” to
students, they generally associate that word with the formal systems of
accountability in their chapters; specifically, their chapter’s
standards/judicial process. If a student gets drunk and out of control at a
social event, they are called to meet with the standards committee or judicial
board and some sort of sanction is handed down. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Running parallel to these formal systems of accountability
is each chapter’s informal system of accountability. The informal system of
accountability is the peer-to-peer accountability that happens outside of the
formal process. If a person is showing signs of problematic alcohol use, one or
more of that person’s friends may confront that person about their alcohol use
outside of the chapter’s recognized disciplinary procedures.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When you discuss these two parallel systems of
accountability, students easily recognize that the informal process is more effective
and impactful than the formal process when it comes to changing behavior. Going
to your peers out of a position of love and concern is more likely to elicit
behavioral change than punishing members through the standards process. Students
intuitively understand what student developmental theory (specifically Kohlberg)
has taught us for years – that most 18-22 year-old college students are in a
stage of conventional moral development, taking moral cues from their peers. For
most students, knowing that their peers disapprove of their behavior is the
most powerful motivator for behavioral change. If a student’s peers go out of
their way to confront the student about their behavior, that conversation is
much more likely to influence behavior than that student being punished by
authority figures (even if the authority figures are, in fact, a student’s
peers, as would be the case with a standards committee). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a recent research project for one of our national clients
at Dyad Strategies, we measured the sisterhood in each of their 150 or so chapters,
then went in and qualitatively studied those chapters with the “best”
sisterhood. What we found about chapters with the strongest sisterhood based on
accountability surprised us. Their formal systems of accountability were
unremarkable – no different from other groups we’ve studied and observed. What
stood out about these chapters was how well-developed their informal systems of
accountability were. Members whose behavior ran counter to group values were
dealt with informally by peers long before it rose to an issue worthy of a
standards meeting. In fact, one of these chapters had even gone so far as to
formalize their informal process. If a member’s behavior became problematic,
the executive board would meet with the standards board to discuss the member’s
behavior, and as a group would decide who the best people would be to go talk
to this member informally about their behavior. Whether it be a best friend, a
big sister, or some other person, the leaders of this chapter put great thought
and intentionality into figuring out which person would most likely be
successful in confronting the errant member about their behavior. Once
selected, the executive board and standards committee would meet with the
person selected to have the confrontation and explain to them what they were
hoping to accomplish through the confrontation, then would follow up with that
person after the confrontation had taken place to gain an understanding of how
the message had been received by the problematic member. The standards process
in these chapters was reserved for only the most egregious violators, or those
for whom the friendly confrontations had little or no impact. By emphasizing
informal over formal accountability, these chapters helped their members see
the value in accountability as a function of a healthy and vibrant sisterhood. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Interestingly, these chapters with strong accountability
also measured very high in belonging. This is consistent with our quantitative
research – for both men and women, of all the brother/sisterhood schema,
belonging is the strongest predictor of accountability. Qualitatively, what we
observed in these chapters is that the belonging/accountability connection is
through the informal systems of accountability, and not the formal systems.
Think about it – if you feel a strong sense of belonging to a group of people,
this will involve deep emotional connections. It is much easier to have a difficult
confrontation with someone with whom you have a deep emotional connection as opposed
to someone you barely know. Belonging doesn’t automatically lead to
accountability, but it creates fertile ground where informal systems of accountability
are much more likely to take root and grow.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Students will also readily admit that they often struggle
with the “informal” system of accountability. College students today are
incredibly uncomfortable with peer-to-peer confrontation, and students will
readily admit it when you discuss accountability with them. Again, what our
students understand intuitively is backed by research. College students today
are less comfortable with confrontation in large manner because of the way they
were raised. <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201610/the-culture-childhood-we-ve-almost-destroyed-it"><span style="color: blue;">Recent research</span></a> has suggested that the problems with confrontation
experienced by this generation of college students traces its roots back to the
way they were raised – it is a side-effect of helicopter parenting. This
generation of students, relative to previous generations, received less of what
researchers call unsupervised, unstructured playtime. Previous generations of
children and adolescents regularly experienced large blocks of time playing and
interacting with their peers without any adult presence. When conflicts arose,
children learned to resolve those conflicts on their own. But this generation,
because of their helicopter parents, did not experience as much of that
unsupervised, unstructured playtime. Parents were always nearby keeping a close
eye on things, and when conflict arose, the parents often stepped in and dealt
with it. As a result, we have an entire generation of adolescents with little
experience resolving conflict and who, as a result, report difficulty both
offering and receiving critical feedback from their peers.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And then they come to college, join fraternities and sororities
and we ask them to self-govern, even though they are developmentally ill-equipped to be successful at the task. Then, we do very little to prepare them for the work of holding one another accountable. It's a recipe for disaster.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’ve<span style="color: blue;"> <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2014/05/is-self-governance-dead.html">previously written</a></span> about other research related to the
challenges of self-governance, but this emerging research regarding this generation
of students’ inability to engage in confrontation is particularly troubling. Luckily,
chapters that I have had the opportunity to work with in the last few years,
when presented with this research, have devised activities with their new
members designed to help them overcome this discomfort with confrontation. One
chapter, in particular, developed a rather ingenious activity designed to have
their new members gain comfort with confrontation. In the first week of new
member education, the new members are required to memorize the fraternity’s creed
(which contains the values of the fraternity). After ensuring that their new
members have learned the creed and understand its meaning, this fraternity ends
its weekly pledge meetings with an activity. The new members stand in a circle,
and they go around the circle twice. The first time around, each new member
states a time in the previous week when he saw one of his pledge brothers do
something that upheld or exemplified a quality in the creed. The second time
around, they are asked to state a time during the previous week when they saw
one of their pledge brothers do something that ran counter to one of the values
expressed in the creed. It’s a pretty simple activity, but if done well, can
have a profound impact on a chapter’s culture.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Chapters that have implemented this activity with their new
members have all reported the same thing back to me – the new members struggle
with the confrontation piece of the activity the first few times they are made
to do it, but over time, they become more and more comfortable confronting one
another when their behavior runs counter to the fraternity’s values. When they
are given a chance to practice peer-to-peer confrontation in a safe place, their
comfort levels in confronting one another grow over time, to the point that it
becomes a normalized, expected behavior. Once these men are initiated, peer-to-peer,
informal accountability will be second nature to them, and accountability
within their chapters will skyrocket. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
When it comes to our work with chapters, a focus on informal
accountability is probably where we’ll get the most bang for our buck in boosting
accountability and, ultimately, self-governance. In the next installment of
this series, I’ll be taking an in-depth look at campus organizational conduct
procedures that provide incentives and motivation for chapters to self-govern
in meaningful ways. Stay tuned!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-88293306760911362362017-10-11T08:55:00.000-07:002017-10-12T06:50:16.071-07:00It Is Time to End Pledging<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjROTRrHxbGREKqkAR8Ciwys121JLsOPOXRmp30aKQDhC4Kdq1VFRvPhOfHN0Ls3tnwuvps_58Ip6xJ-JbqS1jQPSAcC8zEWiI7IpYJ79fHZIkygPDBPzBQStnyeQVwMo1EBy7-SdjItjWJ/s1600/stanford+county+prison.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="708" data-original-width="1500" height="151" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjROTRrHxbGREKqkAR8Ciwys121JLsOPOXRmp30aKQDhC4Kdq1VFRvPhOfHN0Ls3tnwuvps_58Ip6xJ-JbqS1jQPSAcC8zEWiI7IpYJ79fHZIkygPDBPzBQStnyeQVwMo1EBy7-SdjItjWJ/s320/stanford+county+prison.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts
absolutely.” – Lord Acton</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In 1971, a psychologist at Stanford named Phil Zimbardo
received a grant from the Department of Defense to conduct a study on the
impact of incarceration on prisoners. Instead of studying actual inmates at a
real prison, Zimbardo had a different idea – to create his own simulated
prison. Over the summer, he transformed the basement of the psychology building
at Stanford into a prison, complete with bars, cells, and a mess hall. He
recruited 16 students to participate in the study. Applicants had to undergo a
rigorous psychological evaluation. Once the students were selected, eight were
randomly assigned to be the prisoners, the other eight randomly assigned to be
the guards. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The guards were only given two rules: keep the prisoners
imprisoned at all times, and do not physically abuse the prisoners. Otherwise,
the guards were left to run the prison as they saw fit. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The rest of the story is now a part of psychological
folklore. The study, which was supposed to last for five weeks, was abruptly
cancelled on the fourth day because the behavior of the guards became so
abusive that two of the prisoners suffered emotional breakdowns. Their abuse of
the prisoners, in a matter of days, became increasingly severe; sleep
deprivation, lineups, food deprivation, and a variety of other dehumanizing
activities quickly manifested themselves as the norm in Zimbardo’s imaginary
prison. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Stanford Prison Experiment, as it is now known,
illustrated in a powerful and real way a dark reality of human nature – that
power corrupts. As Zimbardo himself noted, “absolute power in a novel setting
will lead even good, decent people to engage in inhumane, abusive behavior.”<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Absolute power. In a novel setting. Sound familiar?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Hazing is a societal problem that is much, much bigger than
fraternities and sororities. In the <a href="http://www.stophazing.org/"><span style="color: blue;">2007 National Study of Student Hazing</span></a>, over
half of students involved in clubs and organizations on college campuses
reported experiencing hazing in high school. Just last week, it was reported
that Colgate University had suspended the men’s rowing team because of alcohol
related hazing. Evolutionary Psychologist Alco Cimino has suggested that hazing
is an evolutionary adaptation – literally part of our nature – by which we
prevent new group members from exploiting the benefits of the group without
contributing to its success. Hazing is not just a fraternity problem. It is a
societal problem. It is in our DNA. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But why is hazing so much more severe in college
fraternities than in any other group? Why does fraternity hazing so frequently
result in injury or death? When I speak with students about hazing, I point out
the fact that <a href="http://www.hanknuwer.com/hazing-deaths/"><span style="color: blue;">44 fraternity/sorority members</span></a> died between the last two
non-Greek hazing deaths (Ken Christiansen in 2001, and Robert Champion in
2011). And dozens more have died since. Why are fraternities (and to a lesser
extent, sororities) killing their members with such frightening regularity?
What about the college fraternity experience makes it uniquely prone to
dangerous, deadly hazing?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Absolute power. In a novel setting. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On a sports team, in a band, in the military, and in
literally every other group we commonly associate with hazing, the power of
hazers is mitigated by a responsible adult who is ultimately in control of the
group. If I am a freshman on the college baseball team, I may go along with
some low-level hazing just to be a good sport, but I am not likely to subject
myself to anything that I perceive to be particularly dangerous or degrading
because, at the end of the day, the person hazing me has very little real power
over me. The coach of my team ultimately decides who plays, and if I’m better
than the guy hazing me, I’ll play over him regardless of whether or not I
subject myself to his abuse. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The fraternity pledging process, on the other hand, gives
the hazer absolute power over the person he is hazing. If I am a freshman
fraternity member, I am led to believe that if I do not willingly subject
myself to the whims of my abuser, that he has the power to remove me from the
pledging process and prevent my initiation. There are no adults in the mix –
advisors have no real authority in the chapter, particularly in decisions about
membership (who gets a bid, who gets initiated). The power differential between
hazer and victim is more pronounced in the college fraternity than in any other
group on or off the college campus. When we add into this mix the social status
that many fraternities enjoy, dangerous levels of alcohol consumption, lower
levels of moral development, heightened hypermasculinity, and the belief of
many undergraduates that their fraternities are inherently social in nature, we
have a recipe for disaster. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://aldocimino.com/"><span style="color: blue;">Researcher Aldo Cimino</span></a> has argued that hazing is an
evolutionary response to the need for groups to prevent free-riders – those who
would exploit the benefits of the group without contributing to the group’s
success. He has also demonstrated that the groups with the most perceived
benefits are those most prone to dangerous hazing. It is in our nature to haze,
and fraternities with their social clout on campus provide an environment ripe
for dangerous, deadly hazing. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Knowing that we are programmed to haze, and knowing that
severe hazing is more common in groups providing the most benefits to their
members, and knowing everything we know about the cognitive and moral
development of adolescent males, we still permit membership structures that
give 19 and 20-year-old men absolute power over the lives of their 18-year-old
new members. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is the definition of insanity. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We cannot have membership structures that give absolute
power to 19-year-old fraternity members and not expect them to abuse that
power. We can no longer have a serious conversation about hazing prevention
without first addressing the power differential inherent in the fraternity
pledging process. It is time to end the outdated, antiquated process of
pledging. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Will ending pledging get rid of hazing? Of course not. Newly
initiated members will still be subjected to those members who feel newcomers
must earn their membership. But by eliminating the power differential inherent
in the pledging process, we empower the new members to stick up for themselves
and walk away from activities they feel are dangerous. We lessen their
tolerance of severe forms of hazing, thereby reducing its likelihood of
occurring. Fraternities engage in abusive hazing because they can – because
they know their pledges wills subject themselves to it. Once they realize they
cannot – that newly initiated members will not subject themselves to abuse in
the name of “earning” something they have already earned, the culture will
begin to change.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then, and only then, can we begin a meaningful conversation
about helping chapters develop meaningful rites of passage for their new
members – activities that build solidarity and create a sense of accomplishment
in ways that do not involve abusive or dangerous behavior. But as long as this
period of trial membership remains, conversations about replacing hazing with
other activities are an exercise in futility. As long as we give 19-year-old
men absolute power over the lives of 18-year-old men, we will continue to see
them abuse that power in dangerous and deadly ways.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As fraternal organizations may be slow to adopt new
membership structures, campuses are uniquely positioned to serve as a catalyst
for this change. Through sanctioning for lower-level hazing cases, campuses
conduct offices can require disciplined organizations to immediately initiate
all future new members. Campuses can adopt blanket policies requiring that
student organizations eliminate pledging and all other forms of “trial
membership.” As long as any such requirements are either the result of a campus
disciplinary proceeding or are universally applied to all student groups (and
not just fraternities), campuses would be wholly within their rights to begin
promulgating such requirements. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is time to start this conversation now, because there is
a dirty secret that no one has had the courage to utter, but that I will state
here for the record. What happened to Timothy Piazza at Penn State, or to Max
Gruver at LSU, could happen tomorrow in 75 percent of fraternity houses in
America. Alcohol-related hazing is frighteningly common. These deaths were not
isolated incidents. They are the inevitable result of a system in which we mix an
alcohol-fueled party culture, low moral development, hypermasculinity,
tradition, and the forces of evolution with a heaping scoop of absolute power.
It is a recipe for disaster, and it is well past time that we fixed it.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ending pledging will not fix the problem of hazing, but
failing to end pledging will prevent us from ever truly fixing it. <o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com106tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-43605884215902552372017-05-25T13:58:00.001-07:002017-05-26T06:53:28.870-07:00Can Fraternities Become Victims of Their Own Success?<div class="MsoNormal">
As I have traveled around the country working with fraternity
chapters over the last few years, I have discovered a few universal truths
about fraternity life. Foremost among them is this – almost all fraternity chapters crave
social status within their respective communities. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Every campus fraternity system has what I call the “social
pecking order” – a social hierarchy into which groups are divided by those
within the community. On most campuses, the system is more or less equally
divided into three general categories – top tier, middle tier, and bottom tier.
During my time at Alabama, there were only two (old row vs. new row). The
chapters on any given campus are keenly aware of the existence of this social
hierarchy and, more importantly, their place within it. Improving or
maintaining their ranking within this social pecking order is among the primary
goals of most fraternity (and sorority) chapters in America. Fraternities
within any given campus system are almost always jockeying for position, doing
all in their power to climb the social ladder and achieve “elite” status on
their campus. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This mentality is actually a construct that we measure in our
research at <a href="http://www.dyadstrategies.com/"><span style="color: blue;">Dyad Strategies</span></a>. Our Social Status Importance scale measures the
degree to which chapters place an emphasis on their place in the social pecking
order, and the construct is strongly correlated with a variety of negative
behaviors (including alcohol abuse, unethical behavior, and attitudes about
hazing and sexual violence). The more that a chapter cares about its place in
the social hierarchy, the more willing they are to cut corners, break rules,
and engage in unethical behavior in climbing the social ladder.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What we have found in our research is that, within a
sorority system, the social hierarchy is very rigid and fixed. Sororities spend
vast resources attempting to improve their status (often measured by Relative
Recruiting Strength, <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-tale-of-two-sororities-or-perhaps-its.html"><span style="color: blue;">a horrible measure of the quality of a chapter</span></a>), only to
find that they are unable to climb in the rankings, stuck in their position for
seemingly all of eternity. This is true for a variety of reasons – top/middle
tier sorority chapters rarely close, and the sorority recruitment system is
designed to ensure consistency, homogeneity and the elimination of variance
within a campus community. The result is that, once a sorority’s place in the
campus social hierarchy becomes apparent, it is incredibly rare for that position
to change. They are, in effect, stuck.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is not the case within a fraternity community. With fraternities,
the social hierarchy is fluid and always changing. Top and middle tier groups
are regularly closed or reorganized for various risk management violations. The
fraternity recruitment system on most campuses is loosely organized, allowing
for a variety of approaches leading to a variety of outcomes – where the
sorority recruitment process eliminates variance, the fraternity recruitment
process encourages it. A middle-tier fraternity can have a good string of
recruitment chairs and over a period of a few years can quickly climb the
rankings and find themselves in the top tier, especially if a few top tier
chapters get in trouble, are placed on probation, are reorganized or get closed
during that time. The result of this fluidity is that the social hierarchy
within most campus fraternity communities is completely reshuffled every 5-10
years. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I regularly work with fraternities who are the beneficiaries
of this fluidity. Recently, I had the opportunity to do work on a campus that
has closed five groups for hazing and other risk management violations over the
last four years. All of the closed groups would have been considered top tier
at the time of their departure. The result of this is a new group of previously
mid-tier fraternities, those who were working the hardest to achieve social status on campus, now find themselves on top of the social ladder.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And this is a big problem for these fraternity chapters. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These chapters are extremely likely to become victims of their own
success.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When a fraternity is in the middle tier on a campus, men
usually join that chapter for altruistic reasons. Perhaps they feel a strong
sense of belonging. Perhaps they are attracted to the fraternity’s values, or their
academic success. Whatever the reason, the members of this chapter are
generally not joining because of the group’s place in the campus social
hierarchy. But when one of these fraternities wakes up one day and realizes
that they are in the top tier on campus, a strange thing begins to happen. Men
begin joining the chapter not because of a sense of belonging or a connection,
but because the chapter is in the top tier and will provide them with the
social capital they crave on campus. Members begin joining social status
instead of belonging. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Eventually, the fraternity catches on to what is happening.
They realize that they have members joining the chapter in order to exploit the
social benefits associated with group membership. Once they come to this
realization, a vicious cycle begins within the chapter. The natural, and most
common, response to this revelation is to devise clever ways to prevent
prospective members from exploiting the group’s social status.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In other words, the chapter begins hazing. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It may not be completely accurate to say that they “begin”
hazing, because there is a good chance that they were already engaged in the
behavior before coming to this realization. But, even if they were engaged in hazing before they became “top tier,”
the motivation for the hazing is very likely to change once the group becomes aware of the
problem associated with members exploiting the chapter’s social status. Once
this realization occurs, the motivation behind the hazing shifts from building
solidarity among the new member class towards having new members “earn their
letters” through acts of hazing designed to test their loyalty/commitment to
the group, or towards hazing designed around social dominance - reminding freshman of their place in the social hierarchy. As Aldo Cimino has articulated in <a href="http://aldocimino.com/"><span style="color: blue;">his research</span></a>, the hazing is now
designed to prevent “free-riders” – those members who seek to exploit the
benefits of the group without doing their fair share of the work. New members
must now show how much they want to be in the group. How much pain, humiliation,
and abuse are they willing to withstand in order to become a member of a top
tier group?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Once fraternity chapters switch the focus of their new
member education process away from teaching and building brotherhood and
towards making new members “earn their letters,” the next phase of the cycle
begins. Chapter members who have endured the social dominance or commitment-based hazing begin
developing a strong sense of entitlement. They feel that nothing should be
expected of them once they have earned their membership during the new member
process. They become lazy and apathetic. The freshman do all of the work,
while the older members enjoy the benefits of having freshman around to do all of the things that they don’t want to do. Motivation goes down. Involvement goes down. Chapter
members become less engaged in the life of the chapter, concerning themselves
only with social events and hazing the next crop of pledges. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Eventually, well-intentioned
chapter leaders notice what is going on, and instead of fixing the new member
education program, they often decide that the problem is that they <b><i>are not
hazing hard enough</i></b>. The reason they have lazy, entitled, apathetic members,
they believe, is because they still aren’t doing enough to build loyalty and
commitment among the pledges. As a result, the hazing escalates. It becomes
more intense, more abusive, and more degrading. Eventually, the hazing becomes
so severe that something bad happens, the fraternity gets caught and closed
down, a new fraternity takes the old fraternity’s place among the “top tier”
chapters on campus, and the whole process starts over again.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiQZCICWXoHe5IXLEEdZy_-moVzrredZaDvkXZmj-5X4HbkDvCxX88GYN4Uk4rGNdFn1tG85qQa7fBnW34ngJ-4MNjkww3WLMjlyIr-QKp3aANjriMgsaNW0AG9LP1t1YiMXY8GqQGM_iI/s1600/frat+cycle.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="903" data-original-width="1600" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiQZCICWXoHe5IXLEEdZy_-moVzrredZaDvkXZmj-5X4HbkDvCxX88GYN4Uk4rGNdFn1tG85qQa7fBnW34ngJ-4MNjkww3WLMjlyIr-QKp3aANjriMgsaNW0AG9LP1t1YiMXY8GqQGM_iI/s640/frat+cycle.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fraternities can, and often do, become victims of their own
success. After years of striving and effort, they become a top tier group,
which launches a vicious cycle in which they begin hazing, creating a sense of
entitlement among members, which fosters even more hazing, which eventually
leads to the group's closure and the process starting over again with a new group on campus. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So how do we prevent this cycle from happening?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The most common mistake that fraternities make upon entering this
cycle is assuming that the best way to weed out free-riders is during the
pledging process. As it turns out, this is the WORST way to weed out free
riders – even the laziest of free-riders could be motivated enough by the group’s
social standing to endure a few months of hazing in order to enjoy four years
of social clout guaranteed to them through their membership in the group. Once
a free-rider receives a bid to join a top tier group, it is often too late.
Instead of waiting until the new member education process to weed out
free-riders, chapters must incorporate strategies of weeding out the students interested in exploiting the chapter's social stauts during the recruitment process, and then refocusing the purpose of their new member education process away from making new members "earn it" and towards the creation of belonging. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These strategies include:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Asking Better Questions</b> – instead of “selling” the chapter’s
social clout to potential members, chapters would be wise to ask questions
designed to weed out those potential free-riders seeking to exploit the chapter’s
social standing. A simple question like “what are you looking to get out of a
fraternity” can often elicit an illuminating response. “Why are you interested
in our chapter” is similarly well-designed to weed out would-be free riders.
Some chapters I have worked with even have a “quality control” process by which
prospective members are interviewed and asked these questions, along with
questions about substance abuse and what the prospective member will bring to
the group. Through the questions we ask prospective members during the
recruitment process, we are able to screen out those men who are only seeking
social capital. Not only are the answers to the questions we ask illuminating
for us, but the mere fact that we ask them may cause a prospective member seeking
only a social experience to look elsewhere for that experience. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<b>Sell More Than the Social Experience - </b>Chapters are, in essence "selling" their brotherhood to prospective members during the recruitment process. A common mistake that fraternities, especially top tier fraternities, make is that they oversell the social aspects of their brotherhood and undersell the other aspects of their brotherhood (belonging and accountability). In a <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2016/03/how-we-sell-brotherhood-and-sisterhood.html"><span style="color: blue;">previous post</span></a>, I've shared strategies for selling brotherhood beyond the social experience. As chapters find themselves in the top tier, it is incredibly important that they sell more than just their social clout on campus. If they only sell the social aspects of brotherhood during recruitment, they will wind up with members who ONLY care about the social aspects of brotherhood, which will contribute to the chapter's demise.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Focus on Belonging</b> – As I’ve <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2016/10/vulnerability-and-creation-of-belonging.html"><span style="color: blue;">written previously</span></a>,
fraternities who want committed members should build their new member education
process around the creation of belonging, and not around the construction of
solidarity or the testing of loyalty/commitment. The fraternities with the
highest degree of commitment are those in which members feel the strongest
sense of belonging, and the severity of hazing within a chapter has no
relationship at all with belonging OR commitment. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
The “victim of our own success” cycle is not inevitable. It
can be stopped, or prevented altogether. By assessing and understanding your
chapters’ attitudes about the importance of social status and the motivations
behind their new member education process (things that <a href="http://www.dyadstrategies.com/"><span style="color: blue;">Dyad Strategies</span></a> measures
in our campus and organizational assessments), we can target those chapters
most at risk of falling into this cycle and intervene before it is too late. By
helping fraternities understand the importance of screening out free-riders
during the recruitment process (as opposed to waiting until the new member
education process), and by helping them build a new member education process
centered on the creation of belonging, we can beat the cycle and help our
fraternity chapters enjoy the fruits of their success instead of becoming
victims of it. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com135tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-75299951587727594712017-03-14T11:36:00.002-07:002017-03-14T12:28:42.099-07:00I Hereby Proclaim the Death of Values-Based Recruitment<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjWPMap-v-KT-Oo5irvmoZnnsQIYZyjwSpcCSuAAnTKQSgPyUaJ5XfsFaE8tapHAlB5x0sfs5UoocdAc111_6HsG6-ycTcjnz_xqoiyzot29xhXXGRbLR5px5ryHDSZuYXh7Tw-2Q6FxbU/s1600/grip+reaper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjWPMap-v-KT-Oo5irvmoZnnsQIYZyjwSpcCSuAAnTKQSgPyUaJ5XfsFaE8tapHAlB5x0sfs5UoocdAc111_6HsG6-ycTcjnz_xqoiyzot29xhXXGRbLR5px5ryHDSZuYXh7Tw-2Q6FxbU/s320/grip+reaper.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Vestige</b><i> (noun): a trace of something that is disappearing or
no longer exists; a part of an organ or organism that has become reduced or
functionless in the course of evolution</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In February of 2014, <a href="https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/afa1976.site-ym.com/resource/collection/CCC3BAD6-9BA2-4A3F-A740-4AF6DA594611/McCreary_Feb_14_VALUES_ALIGNER.pdf"><span style="color: blue;">I called for the death of the values movement</span></a>. I, along with others, began pointing out the absurdity of guilting
our students into “living their values” as a means by which to change their
behavior. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4KRbXzLHY0&index=10&list=PLBifvVNGZPxAGC5oSbzOwe_rnBt3KTDK6"><span style="color: blue;">Noah Borton famously quipped</span></a> during the inaugural AFA “Ignite
Fraternity” program that “I don’t care what your founders would think.” And in
the last three years, a funny thing has happened. We have seen a steady decline
in the number of programs and conversations focused on “living your values,”
less imploring our students to consider “what their founders would think” and a
steady rise in conversations centered around brotherhood and sisterhood,
accountability, belonging, and authenticity/vulnerability. The language of our
field has shifted significantly in the last three years, and frankly, I’d like
to take some credit for that. The values movement is dying a slow death, its
adherents becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of our industry, and that
is a good thing for our field. Guilt-tripping our students into living their
values and considering what their founders would think was both developmentally
and pedagogically unsound. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In fact, only one vestige of the values movement continues
to hang on and fight for life. This vestige has continued to thrive, despite
the well-intentioned efforts of a number of people. This vestige has support
from the highest echelons of our industry – it has long been considered an
untouchable sacred cow. Its defenses are seemingly impregnable, its status as
the end-all-be-all for saving the fraternal experience has heretofore gone
unquestioned. It is the gold standard that we are all supposed to be teaching
our fraternity and sorority members.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’m talking, of course, about values-based recruitment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And I’m here today to kill it off once and for all.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the last year, our team at <a href="http://www.dyadstrategies.com/"><span style="color: blue;">Dyad Strategies</span></a> (including Josh
Schutts, Sarah Cohen and myself) set off on an ambitious project. Using
sequential explanatory strategy, we embarked on a project to understand the
practices of sorority chapters who demonstrated extraordinary levels of the
most altruistic versions of sisterhood (common purpose, accountability, and
belonging). Working with one of our national organization partners, we surveyed
the entire undergraduate membership, identified chapters with the strongest
sisterhood, and then spent two days with six different “exemplar” chapters. We
observed them in action, we conducted interviews and focus groups, and met with
hundreds of students ranging from chapter officers to new members, all in an
effort to find out what really matters when it comes to having strong
sisterhood in a chapter. We plan on releasing a white paper on this research
later in the year. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In our conversations with these exemplar chapters, we were
shocked at how often the chapters’ recruitment processes came up in
conversation. While we were curious about how these chapters recruited, we did
not expect that recruitment would end up playing such a significant role in
forming the sisterhood within these chapters. As we discovered, recruitment
plays arguably the most important role in forming the strong sisterhood within
these exemplar chapters. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Each of the chapters we studied share a great deal in common
with regards to their approach to formal recruitment. In particular, they focus
a great deal on authentic, deep conversations with potential members,
activities that portray a realistic demonstration of the chapter’s sisterhood
and activities, and have a variety of methods by which they screen out
potential members only interested in the social aspect of sisterhood. As a
result, these chapters recruit members who join because of their sense of
connection and belonging and NOT because of the chapter’s place in the campus
social hierarchy or any other superficial marker of social standing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In all, six recruitment-related themes emerged within these
exemplar chapters:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>1. Focus on Authentic
Conversations<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Each of the exemplar chapters we studied place a tremendous
emphasis on authentic conversations during the recruitment process, moving
beyond surface-level conversations in an effort to truly get to know the
potential members. They evaluate prospective members not based on appearance or
“cuteness,” but in some cases purely on the prospective member’s conversation
skills and authenticity, asking them questions truly designed to elicit genuine
conversations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a result, new members from these chapters similarly report,
when asked why they joined the organization, that it was the “chapter where I
felt I could be myself,” “that they really wanted to get to know me,” and that
“the conversations here were different from the conversations in other houses.”
As the recruitment chair from one of these chapters stated “the feedback that
we received from our new members is that the questions we asked here were so
unique compared to other sororities.”<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Members of these chapters also take great pride in their
ability to have genuine conversations with potential members during
recruitment, and the selection process focused on conversation skills provides
a self-perpetuating process. As natural conversationalists, new members are
easily able to join in and appear to actually enjoy the recruitment process
because they genuinely love getting to know the next group of potential
members. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>2. Depth Over Breadth<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another recruitment technique shared by these exemplar
chapters was their focus on depth of conversation during recruitment, as
opposed to breadth. In other words, they prefer that a small group of chapter
members get to know a PNM in a more in-depth fashion, as opposed to multiple
chapter members meeting a PNM but having no more than a surface level conversation.
As one new member noted “Here I felt like I really got to have a real
conversation with people, but at other sororities it was like the same five
questions over and over. How are you supposed to get to know someone in five
minutes?”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Two of these exemplar chapters specifically
mentioned that they intentionally limit the amount of “bumping” that takes
place within the various recruitment rounds. This practice was noticed and
appreciated by the new members of this chapters, and they appreciated the
opportunity to have more in-depth conversations. As one new member noted “this
was the only house during first round where I didn’t get bumped, and it was so
nice to just sit down and have a conversation.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>3. Open the Door to
Vulnerability<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another practice that emerged as among these exemplar chapters
was the creating of moments where active members opened up and shared about
themselves to a PNM, with the hope that the PNM would then do the same in turn.
One chapter in particular discussed an activity in which they engaged during
their philanthropy round. After being told about the chapter’s “Girls on the
Run” philanthropy, PNM’s and active members were given a crescent moon made of
construction paper and were asked to write the name of the person for whom they
were being strong. Once the names were written, the active paired with a PNM
would share her story of who she was being strong for and why, and would then
invite the PNM to do the same. By opening the door and being vulnerable first,
the active member encouraged the PNM to also share and be vulnerable, which,
according to members of this group, often led to in-depth conversations about
important people in one’s life.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>4. Buck the Status Quo<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One of the chapters went against the “status quo” in a
significant way. The most visible example was the chapter’s approach to
“Sisterhood night” in the wake of the NPC removal of skits. When all other
chapters on campus performed songs, listed “top 10 facts about…” and showed an
overproduced glittery recruitment “sisterhood” video, this chapter opted for an
authentic exposure of their true sisterhood. Members submitted their favorite
moments and memories—which were then subsequently read aloud with the PNMs
present in the center of a large circle. Members never knew if, or when, their
memory would be read, so they were constantly engaged to see whose memory would
be read next. The women described the
process as electric – full of laughs, tears, hugs, and smiles. Having not been
there, we can only imagine the power and electricity that must have been felt
by the prospective members. They sat in the epicenter of the love and
appreciation these chapter members show each other daily – and at such a
powerful time – the night before they must make their preference decisions. It
no doubt took courage to do something different, and the new members all talked
about the power of that experience, and how it shaped their decision to join. As
one student noted “you could literally feel the energy in the room.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>5. Group vs.
Individual Conversations<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Chapters with strong sisterhood in these areas also provided
opportunities for new members to see how chapter members interact in a group
setting during recruitment. For example, on preference night, a chapter has a
group of 3-4 actives go into a room with 3-4 PNM’s where they all just talk,
laugh and get to know one another in a group setting. PNM’s particularly liked
this, noting that it gave them an opportunity to see how close the members
really are, how much they genuinely liked one another, and how they could see
themselves fitting into the group. As one PNM noted, upon leaving one of these
parties, “I knew I wanted a group of friends like that.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>6. PNM Red Flags<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In addition to creating opportunities for meaningful,
authentic conversations during the recruitment process, these high-performing
chapters also displayed similar systems of screening out potential members who
may only be interested in the social aspects of the sorority. Several chapter
members, including recruitment chairs, from these groups discussed a variety of
“red flags” that they take note of during the recruitment process. PNM’s
displaying any of these behaviors were subject to additional scrutiny and were
often dropped by the chapters. This list of “red flags” included the following:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<ul style="margin-top: 0in;" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">PNM’s who showed interest,
made comments or asked questions regarding the campus “social hierarchy”
or discussed or brought up the sorority’s place in the tier system
(interestingly, each of the groups in our research would best be described
as being on the lower end of the top tier according to recruitment
statistics)<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">PNM’s who talked negatively
about other chapters on campus (fraternities or sororities)<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">PNM’s who are overly
concerned with the social aspects of the sorority (i.e. asking “what
fraternities do you social with?” or “what do you all do on the weekends?”)<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>NOT About Values-Based
Recruitment<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Interestingly, what was NOT discussed in conversations about
recruitment was as illuminating as what was discussed and has been outlined
above. In particular, the notion of “values-based recruitment” was one that
never came up in our conversations. When new members of these chapters were
asked why they joined these exemplar chapters with extraordinary levels of
sisterhood, the answers almost inevitably had some connection to belonging,
authenticity, and meaningful conversations. In other words, new members of
these chapters joined because of a sense of belonging, and NOT because of any
connection to the organization’s values. And when asked about recruitment
strategy, the chapter recruitment teams echoed these sentiments. They often spoke
of “really getting to know the girls” and “having genuine conversations with
depth” but never did they discuss an effort to “sell” prospective members on
the organization’s values. As a result, our research team was left to believe
that, in these chapters that demonstrate values congruence (vis a vis high
scores on common purpose sisterhood), the congruence comes about as a result of
joining a sorority because of a sense of belonging, thereby making a connection
to the organization’s shared values easier upon being initiated, and not
because of some “selling” of the organization’s values during the recruitment
process. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Put more simply, successful chapters with strong sisterhood
achieve that sisterhood by making the recruitment process about genuine
connection and NOT about selling a set of proscribed values. Students are not
joining these exemplar chapters because of values alignment, they are joining
because of a deep sense of connection, authenticity and belonging. Then, once
they get into the organization, values congruence is being achieved through
informal systems of accountability, which are made possible through the high
levels of belonging and connection within the chapters. In other words, values
congruence can only be achieved AFTER students have developed a strong sense of
belonging and connection within the organization. Values congruence is not an antecedent
of the sorority experience; it is a descendent of a sorority experience in which
one feels authentic, meaningful connection, support, and belonging. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Values-based recruitment” implies that our organizations
should actively “sell” their values to prospective members, and that these
prospective members should “select” the organization whose values most closely
align with their own in a process of mutual selection. The flawed logic in this
model should be obvious to all of us who work in this industry.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, as we know from Baxter-Magolda’s theory of
self-authorship, most 18 year-old college freshmen are living their lives
through external formulas. They have no idea what their actual values are, as
they have been living according to the values of their parents and adolescent
communities. To suggest that they should make a life-long commitment based on
externally construed values, when they have yet to even develop their own
values as a person, seems counter-productive to me. As I stated in the “Problem
with Values Congruence” article, taking a student’s pre-existing external
formulas and trying to replace them with another set of external formulas (the
organization’s values) is not only counter-productive, but anti-developmental. If
we are really interested in helping our students connect to their organization's
values, we would be better suited to create environments where students feel
comfortable exploring personal values through authentic relationships than by
foisting a set of organizational values on them the minute they walk through
our door. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Secondly, values-based recruitment is a horrible concept
because the values of all of our organizations are pretty much the same! If we
were to take all 26 NPC member groups and construct a Venn diagram of their
stated values, the area of overlap would be, in a conservative estimate, 75
percent. How are 18 year-old college freshmen, in a rushed and frenzied
recruitment week, supposed to decipher and distinguish one organization’s
values from another in an effort to find the ONE group whose values most align
with their own when the values of these groups are all mostly the same?!?! This
is a Herculean task that I don’t suspect many of the adults in our industry
could do, yet we have asked it of our students. The whole idea seems ludicrous
to me. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Lastly, and most importantly, students joining sororities
(and fraternities) are not doing so because they seek values alignment in their
lives. At worst, they are joining because they want a social experience in
college that will expose them to the best that the campus social culture has to
offer. At best, they are joining because the crave meaningful connection and
belonging. The best we can ever hope to do is to help more of our organizations
shift away from selling a social experience, promoting their own social status by
selling a glamorous image of sorority membership that often has little to no
basis in reality (Look at all the cute boys we hang out with! Look at our cute
girls blowing glitter in conspicuous places around campus! Look how cute and
fun we are! Cute and fun! Cute and fun!) and, instead, help them understand
that the purpose of recruitment is not to SELL anything (the fun OR the values).
Rather, recruitment should be about creating authentic conversations in a way
that will allow more potential members to join the chapter where they will truly
find the most meaningful connections and a place to belong. Furthermore, would we
suggest to a PNM that she join an organization because of a connection with the
organization’s values even if that PNM felt no sense of belonging or
connection at all to the members of the chapter? This seems to me to be a
recipe for disaster. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let’s stop trying to guilt our students into selling their
values and start teaching them how to make recruitment about creating
authentic, meaningful connections. To give credit where credit is due, the
women’s side of Phired Up Productions have been talking about this for a few
years now. I continue to be impressed by the intersection of their work and
what we are discovering in our research.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
So today, I’m declaring the death of the “values-based recruitment”
movement and proclaiming the birth of the “authentic conversation-based
recruitment” movement. Values-based recruitment is the last remaining vestige
of the values movement, and, like our tonsils or appendix, it is time for our
industry to remove this wasteful, counter-productive appendage from the body of
our collective work.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-22243641012329633962017-02-09T09:02:00.001-08:002017-02-09T09:34:22.811-08:00My Dad the Feminist<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvbAlH7EmS90TZ8B8NlotLB3-EuUsFQI_UR2eW4k_sjvm-9h__pv9NdqOOuhqNDpEhpWvOkbR_Yju1iXkNP_KPvSLoQioKDNrNP_3Jj6e38zOpaVXZKKxbbdtDqF5c5T8MSwNxYocMTuy1/s1600/dad.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvbAlH7EmS90TZ8B8NlotLB3-EuUsFQI_UR2eW4k_sjvm-9h__pv9NdqOOuhqNDpEhpWvOkbR_Yju1iXkNP_KPvSLoQioKDNrNP_3Jj6e38zOpaVXZKKxbbdtDqF5c5T8MSwNxYocMTuy1/s320/dad.jpg" width="308" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
You wouldn’t know it to look at him, but my old man is a
feminist. You read that right – John McCreary, the pipefitting, bass fishing,
skoal dipping man who calls me his son is one of the biggest feminists I know.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
About five years ago, my older sister, younger brother and I
were all home for Thanksgiving, sitting around Dad’s kitchen table playing
cards. We are a card-playing family. Our rook games are epic battles known to stretch
into the wee hours of the morning, with nothing but bragging rights at stake.
Our card games are great because, in addition to giving us an opportunity to
scratch our “McCreary Competitive Itch,” it also gives us a chance to talk,
laugh, connect and, as we often do, reminisce about funny stories from our
childhood. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On this particular evening, we began questioning my Dad on
his parenting philosophies. Neither of my parents graduated from college, but
it was never a question that us kids would go to college. All three of us graduated
from college and two of us have advanced degrees. I suspect that we all take some
measure of pride about our blue-collar rural upbringing and the fact that we
all turned out to be successful, well-adjusted (most of the time) adults. Dad
(and Mom) had high standards for all of us, but my brother and I will be the
first to admit that our older sister was held to the highest standards of all. In fact, she was held to what some might call
ridiculously high standards. She once brought home a B+ for her first six-week
report card in her high school Health class, and was grounded for the remainder
of the semester to ensure that she got an A in the class (which she did, and
later graduated with a perfect 4.0 and got a full honors scholarship to East
Tennessee State University). She had a strict curfew, was rarely allowed to
spend “alone time” with boys (much to Mack Raines’ and Kent Leach’s chagrin), and
she had a weekly list of household chores that would rival that of Cinderella’s
(pre-glass slipper, of course). By comparison,
my brother and I had more than our fair share of weekly chores on the farm, but
we were able to generally come and go as we pleased, and the occasional B on
the report card was no reason for any cruel or unusual punishment. We were held
to high standards, but were under considerably less scrutiny than our older
sister. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We asked Dad that night “why were you so much tougher on
Jennifer that you were on us?” Honestly, I expected his answer to be something
about her being the oldest child and him just getting a little more laid back
as time went on, which is typically how parents behave when multiple children
are in the picture. The story of the over-programmed oldest child, the lonely,
attention-starved middle child (i.e. me), and the baby who gets away with murder is so
commonplace as to be cliché, and I expected that Dad’s answer to our query
would fall within that familiar narrative. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I was wrong.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here is what he said:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“I knew you boys would be OK no matter what happened. If
college didn’t work out you could find a good job working construction and
everything would be fine. But I knew that Jennifer’s only chance to get out of
here (here being Campbell County, TN) was to go to college and be able to
support herself. I didn’t want her stuck around here having to be dependent on
some loser from Campbell County. I pushed her really hard because I wanted her
to be able to live the life she wanted to live without having to depend on
someone else.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
See, I told you he was a feminist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think my Dad, when he was in his 20’s and 30’s raising my
sister (he was only 20 when she was born), probably had no idea he was a
feminist. Hell, at 60 he still may not consider himself a feminist, but his way
of thinking about raising his daughter speaks right to the heart of the
feminist movement. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Feminism is not the ultra-left-wing, man-hating, baby-killing,
angry, purple-haired lesbian movement than many in our society have made it out
to be. At the heart of the feminist movement, as far as I can tell, are three
simple beliefs:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ol>
<li>That every woman should be in charge of her own destiny</li>
<li>That
we should not have a society or an economy designed around the concept of a
woman being dependent on a man (or anyone else, for that matter) for her happiness
and well-being</li>
<li>That all women deserve to be treated like humans with equal
rights to men and not merely as objects of sexual desire.</li>
</ol>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Find any father who has a daughter, and ask him whether or
not he believes that his little girl should be in charge of her own destiny,
whether or not he wants his daughter to one day be completely dependent on a
man, or if he likes to think about his daughter as a human being or a sex
object. By those three standards, I would like to think that 99.9 percent of
the fathers in America would define themselves as feminists. My old man is not
an oddity – I choose to believe that most fathers in America would share my Dad’s
goals for his daughter with their own.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So why such hostility towards the feminist movement? Why the
Republican animosity towards the recent women’s marches across America? Why don’t
more fathers, husbands, and brothers in America consider themselves feminists? I
can answer that question with one word – abortion.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The right to choose has been at the center of the feminist
movement for at least 50 years, if not longer. It is the line in the sand that
the feminist movement has drawn – when it comes to abortion, you are either
with us or against us. There is little room for wavering, and a lot of fathers,
husbands, and brothers – those who might otherwise consider themselves
feminists but are opposed to abortion – are unable to take up the feminist
cause. And in our polarizing society, if
you do not consider yourself a feminist, you generally then must consider
yourself “anti-feminist” and therefore deride and dismiss things like women’s
marches. I think it is sad and unfortunate that abortion has become the dividing
line that has kept otherwise feminist men (and women) from being part of the
feminist movement, leading to fathers, brothers and husbands voting against the
best interests of their daughters, sisters and wives (not to mention the women
who vote against their own interests for the same reason). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While I am often frustrated that abortion becomes a line in
the sand for the feminist movement, I understand why such is the case. If you
fundamentally believe that women should be in charge of their own destiny, and
that they should not ever be dependent on a man for their well-being, then you
must be, by definition, pro-choice. The choice to have a child or terminate a
pregnancy has much more impact on the destiny and well-being of a woman than it
does on the man, even though he is equally responsible for the pregnancy.
Beyond the obvious physical impact, it is incredibly difficult for young women,
particularly low-income women from marginalized communities, to establish
paternity and enforce a paternity ruling in this country in order to gain
financial support for a child born out of wedlock. District Attorney’s offices
are woefully understaffed, and enforcing paternity suits are not among their
top priorities. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The fact is, if a woman chooses to have a child, or is forced to have a
child, the chances are high that she will end up bearing the overwhelming
majority of the cost and burden of raising that child. It will impact her ability to continue her
education. It will impact her career choices. It will completely and
fundamentally change her life. The decision to have or not have a child impacts
a woman’s destiny in very real ways, and in ways that it does not impact a man.
One cannot say “I think women should be in charge of their own destiny, and
should determine the course of their own lives without being dependent on a man
or on the government, but if a man gets a woman pregnant through mutual
carelessness, the woman must be forced to have that child.” Those two ideas are
not reconcilable with one another. We cannot say that a woman is in charge of
her own life and destiny, but then mandate that if a man carelessly impregnates
her, she must have that child. In other words, one cannot be a feminist and be
anything other than pro-choice.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think this concept is where the abortion rights movement
has lost its message. The most common message we hear from the pro-choice crowd
is “my body, my choice,” which is countered by the pro-life crowd with “abortion
is murder.” I would argue that “my body, my choice” is a lousy slogan precisely
because it ignores the fact that another “body” is at play here. We can have an
intelligent, thoughtful conversation about when life begins (conception, birth,
or somewhere in between), but even the staunchest pro-choicer is forced to admit
that the pro-life crowd has a good point. A strong argument can be made for
life beginning at conception, and if such is the case, there is more than one “body”
involved in the decision to terminate a pregnancy. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you’ll pardon me a little “man-splaining” here, I think a
much better slogan for the pro-choice movement would be “my <b><i><u>destiny</u></i></b>, my choice.”
By using the word “destiny” instead of “body,” we elevate the conversation to a
much higher plane. The word “destiny” covers not only the physical impact of a
pregnancy, but the entire gamut of issues involved in what might happen if a
woman chooses to terminate, or not terminate, an unwanted pregnancy. Whose destiny
is impacted by raising the child? How will that decision impact one’s life and
career goals? Financial goals? Who ultimately faces the moral and ethical
consequences of the decision to terminate a pregnancy? All of these questions, both
practical and moral, must be considered when making the decision to terminate a
pregnancy. Ultimately, a woman making this decision has much more at stake than
her body. The decision to have a child, or not have a child, impacts the entire
course of her life in ways that it would never effect of impact a man’s. And we
can’t truly believe that women should be treated equally, that they should be
in charge of their own destiny, and that they should not have to be dependent
on others for their well-being if we do not believe that she has the ability to
choose whether or not to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. I think some
subtle shifts in messaging might create an opportunity for more men and women
to come on board the feminist movement, despite their well-founded moral and
ethical concerns involving abortion.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In writing this, it is important to point out that I am not “pro-abortion.”
I think there are tremendous moral and ethical decisions at play when making
the decision to terminate a pregnancy. But I don’t think it is my job, or the
government’s job, to make that decision for someone else. If I believe a woman
is in control of her destiny, then I trust her to make that decision on her
own. My Dad shares this belief.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I want to live in a world where more men, AND women, describe
themselves as feminists. I want to see men AND women continue to stand up to a
President who has made the objectification of women part of his life’s work,
not to mention his campaign platform. I want to live in a world where my
sister, my nieces (whom I adore), or my future wife or daughter are truly in
control of their own lives and destinies and are never dependent on a man for
their success or well-being. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
I am a feminist, and I come by it honest. You might say it
runs in the family.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-50167518105960494222017-01-05T07:55:00.000-08:002017-01-05T07:55:24.488-08:00Five Rules for Managing Organizational Misconduct<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlr8qchgbb-EJ_4Af6Dj_OsnyFmYBaY8MvATaOQJfxs5h0eI2gfK_tS4d5HK1JlCrP0WpYV_ggBzaF8quIN0UEPZOeC14zi4xno2opW6ai2FW7gbwxrfxQfRXjBNQxpBJChEtXWuMm6zN4/s1600/AnimalHouse-Otter-Defense.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlr8qchgbb-EJ_4Af6Dj_OsnyFmYBaY8MvATaOQJfxs5h0eI2gfK_tS4d5HK1JlCrP0WpYV_ggBzaF8quIN0UEPZOeC14zi4xno2opW6ai2FW7gbwxrfxQfRXjBNQxpBJChEtXWuMm6zN4/s320/AnimalHouse-Otter-Defense.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Over the last few years, as I have traveled the country
helping colleges and universities improve their ability to investigate and
adjudicate hazing, I have noticed a disturbing phenomenon; most college
campuses are incredibly ill-prepared to address misconduct involving student
organizations and varsity athletic teams. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Take a look at the NASPA Fraternity/Sorority Knowledge
Community page, or the ATIXA listserv, or the ASCA Facebook group and you’ll
notice the same glaring trend – LOTS of questions about how to handle
organizational investigations and adjudication. As I work with campuses on
these issues, I see a lot of common mistakes, many of which I now address in my
training. In this post, I want to address some of those mistakes and offer “Doctor
Gentry’s Five Rules for Managing Organizational Conduct.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Rule #1 – Have an Organizational Conduct Policy that Is
Separate from Your General Student Code of Conduct</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is the first rule, because it is the most common
mistake that campuses make. Many campuses treat student organizations no differently
than they treat individual students. In doing so, they only have one policy (a
student code of conduct) laying out prohibited behaviors, procedures, and
student rights. As many campuses eventually discover, this “one size fits all”
approach rarely works cleanly with student organizations. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Campuses would be wise to adopt a separate set of policies
related to managing organizational conduct. These should include a specific set
of processes related to organizational investigation/adjudication procedures, a
clarification of roles/responsibilities in the process (more on that later), and
options for formal or informal adjudication (also more later). In addition,
some prohibited behaviors also warrant their own separate policies. Almost all
campuses now have Title IX/Sexual Misconduct Policies that lay out prohibited
behaviors and procedure related to sexual harassment and gender discrimination
on campus. But what about a hazing policy? Most campuses only mention hazing in
the list of prohibited behaviors and never get into the details of how hazing
will be investigated/adjudicated. Campuses would be wise to adopt a stand-alone
hazing policy laying out these procedures. At <a href="https://www.ncherm.org/consultants/gentry-mccreary/"><span style="color: blue;">NCHERM we have adopted a model hazing policy</span></a> that we provide as a resource to the campuses with whom we work.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What should these separate policies include? Generally
speaking, as an institution, you need to “give yourself permission” to use
specific investigative tactics. For example, if you are conducting an
investigation into hazing and you want to lock all of the pledges in a room and
keep them there, restricting their communication until all have been
interviewed, can you do that? Does your policy allow for that? Or if you want
to require students to undergo a medical examination to examine them for signs
of hazing (bruising, burns, etc.), does your policy allow you to do that? My
guess is than 95 percent of current student codes of conduct do not address
these issues, which could leave campuses in a legal quagmire if they attempt to
implement these practices during an investigation. Campuses would be wise to write
these polices in a manner that gives them wide latitude in conducting
organizational investigations. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is why a separate organizational policy is important –
there are some basic due process rights that are consistent (because they have
come largely from the courts since Dixon vs. Alabama) across institutions when
it comes to individual students and the conduct process. But the courts have
been largely silent on issues of organizational rights in campus disciplinary
proceedings. Generally speaking, a campus can create any system it wants to
adjudicate these cases, so long as the process is not arbitrary or capricious.
When campuses use individual rights to frame organizational due process rights,
they are only making the organizational investigation/adjudication process more
difficult than it needs to be. Campuses can do, in essence, anything they want with
student organizations, so long as they are following their own policies. So a
good organizational process begins with having good organizational processes
that are spelled out in a separate organizational policy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Rule #2 – In Your Policies, Clearly Delineate Roles and Responsibilities
</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When an organization on your campus is accused or suspected
of wrongdoing, who investigates? Who adjudicates? Who hears appeals? Do these
responsibilities lie with a single individual? A single office? Or are these responsibilities
shared across campus based on the nature of the violation or the accused organization?
Can the student conduct office “sanction” a varsity athletics team, or are
those responsibilities vested solely within the athletics department? Who has
the authority to issue interim sanctions or cease and desist orders, and can
those be appealed? If so, to whom?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These are questions that often come up when I’m training
campuses on organizational conduct. And they are all good questions. I could
give you a list of “best practices” to answer those questions, but I’m not going
to. Besides, what makes a practice “best” and who makes that decision? The
short answer is this – every campus needs to address these and other important
questions in the manner that makes the most sense on that campus. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As you come up with those answers, here are some guiding
philosophies that I would suggest you apply:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ul>
<li>The key to any investigation is that it is fair, impartial
and unbiased. Thus, those closest to the team/organization should not be the
ones investigating. The campus fraternity/sorority advisor should not be
investigating alleged misconduct of campus fraternities for the same reason
that the soccer coach should not be investigating alleged misconduct of the
soccer team. Those working with these groups on a day-to-day basis are
incapable of impartiality (I’ve written more about this topic <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2014/05/five-reasons-you-should-be-using-title.html"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>).<br /></li>
<li>Investigations involving varsity athletics teams should involve
investigators from both inside and outside the athletics department. Someone
inside the department is critical in these investigations, as they will
understand team culture and traditions better than others. But it is also
important that these investigations not be seen as insular. Imagine if an
allegation is received, and the athletics department conducts a thorough
investigation of a team and is unable to substantiate anything. Then, the
following year, a student on that same team is injured in a hazing incident. Regardless
of how thoroughly the prior investigation was conducted, the appearance, from
both a legal and PR perspective, will be that the athletics department knew
there was a problem and did nothing about it, and only used inside people to
conduct the investigation. Having an athletics representative as part of the
investigative team also makes the sanctioning process much easier.<br /></li>
<li>Only senior staff should be able to issue interim
sanctions/cease and desist notices for organizations, and these should be used
sparingly (more on that later). In assigning these roles, it is important to
build a firewall between the adjudication process and the appeals process. For
example, if the VPSA is the appeals officer, he or she should not be the one to
offer interim sanctions. That responsibility should be designated to a Dean of
Students or equivalent position.
Fraternity/sorority advisors or other campus organization advisors
should not be responsible for issuing cease and desist notices, as this can
jeopardize their ability to work with accused groups in the future. </li>
</ul>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Rule #3 – Self-Governance Should Be the Goal of
Organizational Conduct Processes</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The entire organizational process should be centered around
one goal – to promote and encourage organizations to self-police and
self-govern. This theme should be woven into the investigation process, the adjudication
process and, most importantly, the sanctioning process. Here are a few ideas
that encourage self-governance:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ul>
<li>Self-Reporting Policies – our model hazing policy at NCHERM
has a clause for self-reporting. The idea behind this clause is that you give
organizations an incentive for reporting individual misconduct violations
(particularly helpful in hazing, Title IX, and other serious crimes – less helpful
with alcohol and other minor violations). The clause basically says this – if an
individual in your organization violates a policy, and you address it and
report it, we will work with you to address JUST that individual and will not
sanction the entire organization. To borrow the “carrot and stick” analogy,
self-reporting provides a great carrot aimed at getting organizational leaders
to draw clear lines of acceptable and unacceptable behavior in their
organizations.<br /></li>
<li>A Partnership Process – Out of all of the campuses I have
worked with, LSU probably does the best job of giving student organizations an
incentive to self-investigate, and on the back end does a great job working
with organizations on “outcomes” as opposed to “sanctions.” You can read more
about their process <a href="http://students.lsu.edu/sites/default/files/resources/files/Org%20Accountability%20Flow%20Chart%202015_0.pdf"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>.<br /></li>
<li>Students Play a Role – <a href="http://www.auburn.edu/student_info/student_affairs/studentconduct/policies.php"><span style="color: blue;">Auburn University</span></a> has done an
excellent job integrating students in at every level of the organizational
adjudicative process. All investigations (with the exception of Title IX) are
conducted by a trained student/administrator team, and students are involved in
the adjudicative and appeals processes as well. By creating transparency and
involving students in the process, student organizations are much more likely
to buy in to self-regulation and have a more favorable attitude towards the
investigative/adjudicative process.<br /></li>
<li>Create Incentives for Self-Governance Through Outcomes –
When you develop educational sanctions (or as I like to call them, outcomes),
you should do so with the goal of creating opportunities for students to
self-govern in the future. Here are some examples of process outcomes designed
to promote self-governance:<br /></li>
<ul>
<li>Working with the group to overhaul its internal conduct/standards
process and ensure that members and advisors receive regular training related
to member accountability<br /></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Working with the group to develop clear and articulated
membership standards and behavioral policies<br /></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Having social restrictions tied to demonstrations of
self-governance (i.e. if a chapter hits certain benchmarks related to
self-governance, some of its social activities can be restored) and providing
incentives for future self-reporting/self-governing</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Rule #4 - Campuses Should Invest in Training Investigators</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Campuses need to invest more in having a team of trained
investigators for organizational conduct cases, particularly those involving
victims (hazing, sexual or physical violence, etc.). By allowing novice
investigators with no formal training investigate these cases, we do a
tremendous disservice to victims. Hazing cases, in particular, offer the
biggest challenge for new investigators. Think about this – in a Title IX case,
the hardest thing an investigator will ever have to do is make a credibility
determination. Based on evidence gathered from third parties, whose version of
events do I find more credible. This is difficult to do, but not impossible.
Hazing cases, on the other hand, involve a concerted effort, even by the
victims themselves, to provide misinformation to the investigators. A large
percentage of hazing cases end with administrators being unable to substantiate
the claims of the case. Investigators need to receive training on how to handle
these cases. <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2014/11/five-tips-for-better-hazing.html"><span style="color: blue;">In a separate blog post</span></a>, I’ve offered some advice on how to
conduct these investigations in a manner more likely to result in a finding of
the truth. Campuses who fail to invest in training their investigators will
yield the inevitable fruits of that decision – dead end investigations and
continued misconduct. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Rule #5 – Cease and Desist Orders Are Last, Not First,
Option</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have worked with several campuses in the last few years
whose automatic default, any time they receive an allegation of potential
misconduct, is to place the organization on a cease and desist (the organizational
equivalent of interim suspension). I think cease and desist orders should be
used sparingly in order to have the most impact and to avoid creating
unnecessary animosity between the students and the administration. Issuing cease
and desist notices are appropriate when failing to do so could place students
in harm’s way. In any sort of serious hazing case, or in cases of serious physical
abuse or sexual misconduct that is clearly organizational in nature (like the
Kappa Delta Rho case at Penn State last year), a cease and desist is the
appropriate response. But many campuses have now taken the step of issuing a
cease and desist for almost all cases, regardless of severity. A campus
recently called me about a Title IX case they were investigating, in which an
alleged sexual assault may have risen out of a fraternity party. The case was
completely individual in nature, and nothing indicated that the chapter knew
about, condoned, or was in any position to stop the alleged assault. The
investigation had revealed that there were some other issues related to the
party (namely distribution of alcohol) that may eventually lead to charges
against the chapter, and the campus administrators asked if a cease and desist
was appropriate. I responded, as I always do to this question, with a question
of my own – “If this were just a standard run of the mill alcohol case, not
involving a Title IX investigation, would you offer a cease and desist?” The answer to that question being “no,” I
proceeded to my next question. “Then why would the fact that this information
came from a Title IX investigation and not some other type of report cause you
to order a cease and desist?” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If an organization’s continued operation poses a threat to
student safety, then a cease and desist is appropriate. Short of that, it is
not appropriate and should not be used. Just because a fraternity or sports
team is indirectly involved in a potential Title IX violation does not mean
that the organization poses a threat to other students. Would we temporarily kick all of
the students out of a residence hall if a sexual assault occurred after a floor
meeting? Would be suspend the entire chess club if a student was sexually
assaulted by a member of the team after a match? Did anyone propose suspending
the entire Oklahoma football team after Joe Mixon punched a woman in the face
at an off-campus restaurant? I ask these rhetorical questions to illustrate a
point – holding entire organizations responsible for individual acts of
misconduct is rarely, if ever, appropriate. When cease and desist orders are
used as a punitive measure, and not because of a genuine concern for student
safety, then they become problematic. They should be used sparingly, and only
for the purpose of promoting student safety.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Organizational misconduct can be difficult, but if you
follow these simple rules, these cases will be much easier to manage, you will
be more likely to impact the negative behavior you are trying to address, and you
will build trust instead of animosity as you navigate the organizational
conduct process. <o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-21462207992045363952016-10-05T10:46:00.003-07:002016-10-06T08:40:57.885-07:00Vulnerability and the Creation of Belonging<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjUM54VCPlJTa_WEa0syWMcfEirvobZGzNHq01q-kJBhRcc0MEFBiS51gFmNuodFE2IB7xJDLyfze0pYTa5hl-v9U6p4eWuiVmYbxacjA9GF4NNjBTXfwt2CUklF1XhJmszjuya5dnxz6G/s1600/puzzle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjUM54VCPlJTa_WEa0syWMcfEirvobZGzNHq01q-kJBhRcc0MEFBiS51gFmNuodFE2IB7xJDLyfze0pYTa5hl-v9U6p4eWuiVmYbxacjA9GF4NNjBTXfwt2CUklF1XhJmszjuya5dnxz6G/s320/puzzle.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i>*This post is the
second in a series of three related to belonging in the fraternity sorority
experience.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let’s take a walk back in time, shall we? Think back to your
own fraternity/sorority experience. For some of you this may be difficult due
to the passage of time and the onset of old age (looking at you John Mountz and
Tim Wilkinson), but for most of us we can easily put ourselves back in the
chapter room and remember the faces and the spaces that shaped so much of our
experience as undergraduates. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I want you to think of the person in your chapter who you
would say was the “best” member – that member of your chapter who you would say
all other members of your organization should have aspired to be more like.
This person may or may not have been a leader in the chapter, but they
displayed all of the qualities that you would say are indicative of a good
member of your organization, and they took an active interest in the life of
your chapter. I want you to picture this person’s face in your mind. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Recently, I have taken to asking current undergraduates to
participate in this activity. When they select their “ideal” chapter member, I
ask them to describe this person to me. Inevitably, the answer goes something
like this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“He/she is always there, doing whatever they can do to help
the chapter. They care so much about their brothers/sisters, they are always
willing to help someone out or do whatever needs to be done for the chapter.
They give so much of themselves in order to make the chapter better.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These responses may or may not also include a list of the
ideal member’s virtues – their honesty, integrity, or character. But, without
exception, these members’ commitment to the chapter and its goals are always
the center of the discussion.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Once a few students have discussed the virtues of their
exemplary chapter member, I ask them a second question: Why do you think the
person you have named is so committed to the chapter and its success? Why do
you think they care so much?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That question, and its answer, has provided a crucial pivot
point upon which I have been able to explore the power of belonging, and those
conversations have illuminated for me a truth that is as simple as it is
powerful: <b><i>Commitment comes from belonging, and belonging comes from
vulnerability. </i></b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The people who care the most about their chapters – those
exemplar members who go above and beyond to support the chapter and its efforts
– are those who feel the strongest emotional connection to the organization. As
I discussed in the <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-power-of-belonging.html"><span style="color: blue;">previous post in this series</span></a>, brother/sisterhood based on
belonging is the most powerful predictor of both affective (emotional)
commitment and normative (obligatory) commitment. As that sense of belonging
increases over time – as a student truly sees their fraternity or sorority as
their home away from home where they feel valued and appreciated – so, too,
does that member’s commitment to the organization. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In this Socratic conversation with students, after helping
them understand the connection between commitment and belonging, I ask them to
reflect back on their own membership experience, and to describe to me the time
when they first began to feel that deeper sense of emotional connection to
their group. Specifically, when was it that they first began to realize that
their fraternity/sorority was more than just a place to have fun, and a group
of people to have fun with? When was it that they found that they were becoming
emotionally connected to their brothers or sisters?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Inevitably, one of the answers I always receive goes
something like this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>About halfway through my new member experience, there was
an activity that we did at our pledge retreat where we had to talk about really
personal stuff. The conversation got really deep – we were sharing things with
one another that you don’t normally share with people. I’ll never forget how I
felt after that conversation. I felt so much more connected to my pledge
class</i>…”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sometimes these deep meaningful conversations happen as part
of a planned activity, but sometimes they happen more spontaneously. In a
workshop with a fraternity recently, a member shared a story of a freshman-year
road trip – he and five of his pledge brothers had decided to ride together to
an away football game. Five pledge brothers riding in a car together for
several hours. He described that they started playing a “question game” and
that the questions started out as funny and silly (i.e. “would you rather”),
but that, at some point, someone started asking deeper, more meaningful
questions. The member telling me this story stated “I’ll never forget some of
the things we talked about in that car. We just totally opened up to each other
and shared things that we’d never really shared with anyone else before. The
five of us were so close after that experience.” These five guys, all seniors,
were all still active in the chapter, and, not coincidentally, were sitting together
at the meeting and “dabbed it out” as their brother shared the story of their
car ride. The connection was clearly still strong, four years after that car
ride had taken place.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<h3>
More Than Just a Buzzword</h3>
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Vulnerability is a word that has been in the student affairs
lexicon for a few years now. Since Brene’ Brown released her <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability?language=en"><span style="color: blue;">TED Talk</span></a> on the
topic, vulnerability has been all the rage among the AFA crowd. I can’t tell
you how many times I have heard a facilitator at a leadership program encourage
students to be “authentic and vulnerable.” For years, I have rolled my eyes and
even made little jokes privately among my friends about being “authentic and
vulnerable.” I had written vulnerability off as just another student affairs
buzzword – a favorite of the “toxic hegemonic masculinity” crowd who seemingly
have difficulty connecting with the average college fraternity member.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But then I started asking fraternity and sorority members
these questions about belonging and commitment, and I kept getting the same
answers. Even the most masculine of fraternity members were sharing stories of
times when they were vulnerable and opened up to their brothers about things
going on in their lives. And I realized that what I was finding in my own
qualitative research was incredibly consistent with what Brene’ Brown has found
in hers. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you are unfamiliar with Brown’s work, she has spent 20
years trying to understand human connection, and her research has led her to an
understanding that, in order for meaningful connection to happen, people must
allow themselves to be seen. What she has found in her research suggests that
people who feel a real sense of belonging and connection share four traits in
common. First, they demonstrate courage by sharing with others who they really
are. Secondly, they demonstrate compassion, towards both themselves and others,
accepting their own flaws and the flaws of others. Next, they demonstrate
authenticity – they are comfortable with who they really are and do not feel
the need to pretend to be something or someone that they are not. Finally, they
are vulnerable – they demonstrate a willingness to share things about
themselves with no guarantee of how people will respond. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And in story after story that fraternity and sorority
members have shared with me in the last year, I have found pretty much the same
thing. Individuals who feel a deep sense of belonging and connection with their
brothers and sisters all share that they have had experiences where they had to
be truly vulnerable in front of their brothers and sisters, demonstrating
courage in sharing their true selves, and demonstrating compassion towards
their brothers and sisters as they demonstrated courage and vulnerability in
sharing things about themselves. Sometimes these settings are contrived and
planned (i.e. the darkened room, passing around a candle, sharing deep, dark
secrets), but often they occur naturally and spontaneously (i.e. the five guys
on the road trip). Regardless of the planned or unplanned nature of these
conversations, they serve the same purpose – creating meaningful connection and
planting the seeds of a brother/sisterhood based on belonging.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<h3>
Belonging and New Member Education</h3>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
When I discuss these types of “connecting conversations”
with new member educators, what I find is that these “planned” conversations
often only take place once or maybe twice during the new member period, usually
at a new member retreat (i.e. standing around the campfire) and very frequently
in the days leading up to initiation in a more formal, esoteric ceremony (i.e.
passing around the candle in a darkened room). Understanding the impact of
those types of conversations, imagine how much deeper the sense of connection
would be between and among new members if these conversations happened not only
once or twice, but regularly throughout the new member period and beyond.
Imagine the inter-class connections that could be forged if you invited upper-classmen
to take part in these conversations as well. The opportunities for deeper
connection and belonging abound, and the more we take advantage of these
opportunities, the more our new members will feel a sense of belonging and,
subsequently, a feeling of emotional commitment to their organizations. If you
can create that sense of belonging in your new members, there is a good chance
that each of them will be just as committed as that “ideal member” we discussed
earlier.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When it comes to building brother/sisterhood through the new
member education process, fraternities and sororities both often fail to focus
an adequate amount of time and energy on belonging. Instead, we often see
fraternities over-emphasize solidarity as a mechanism of brotherhood, and we
often see sororities over-emphasize the social nature of sisterhood. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fraternity new member educators commonly make the mistake of
assuming that they are building committed members by using hazing as a means by
which to create solidarity. The mentality is “If we put these guys through a
really difficult experience, they will grow together as a pledge class,
becoming a bonded unified group, and will become committed, dedicated
brothers.” But if they have failed to create the emotional connection along the
way, the sense of solidarity will not result in a lasting commitment to the
organization. The new members will come together, demonstrating solidarity in
the short-term as they work together to overcome the adversity of pledging, and
upon initiation will have a euphoric sense of achievement. We made it through!
We did it!<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But after that post-initiation feeling of euphoria subsides
(often after only a few weeks), the new initiates are left to grapple with the
realities of fraternity membership. And those fraternities most at risk for
experiencing the “sophomore slump” are those in which the focus was on a
difficult pledge period designed to produce solidarity, but who failed to help
their new members develop a real sense of meaningful connection to their
brothers. They will realize that, because of the hazing, they actually feel
alienated and isolated from most of the chapter, but may not feel comfortable
enough with their pledge brothers to discuss those feelings of isolation. Many
of the members will, in short order, become apathetic, stop coming around, and
gradually drift away from the chapter and their brothers. No belonging yields
no commitment. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sororities, on the other hand, tend to focus more on the
social side of sisterhood during new member education, with the idea being that
“we want these girls to get to know each other and be comfortable around one
another.” Ask a sorority new member educator or sisterhood chair about the
different types of “sisterhood activities” they have for new members.
Inevitably these are designed to be “fun” events that provide new members with
opportunities to socialize, but rarely push the new members beyond very surface
level conversations: popcorn and movie nights, mani/pedi night, yoga with the
sisters, etc. There is nothing wrong with these types of events – creating fun
opportunities for engagement can make the sorority experience a better, more
enjoyable experience. The mistake that sororities make is assuming that these
activities are leading to a deeper connection to the organization, but that is
rarely the case. Women join sororities craving a deep sense of connection and a
place where they can be themselves, but rarely receive that as part of their
new member experience. New members are showered with gifts and fun social
opportunities, but are often now showered with opportunities for deep,
meaningful connection. If they fail to develop that connection, once the “fun
and excitement” phase of being in a sorority wears off (usually after the
freshman year) and being in a sorority starts to feel more like work, they will
gradually drift away from the organization as the mani/pedi nights become less
and less important to them.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Phired Up Productions has published some <a href="http://blog.phiredup.com/?p=2685"><span style="color: blue;">excellent research</span></a> related to
the reason that fraternity and sorority members quit their organizations,
finding that lack of connection and misaligned expectations are the most common reason that members
leave. Students join expecting the experience to be one thing, realize that it is
not what the thought it would be, and they leave. I would advance that research
by suggesting that members join looking for a place where they will find a
group of people with whom they will truly belong – a place where they will feel
connected, valued and appreciated. The members who leave are those who do not
find that place of meaningful connection. <i><b>The greatest unmet expectation in the
fraternity/sorority experience <u>IS</u> the expectation of belonging.</b></i><o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Recently, I have had the chance to interact with
professionals from college counseling centers on two different campuses, and
have taken advantage of those opportunities to discuss the issue of belonging.
In both cases, they have affirmed, based on their own clinical experience, that
the fraternity and sorority members who they see are seeking therapy because
they do not feel a meaningful sense of connection with their brothers/sisters.
They joined their organizations craving belonging, but did not find it. These
are the members who drift away, who become apathetic, and who eventually leave
the organization. <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The single most important thing that fraternities and
sororities can do to address apathy issues, retention issues, or motivation
issues is to focus more time, energy and effort on the creation of belonging.
By providing more opportunities for members, especially new members, to engage
in deep conversations – conversations requiring courage, authenticity and
vulnerability – our fraternity and sorority chapters will see less apathy,
better retention, higher motivation and overall happier and more connected
members. And the most important work that we, as professionals working with
fraternities and sororities, can do is to help provide the guidance and
frameworks that will allow chapters to develop more brotherhood and sisterhood
programs designed to foster vulnerability, meaningful connection, and
belonging. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>The final installment of this three-part series on the power
of belonging will investigate the peculiar problem of belonging in sororities. </i><o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-32585591762241556642016-09-18T20:40:00.000-07:002016-09-19T21:04:23.996-07:00The Power of Belonging<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1I-C97-7GYBGp1TVZZ8ZWiKqpTI28eGqGTx4u6-ykXZVPlPgZk66VlzI24OJRUYmlN4sxZ9mXwY_CAYEAakLIZSmmVf54uBOXtDZOnseqlQQ9eRmhJss7EmOR9xdVb851X6ozwTM02k0I/s1600/belonging.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1I-C97-7GYBGp1TVZZ8ZWiKqpTI28eGqGTx4u6-ykXZVPlPgZk66VlzI24OJRUYmlN4sxZ9mXwY_CAYEAakLIZSmmVf54uBOXtDZOnseqlQQ9eRmhJss7EmOR9xdVb851X6ozwTM02k0I/s320/belonging.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
*<i>This post is the
first in a series of three posts related to brother/sisterhood based on
belonging. This post will cover the reasons why belonging is such an important
part of the fraternity/sorority experience. The second post will discuss what
we have found are the best ways to foster belonging at the chapter level. The
final post will explore the particular problem of belonging in sororities. <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For the last four years, Josh Schutts, Sarah Cohen and I
have been engaged in an in-depth study of fraternal brotherhood and sisterhood.
In our research, we have discovered that men and women experience brotherhood
and sisterhood in different ways, and that the degree to which they experience
the various elements of brother/sisterhood powerfully predicts a variety of
other outcomes related to the fraternity and sorority experience.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
During that time, as we have developed curriculum
related to brother/sisterhood, we have tended to focus most of our efforts on
boosting brother/sisterhood based on accountability. Being the most altruistic
form of brotherhood, and perhaps of sisterhood, it made sense to us that if we
could only help more chapters become more comfortable holding one another
accountable, all of the problems in fraternity/sorority world would be worked
out. What we have discovered in the last four years is that before students can
become comfortable holding one another accountable, they must first become
comfortable with one another. In other words, students must feel a sense of
belonging before we can expect them to master the art of accountability.
Belonging, not accountability, is the most important aspect of brotherhood and
sisterhood, because without belonging, accountability is difficult, if not
impossible, to achieve. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To be clear, accountability is still important. In fact, ALL
of the schema of brotherhood are important – not just those which are the most
altruistic. As we have observed in our conversations with chapters over the
last few years, a deficiency in ANY aspect of brother/sisterhood can have
detrimental impact on a chapter. But over time, we have observed both
quantitatively and qualitatively that belonging plays a critical role in a
chapter’s overall brother/sisterhood profile.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Think about it – most students join a fraternity or sorority
to find a place to belong on campus. The need to belong has been the lifeblood
of fraternities and sororities over the years – it is THE driving force in
membership recruitment. Students looking for a place to meaningfully connect
with like-minded others have flocked to fraternities and sororities for nearly
two centuries. This seeking of belonging is not a frivolous pursuit that
fraternities and sororities provide for only the most affluent students.
Rather, belonging is a fundamental human need. If you are a student of Maslow,
then you know that, once basic survival needs are taken care of, the most basic
human need is a place to belong. As humans, we crave connection. We are social
creatures, and our evolutionary instincts have driven us to play well with
others so that we will be accepted and loved by our respective tribes. A need
for a life of connection, rather than a life of isolation, has driven this
phenomenon for generations. The need to belong is not new.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As we have analyzed larger and larger datasets over the
years (we have now had over 20,000 women and 15,000 complete the Fraternal
Brotherhood and Fraternal Sisterhood Questionnaires), we have noted five
important findings that illustrate why belonging is the most important aspect
of brotherhood and sisterhood:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<b>1. Belonging explains the most variance in the overall brother/sisterhood
models</b></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All of the schema of brother/sisterhood are positively
correlated with one another. If any one goes up or down in a significant way,
we would expect to see the other schema impacted in some way. But when
completing a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the overall
brotherhood/sisterhood models, we find that belonging explains the greatest
variance in the overall models for both brother and sisterhood. In other words,
belonging is a powerful driver of all of the other schema of
brother/sisterhood. As belonging goes, so go the other schema. A chapter that
measures high in belonging will likely measure high in the other areas of
brother/sisterhood. A chapter measuring low in belonging will likely struggle
in other areas of brother/sisterhood as well.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Conceptually, this makes sense. It is hard to imagine being
part of a group where you do not feel like you share meaningful connections to
other group members, but feel like you are supported, feel like the experience
is fun, or feel comfortable holding other group members accountable to the
groups expectations. Without belonging, we really don’t have brotherhood or
sisterhood. Brother/sisterhood may not end with belonging, but it most
definitely begins there. <o:p></o:p></div>
<h3>
<b><br /></b><b>2. The strongest predictor of the most altruistic versions of
brother/sisterhood is belonging</b></h3>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of all its relationships with the other schema of brother/sisterhood,
belonging has the strongest correlation with the two most altruistic schema.
For men, belonging is the strongest predictor of brotherhood based on
accountability (correlation of .346). In women, belonging is the strongest
predictor of sisterhood based on common purpose (correlation of .78). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Consider the practical implications of this. For men, this
tells us that the more that fraternity members feel connected to one another,
the more likely they are to hold one another to the chapter’s standards and
expectations. The less men feel a sense of belonging, the less likely they are
to hold one another accountable. Before men are comfortable enough to hold
their brothers to mutually agreed upon expectations, they must first be
comfortable having deep, meaningful conversations with them. Vulnerability and
connection comes first, accountability comes second.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For women, belonging is an incredibly strong predictor of
sisterhood based on common purpose. If sorority members do not establish
meaningful connections to one another, it is unlikely that they will develop
meaningful connection to the organization’s purpose. As we have learned in our
conversations with sorority women, belonging comes from authenticity – a
feeling of “being able to be myself in front of my sisters” instead of having
to wear a mask and “pretend that things are always great, even if they aren’t.”
The data suggest that until women feel they can be authentic with one another,
they are much less likely to feel comfortable holding their sisters accountable
or buying into the organization’s purpose and mission. <o:p></o:p></div>
<h3>
<b><br /></b><b>3. Belonging powerfully predicts organizational commitment </b></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In our research, we have studied organizational commitment
in a variety of ways, but the two that seem to make the best connection to the
fraternity/sorority experience are affective commitment and normative
commitment.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Affective commitment is best described as an emotional
commitment. A person measuring high on affective commitment has a deep and
abiding love for their organization and the people in it. Because of that
emotional connection, they are committed to the organization. They stay
involved, support the organizations efforts, and attend organization events
because of their feeling of love for the organization and its members.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Normative commitment is best described as a sense of
obligation. Someone measuring high on this construct would likely say “I feel
like my fraternity/sorority has given so much to me. I feel obligated to give
back to the organization because all I’ve gotten from this experience.” They
stay involved and support the chapter’s events because of that feeling of
obligation. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Both of these constructs are predicted by a number of things
we have studied, but the most powerful predictor of both affective and normative
commitment, for both men and women, is belonging. The more you feel a
meaningful connection to your chapter brothers/sisters, the more committed you
are to them and the organization. Because of this, chapters measuring high on
belonging should also expect to have better membership retention, as commitment
is a strong predictor of retention. The more committed you are, the more likely
you are to stay around. The less committed you are, the more likely you are to
leave. And nothing predicts this commitment as powerfully as belonging.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<b>4. Belonging powerfully predicts Organizational Identification</b></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Imagine that member of your chapter who never leaves the
house without wearing letters. Shirts. Hats. Sandals. Letters on their can.
Hell, maybe even an ankle tat. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I think of that person in my own chapter, I always
think of Johnny Barnes. In four years, I don’t think I ever saw Johnny wearing
anything other than AGR letters. He bought every single t-shirt that was
available. He had at least six hats, a fleece jacket, a pullover, letters on
his car, and if memory serves he had a tattoo as well. He literally never left
the house without repping the letters of our beloved fraternity. AGR was an
important part of Johnny’s identity on campus. He did not want people on campus
to know him as merely Johnny – he wanted to be known as Johnny the AGR. The
fraternity was fully and completely intertwined in his personal identity. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The “Johnny Barnes Phenomenon” is something we have actually
studied in our research, through a construct called Organizational
Identification. Fraternity/sorority members measuring high on Org ID make the
fraternity/sorority a big part of their identity. They wear letters. They
attend events. They want to see the organization succeed, because when the
organization is successful, they are successful, because the organization is a
part of them. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Belonging is the strongest predictor of Organizational
Identification for both men and women. The more you feel a sense of belonging
and connection to your brothers/sisters, the more likely you are to make the
organization a big piece of your personal identity. Like both affective and
normative commitment, Org ID is also a powerful predictor of member retention.
Chapter members measuring high on Org ID would never dream of quitting, going
inactive, or otherwise leaving the organization, because it is such a big piece
of who they are. After all, if you are “Johnny the AGR,” then not being at AGR
is almost inconceivable. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My guess is that every chapter has a Johnny Barnes. But
imagine a chapter filled with members like Johnny Barnes. That can happen only
when chapters work hard to make sure that members feel a deep sense of
connection and belonging. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<b>5. Belonging is the most powerful predictor of overall
satisfaction with the fraternity/sorority experience</b></h3>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In our recent research with some of our national fraternity
and sorority clients, we have begun asking students to respond to a single
survey item asking them, overall, how satisfied they are with their
fraternity/sorority experience. Using regression analysis, we have then looked
at the variables that predict this satisfaction item. Even when controlling for
every other variable that we measure (generally between 30 and 40), belonging
explains over 30 percent of the variance in overall satisfaction with the
fraternity/sorority experience. It is by far and away the most powerful
predictor of satisfaction – the next closest variable is affective commitment,
which explains a mere 16 percent of the variance in satisfaction.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Think about the implications of that for a minute. Exactly
1/3 of a fraternity or sorority member’s overall satisfaction with their
experience is explained by a single variable – belonging. Its importance in the
fraternity/sorority experience cannot be overstated. Belonging, simply put, is
the single most important aspect of the fraternity/sorority experience. Members
who feel they belong are more committed, happier, more satisfied with their
experience, more likely to embrace accountability, and more likely to persist
within the organization through graduation compared to members who do not feel
that same sense of belonging.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Belonging’s importance in the fraternity/sorority experience
cannot be overstated. Every campus, and every fraternity and sorority HQ, would
be wise to commit time, energy and resources helping their chapters create
spaces where members feel valued, connected and appreciated. In the next
installment of this three-part series, we will explore strategies that we have
seen work best at the chapter level in creating that sense of connection and
belonging. Stay tuned!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-44723251356973296592016-07-21T10:46:00.003-07:002016-07-21T10:47:46.966-07:00Alumni Advisors as Mandated Reporters<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzXfzg3C9iQCvw8xlMGOzmyg5SRUe4X54qaDTe7oW6EEem72ItSlDAZ2tMGanqfN5GbRrPaESGzS7Q2d8r1PAtFf5YGimv0MYmh-NHbnE4r1txTnpstMr_9bSKuGl6pNER-NiYymtjVnjI/s1600/9.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzXfzg3C9iQCvw8xlMGOzmyg5SRUe4X54qaDTe7oW6EEem72ItSlDAZ2tMGanqfN5GbRrPaESGzS7Q2d8r1PAtFf5YGimv0MYmh-NHbnE4r1txTnpstMr_9bSKuGl6pNER-NiYymtjVnjI/s1600/9.png" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As I travel and speak with my colleagues in
fraternity/sorority advising, I am frequently asked questions about the
intersection of Title IX and fraternities and sororities. In the last year,
I’ve noted an alarming trend – more and more campuses are naming non-employee
student organization advisors as Campus Security Authorities (i.e. mandated
reporters of sexual violence). The rationale for this movement is to increase
reporting of sexual violence, and by making alumnus advisors mandated
reporters, so the thinking goes, institutions may learn about incidents of
sexual violence about which they may not otherwise learn.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Generally speaking, most fraternities and sororities, in addition
to an on-campus or faculty advisor, will have a host of alumni members who
serve in a variety of advisory roles. Some chapters may have a singular alumnus
advisor, some may have an advisory board containing multiple advisors providing
general oversight to the chapter, and some may have advisors assigned to
particular chapter officers (i.e. new member education advisor, recruitment
advisor, etc). These advisors may or may not be alumni of the institution, but
very few are actually employed by the institutions themselves.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Requiring alumni, non-employee advisors to serve as CSA’s is
not a good idea for three reasons:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> </span><b>Lack of accountability</b> – The premise behind a
“Responsible Employee” or a “Campus Security Authority” is based on
accountability. If an employee fails to meet their responsibility as a mandated
reporter, the institution has some recourse to address that behavior. For a
non-employee, this is not possible. The institution has no recourse if it finds
that a non-employee has not fulfilled their mandatory reporting requirements.
This unenforceable policy exposes the institution to increased liability. In
addition, because of the variety of advisory structures and roles, it may be
difficult to clearly delineate which advisors are CSA’s and which are not (i.e.
an alumna/mother of an active member who serves as an assistant recruitment
advisor and is only around the house during formal recruitment – CSA, or not a
CSA?).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> </span><b>Conflict of interest</b> – in many cases, an
organizational advisor may be a trusted, confidential source of support for a
member of the organization. This is especially true for sorority members. If a
sorority member is assaulted, a mandated reporter policy would place the
advisor in a conflicted position – unable to serve her role as confidential
advisor to the student because of her reporting requirements. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.<span style="font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal;"> </span><b>Burden on chapter to recruit advisors</b> – Chapters
have a hard enough time recruiting and retaining good chapter advisors, and we
know that a strong advisory team is a strong predictor of a chapter’s success
and positive organizational culture. Adding mandated reporting requirements to
advisors (which also places increased liability on them) makes it that much
harder for chapters to recruit and retain alumni members to be involved with
their chapters. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So how should we handle the issue of student organization
advisors and mandated reporting? Many campuses are already requiring all
registered student organizations to have an on-campus faculty or staff advisor.
By definition, these individuals (as college/university employees) are CSA’s as
defined by Clery, and should also be considered Responsible University
Employees under Title IX. If you require organizations to have these on-campus
faculty/staff advisors, they should be the mandated reporters. As institutional
employees, they can be held accountable for these responsibilities, and their
roles are often clearly distinguished form those of the alumni advisors. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These faculty advisors are actually valuable assets for a
variety of reasons. In addition to being mandated reporters, they are also
excellent channels for sharing information that may be FERPA protected and that
could not be shared with non-employee advisors. Imagine, for example, that a
member of a fraternity was accused of sexual assault and was placed on interim
restriction from the campus. Imagine that the fraternity member lived in an
off-campus fraternity house that was not covered in the interim restriction.
How would we get this information to the organization without violating FERPA?
Through the organization’s faculty advisor, who clearly has an educational need
to know in this hypothetical situation, and could then pass along relevant
information to others as necessary.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have even heard of some campuses attempting to make
student leaders (i.e. fraternity/sorority presidents) mandated reporters.
Again, for all of the reasons outlined above, this is not a good idea. There
are many ways we can increase reporting and make our campuses safer without
extending our mandated reporting requirements beyond what is reasonable for us
to enforce and in ways that create undue and often conflicting burdens on our
student leaders and volunteers.<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-50332869794760742962016-06-08T07:37:00.002-07:002016-06-08T09:12:15.333-07:00A Fraternal Law of Natural Selection<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixfkctxCYM6mP0iZSDZwYA-1VMoAjP8WhcLHSh2eGGtnjrV38UTnkhe1ouwAPIhSkkns2NL1Y4kjVr2Pq25IpGmtrw7YEsBwFqogIymFab4uB_rB59QB9dV-gfJug7NFK0pAji0zjY4Gzw/s1600/natural-selection-at-work.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixfkctxCYM6mP0iZSDZwYA-1VMoAjP8WhcLHSh2eGGtnjrV38UTnkhe1ouwAPIhSkkns2NL1Y4kjVr2Pq25IpGmtrw7YEsBwFqogIymFab4uB_rB59QB9dV-gfJug7NFK0pAji0zjY4Gzw/s320/natural-selection-at-work.jpg" width="295" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Over the last two years, I have talked with fraternity and
sorority members from all over the country about brotherhood and sisterhood.
These conversations often take on a familiar tone, as most chapters struggle
with the same issues – fraternities struggle with accountability, and
sororities struggle with cutting through the superficiality and making members
feel valued, connected and appreciated. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Inevitably, these conversations often turn to a long
discussion about recruitment – who are we recruiting, and how are we recruiting
them? How are we “selling” brotherhood and sisterhood to prospective members? I
have <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2016/03/how-we-sell-brotherhood-and-sisterhood.html"><span style="color: blue;">written previously</span></a> of this concept and its importance in advancing the
cause of fraternity.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I was recently facilitating the Wooden Institute for Beta
Theta Pi, and a conversation among some of the facilitators came up about
negative campus cultures and the pressure that many “good” chapters feel to
conform to the norms around them. I’ve written about that regression to the
mean before, which you can read <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2015/03/regression-to-mean-and-single-most.html"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>. Simply, it is hard for “good” groups to
stay good for long, because eventually they conform to the pressure of being
more like the groups around them. This is true with the campus social culture, and it
is true with new member education and hazing. The conversation that night got
me thinking that it is also true with recruitment. Chapters who want to recruit
“the right way” soon feel the pressure to recruit “the wrong way,” particularly
if they feel that other chapters are gaining a competitive advantage with the “always
joiners” by showing them a good time and feeding them lots of alcohol during
the recruitment process. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
During this conversation, one of the Beta staffers said “I
wish our chapters could recruit every year the way we recruit for our
expansions.” In other words, what would it look like if chapters did expansion
every year instead of participating in a campus formal recruitment process? Instead
of sorting through the always joiners, recruitment could consist of chapters going
out and setting up shop in the student union, getting referrals from faculty and
administrators, meeting a lot of maybe or never joiners, having conversations
with them, and getting the right guys to join for the right reasons.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
This conversation led me to a fun thought experiment – <b><i>what would
it look like if we just got rid of formal recruitment and let each fraternity
do recruitment in the manner they saw best</i></b>?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have a theory as to what would happen if we got rid of
formal recruitment – McCreary’s Theory of Natural Selection. For the sake of
this post, I’m only going to speculate on what would happen with IFC fraternities –
I doubt the NPC has any plans to scrap the formal recruitment process any time
soon, and certainly the membership intake process deserves a blog post of its own, so we’ll just talk about IFC fraternities for the remainder of this post.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here are the three main postulates of McCreary’s Theory of
Natural Selection:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Postulate #1 - Time and Pressure Are Inversely Correlated</span></b>. The less time
you give fraternities to make decisions about new members, the more pressure
they will be under to conform and “recruit like the other groups.” When given
only a few weeks at the beginning of a Fall semester, there is a mad dash among
fraternities to go out and woo the “always joiners” who sign up for fraternity
recruitment. Knowing that, often, these students are seeking to join for social
reasons, recruitment quickly devolves into a race to see which fraternity can show prospective
members the best time, showcasing only the social elements of brotherhood, with
the result being the wrong people joining for the wrong reasons. However, if fraternities
are not working under such a tight time frame, they will be under less pressure
to conform, more comfortable doing recruitment in the manner that is more
natural and comfortable for them. This recruitment may take on a social flare,
with some chapters choosing to continue using alcohol to recruit, but
fraternities looking for other ways to recruit won’t feel as much pressure to
conform and can take their time in finding the right members.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Postulate # 2 - Pressure and Variance Are Inversely Correlated</span></b>. As far as I can tell, the formal recruitment
process is primarily designed to eliminate as much variance as possible within
a given fraternal community. This works exceptionally well with sororities –
our research on brotherhood and sisterhood is a perfect demonstration of this.
The sisterhood profiles of the sororities on a given campus all look fairly
similar – there are only small differences between the various sororities in a
given campus community. The entire statistical model behind sorority
recruitment is designed with this end in mind – no sorority can get that much
bigger than the rest. Everyone gets basically the same experience in every
house, and the sorting of women into the various houses relies more on math
than it does on culture or fit. The result is a fairly uniform experience with
only minor differences between chapters. Ask a sorority member on your campus
and she’ll tell you (if she has any objectivity at all) that she could see
herself being happy in most of the sororities on campus.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the last 30 years, with the onset of the campus-based
fraternity/sorority advisor, many campuses have imposed a sorority-esque
style of recruitment on the IFC fraternities, and my guess is that the long-term
results of this have been disastrous (on another day we can discuss whether the
fact that <a href="http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.afa1976.org/resource/resmgr/AU/AFA_WhitePaper_Spring_2016.pdf"><span style="color: blue;">65 percent of entry-level fraternity/sorority advisors</span></a> are female and are merely replicating what they know has
anything to do with this shift). We have slowly diminished the variance in our
fraternity communities, and not in a good way. The “always joiners” who buy the
stereotype are presented with no (or very few) alternatives to the stereotype
during a very brief and contrived recruitment process, and the result has been
entire fraternity communities that exist for no other reason than to provide a
social experience for members. The variance has been eliminated, which means
that the “best” fraternity on campus is often indistinguishable, or barely
distinguishable, from the worst. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I theorize that if the pressure to recruit as many members
as possible as quickly as possible were eliminated, then we would begin to see
more variance within fraternal communities. Chapters who wanted to recruit the
right people the right way would have more time and opportunity to do so, and the
chapters who wanted to recruit with alcohol could do so and face the inevitable
consequences of that decision. Fraternities could take their time, really getting
to know potential members and the reasons they seek membership. Similarly,
recruits would be under less pressure – they would have more time to evaluate
their options and choose the group that best resonated with the experience they
were seeking. The resulting fraternity community would be multi-tiered, with
roughly equal portions of “good” chapters providing a values-based experience, “mediocre”
chapters providing a hybrid values/social experience, and “bad” chapters
providing only a social experience. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Once this sorting takes place (which will take several
years), campus communities can then do a better job of recognizing and
rewarding the “good” chapters, improving and assisting the “mediocre” chapters,
and closing, reorganizing and fixing the “bad” chapters. In today’s climate,
this formula is fairly difficult to follow, either because the differences
between good and bad are often small, and/or there is a disproportionate number of bad chapters, and/or fraternity communities have become so stagnant and
under-performing that our idea of what a “good” chapter is even supposed to look
like has become terribly skewed. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Simply, we need to interject more variance into our
fraternity communities, and getting rid of formal recruitment is the best way I
know to do it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Postulate #3 - Left To Its Own Devices, Variance Will Again Diminish Over
Time</span></b>. This isn’t just me saying this – it’s a statistical law. Regression to
the mean is a natural phenomenon. So, after artificially injecting variance into
our communities through an elimination of formal recruitment, and then shifting
the “mean” of a fraternity community positively by rewarding “good” chapters,
fixing “mediocre” chapters and eliminating “bad” chapters, the chapters in a
community will once again begin shifting towards the mean. The difference would
be that the mean they are regressing towards would be a much different mean. In
a period of 5-10 years, we could drastically change what the “average”
fraternity in a given campus community looks like. And once “good” became the
new normal, the intrinsic motivation and inherent competition in these new
communities would propel many of these chapters to not only be good, but to
strive for greatness. Then, we would have a mean that is not only high, but
gradually drifting upwards, instead of the gradual downward drift that we see
now on many campuses.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I call this a “Theory of Natural Selection” because, as you
can see, only the strong will survive. Some chapters won’t make it without the
crutch of IFC “formal rush” and the pool of always joiners from which to choose. Good
riddance. Many bad chapters who choose to recruit the wrong way will need to be
closed and then re-opened. Again, good riddance. But, to use a fishing example,
when we restock our stream with recolonized groups, we will not be putting them
back into the same dirty stream from whence they came, but into a new clean
river with positive social norms and a healthy culture.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Formal recruitment is bad for business. It is an obstacle
standing in the way of transforming our fraternity communities into what they
can and should be. It forces fraternities to conform to unhealthy norms,
resulting in the perpetuation of negative stereotypes and the gradual
assimilation of every “good” chapter on our campuses to the mediocre or shitty
campus norms. Formal recruitment facilitates the wrong people joining for the
wrong reasons. If we want to change our cultures, we need to give our chapters
every opportunity to recruit the right people seeking to join for the right
reasons, reducing the pressure to conform by injecting more time into the
process. Getting rid of formal recruitment is an important first step we need
to take in making that happen.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-38623606894142040782016-05-04T18:51:00.000-07:002016-05-05T06:04:21.841-07:00The Subtle Art of Creating Unsafe Spaces<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv8qjfCaTu_GZ0a77Te7mTPp68lUKTeQti_KVCe1I82X3WZbXMLd0cQsrDyu9H7fTD9ca4tKKOlTRvb-ewdHMC7Fcbhd00adb_cX_srSmorDgPi2UzRzRMzszvFrXBnh6ywX5jjsnc5Uo2/s1600/click.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv8qjfCaTu_GZ0a77Te7mTPp68lUKTeQti_KVCe1I82X3WZbXMLd0cQsrDyu9H7fTD9ca4tKKOlTRvb-ewdHMC7Fcbhd00adb_cX_srSmorDgPi2UzRzRMzszvFrXBnh6ywX5jjsnc5Uo2/s320/click.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
College campuses are changing. For years, faculty and
administrators have lamented the lack of student activism on campus. This lack of
activism was generally regarded as student apathy – a feeling that most
students cared more about getting drunk on weekends than in fighting for
causes. From the end of the Vietnam era through the beginning of the Black
Lives Matter movement, college campuses were places of relative calm where only
the occasional “fringe group” spoke out on important issues of the day. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Not anymore. After 40 years of apathy, a new generation of
student activist has emerged. These Millennial protesters have been praised by
many for their willingness to stand up and be heard, and have been derided by
others because of their need for “safe spaces.” Those on the left have been
quick to jump on board this new wave of activism, joining students in their
demands for more inclusive campus environments. Those on the right have been
even quicker to call these students coddled crybabies and to issue warnings
that they’ll never make it in the “real world” with their victim mentalities. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Notably absent from these conversations, particularly in
student affairs circles, has been any reference to student development. And
that should strike us all as problematic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Coincidentally (or not) these changes on campus have
coincided with a change in how we prepare student affairs professionals. About
the time I was finishing graduate school, a handful of higher education/student
affairs graduate programs began incorporating social justice education into
their curriculum. Initially, the schools doing this did so in order to
distinguish themselves from the pack, but the trend proved popular and soon
caught on in most other programs. Now, 15 years later, most higher
education/student affairs graduate programs boast of a curriculum with a
“social justice emphasis” and, in fact, many of these programs offer and/or
require more courses on diversity and social justice than on student
development. Simply put, social justice has eclipsed student development as the
focal point of many student affairs preparation programs and, subsequently,
many student affairs professionals. As a result, we now have more and more new
professionals working in this field who appear to care considerably less about
student development than they do about social justice work. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let me be clear – a focus on social justice has been an
important step forward for our profession, and has recruited a highly motivated
new generation of professionals into the field. Additionally, the results on
campus have been positive – we now see universities doing more and more to
support social justice, dismantle institutional racism, and provide resources
for oppressed minority populations. All of us can agree that these changes have
come about at least in part because of the social justice focus that has taken
hold within student affairs in the last decade and that these changes have been a good thing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Like any great shift in philosophy, however, there are
unintended consequences. I would argue the greatest consequence of the shift in
focus away from student development and towards social justice is this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<b><i><span style="font-size: large;">As a profession, our priorities have shifted away from the
creation of carefully constructed learning environments (unsafe spaces<span class="MsoCommentReference"><span style="line-height: 107%;">) </span></span><span class="MsoCommentReference"><span style="line-height: 107%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">a</span></span>nd towards the creation of carefully
constructed echo chambers (safe spaces). </span></i></b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This ideological shift could have long-lasting ramifications,
not only on our profession’s place within the academy, but for the well-being and
success of our students.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Whenever I think about the safe/unsafe space dichotomy, I
always think of Nevitt Sanford’s theory of Challenge and Support. It states
that, in order to progress along any developmental trajectory, students need a
healthy balance of challenge (unsafe space) and support (safe space). Too much
unsafe space, and students may regress to previously held, less developed
beliefs. Too much safe space, and students will never be exposed to the
different ideas and worldviews necessary for them to grow and develop. In order
to develop, students need to experience challenge and support, a healthy
balance of unsafe space and safe space. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i>I fear that, as a field, we are forgetting and/or neglecting
the subtle yet important art creating unsafe spaces. </i></b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When we consider Sanford’s theory of challenge and support,
we must always think about it in connection with some other developmental theory
(I’ve written about the frequent misuse of Sanford <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2016/03/can-we-please-stop-misusing-challenge.html"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>). In conversations
around student activism and political engagement, the logical theory to apply
is Perry’s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In our world of social justice-focused practitioners,
writing Perry off has become a favorite pastime of many in our field. Perry did
most of his research on white men at Harvard – the most privileged of the
privileged. Despite those shortcomings, Perry’s theory has stood the test of
time and has been empirically validated across cultures, classes, and
nationalities. Perry postulates that students develop intellectually along the
following trajectory:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyXiCUNan0AG_sI9SquL5B_a7dO4ADZVVJSdtU7-zVdyITEW2q7IiyLJoUdwndEOG2611t-MTmIRduutOs8HrvHju0Eije_KzPNgPxnruYApIlrsd8gZWQuofhEdOrGcRnQNqzQOXJ_pCx/s1600/perry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyXiCUNan0AG_sI9SquL5B_a7dO4ADZVVJSdtU7-zVdyITEW2q7IiyLJoUdwndEOG2611t-MTmIRduutOs8HrvHju0Eije_KzPNgPxnruYApIlrsd8gZWQuofhEdOrGcRnQNqzQOXJ_pCx/s400/perry.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Notice that the arrows in between Perry’s stages go in
multiple directions. This implies that students can both progress and regress
along these stages. With the right blend of challenge and support, they
progress, but with too much of one or not enough of the other, they can
stagnate or, even worse, regress to previous, less developed ways of thinking.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So what does all of this have to do with the new social
justice philosophy in student affairs? Simply, we now focus more on <b><i><u>what</u></i></b>
students are saying rather than focusing on the <b><i><u>thinking that led to those
words</u></i></b>. If the messages we hear from students are progressive and promote a
message of social justice, we don’t dare challenge the intellectual underpinnings of those statements. To the contrary, we praise them for their activism and
progressive thinking. However, if the messages we hear from students are
traditionally conservative or not inclusive, we are quick to point out the
flaws in their thinking or, even worse, we call them names (racist, homophobic,
xenophobic, hyper-masculine, etc.).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is problematic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i>Dualism, even when cloaked in a social justice ideology, is
still dualism.</i></b> As a profession dedicated to student development, we should
confront dualism whenever and however we see it - not just when it is cloaked
in the ideology of political conservatism.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Frankly, we are doing our students a disservice if we do not
help them develop intellectually, even if we support those causes for which
they are fighting. A great example of how the dualism of some social justice
activists can be confronted can be found in comments President Obama <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/obama-says-movements-like-black-lives-matter-cant-just-keep-on-yelling.html?_r=0"><span style="color: blue;">recently made</span></a> about the #BLM
movement. The President, clearly frustrated, criticized leaders of the group for
refusing to sit down and engage in talks about meaningful reforms, stating that
some #BLM leaders felt that such conversations “might compromise the purity of
their position” – a way of thinking that is clearly dualistic in nature.
President Obama was right to challenge this way of thinking – not because he
opposes the aims or purposes of the #BLM movement, but because a dualistic “my
way or the highway” approach to problem solving does not usually solve very
many problems. President Obama has learned a lesson that many in our field
could stand to learn – that social justice and intellectual development are not
mutually exclusive. We do not have to pick one or the other. We can support the
advancement of social justice while gently challenging the intellectual rigor of those arguing on its behalf. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dualistic social justice activism manifests itself in a
variety of ways on college campuses across America every single day. The
example we see most often is student protests leading to the <a href="https://www.thefire.org/cases/disinvitation-season/"><span style="color: blue;">dis-invitation of controversial speakers</span></a>. The dualistic “this person is wrong and I am right” way
of thinking that fuels these protests would be best replaced by a “let me hear
what this person has to say, understand this issue from their perspective,
weigh the merits of their argument against my own views on the matter, and see
if there are issues on which we may actually agree” way of thinking. But
instead of creating the unsafe space where those conversations can happen, we
create a protective cocoon – a safe space where students are left free to think
what they want to think without ever being forced to consider an issue from
someone else’s perspective. We dis-invite
controversial speakers. We choose social
justice over student development; safe space over unsafe space.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Imagine, for a moment, that you worked at one of the campuses
where students have openly supported Donald Trump’s candidacy for President.
The response to these incidents on the popular student affairs Facebook groups
and twitter channels has been predictable – joining in with the social justice
activists, shaming the students supporting Trump, calling them any manner of
names (I’m not sure very many people knew the meaning of xenophobia until
Donald Trump became a serious presidential candidate) and demanding
accountability for political speech that is clearly protected by the First
Amendment. But how many of us have sat down with a student supporting Trump to
find out why? How many of us have facilitated those conversations between and
among our students? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What if we learned that a student who supported Trump was a
first-generation college student whose parents lost their jobs in the
manufacturing sector when those jobs were shipped overseas. Then, his parents
could not find a good paying job at the local food processing plant because of
the suppressed wages brought on by the flood of illegal immigrants working in
that plant. Imagine that this student’s parents are on unemployment with no
hopes of finding a good-paying job in their hometown and this student is having
to now work two jobs to pay for his education because his parents can no longer
afford to help him. So for him, when he hears Trump talk about how bad trade
deals and illegal immigration are suppressing wages and screwing over the
working class, “Make America Great Again” isn’t a message of hate or
xenophobia at all but, rather, a message of economic prosperity that resonates
with his own lived experience. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Knowing this, would we still call that student xenophobic? A
racist? Or might we be a little more willing to think differently about illegal
immigration and trade once we heard the perspective of someone who has been
adversely affected by those issues? Are some of Trump’s supporters xenophobic,
sexist and racist? Absolutely. But we should know better than to paint all of
his supporters with such a broad brush, especially when those supporters are
our own students. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Instead of calling our students names, we should be committed
to their learning and development. Instead of adding fuel to the fire and protesting against Trump and his supporters, we should be creating opportunities for students from different sides of the political spectrum to sit down in an attempt to better understand one another's perspective. Our work as social justice advocates is
important, and it must continue, but it becomes problematic when it begins
alienating a significant portion of the students we are supposed to be educating.
Instead of choosing sides in the culture war raging on many of our campuses, we
should be focused on helping students from different sides sit down, understand
one another’s perspectives, and try to find common ground. Instead of allowing
both sides of the culture war to rest comfortably in their own unchallenged safe
space, we need to remember that student development is still important, and do
our part to create the unsafe spaces where students can have meaningful
conversations and learn from one another. But when we view every problem solely
through a social justice, rather than a developmental lens, this becomes
increasingly more difficult to do. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In doing this, we must acknowledge that for some students,
daily life can feel like a constant “unsafe space” where they experience
oppression at every turn. I am not suggesting that we make their lives even
more difficult by refusing to provide them with the spaces, both physical and
psychological, that they need in order to feel protected and safe. We must
provide those safe spaces, not only because it is the right thing to do, but
because their success and development depends it. But in doing so, we need to be willing to
acknowledge the differences between inadvertent micro-aggressions and deliberate
acts of oppression, between cognitive discomfort with an idea or topic and something
that genuinely triggers traumatic memories from the past, and between hate and
ignorance. Not all unsafe spaces are created equal, and we need to stop
pretending that psychological discomfort, no matter how great or small, even
for oppressed minorities, is always a bad thing. <br />
<br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We need to balance our commitment to social justice with a
renewed commitment to student development. We need to understand that social justice can and should inform our work in student development, but that social justice WITHOUT student development is, frankly, not what our colleges and universities hired us to do. We need to break away from the mindset that our own ideological purity is more important than the impact we have on student learning. We need to commit to the development
of ALL of our students. Most importantly, we need to commit to doing the work
the work that is, always has been, and always should be at the heart of the student affairs profession – creating the spaces, safe and unsafe, where our students can learn
from one another. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-75046350192168281882016-04-18T12:42:00.001-07:002016-04-18T12:44:04.093-07:00On Bernie Bros, Hillary Haters, and Ideological Purity (Or, What LBJ's Presidency Might Tell us About Hillary's)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7CrAQHc_5LOD_qSuP9KJYnFhEK8CvYXYL_6PxqdAwJz8d_JtCTiDTnPoFNfNAXhdVBK0e7YMw38w5YHqj0JFWnTN59J7EENBd3RLGOeEN6QFQyPwHb9UmyGhr6rhR0StPr90D7RFpIHK7/s1600/LBJ.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7CrAQHc_5LOD_qSuP9KJYnFhEK8CvYXYL_6PxqdAwJz8d_JtCTiDTnPoFNfNAXhdVBK0e7YMw38w5YHqj0JFWnTN59J7EENBd3RLGOeEN6QFQyPwHb9UmyGhr6rhR0StPr90D7RFpIHK7/s320/LBJ.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I was in Los Angeles last week to catch a Dodgers game, and
had a few hours to kill before the game began. Yelp sent me to a hipster watering
hole on Sunset Blvd where I sipped on a local IPA while taking in the LA social
scene. I found myself seated next to a group of 20-something hipsters and,
being a researcher, decided to conduct some ethnographic research by observing
the LA hipster in his natural habitat (basically, I eavesdropped on their
conversation).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Their conversation was wide ranging, but eventually turned
to politics, and, wouldn’t you know it, one of their number was a full-fledged
Bernie Bro. I listened with fascination as he tried to A) explain the
difference between socialism and democratic socialism to his hipster friends,
and; B) convince his pals of Bernie’s ideological purity.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t think anyone understood his socialism rant
(certainly I did not understand him), but the second part of his lecture was
representative of the type of nonsense I’ve come to expect from Bernie Bros:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Bernie has been fighting for the same things his entire
life. He’s been consistently progressive. Hillary is a flip-flopper. She’s
always having to go back and apologize for things she did 20 years ago. She
isn’t a real progressive.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As I sat and listened to this, I couldn’t help but think
about Hillary’s record in comparison to who I think is the most fascinating
President of the 20<sup>th</sup> Century – Lyndon B. Johnson.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you have not read <a href="http://www.robertcaro.com/"><span style="color: blue;">Robert Caro’s</span></a> four-part series on LBJ,
I highly encourage you do so. In those books, Caro carefully dissects LBJ’s
complicated, seemingly incongruous record as a Senator from deeply conservative
Texas. LBJ came of age and was first elected to Congress while FDR was
President, and in his first congressional campaign, ran as an ardent New Dealer
– an economic populist who would support FDR’s agenda. Over time, as the
depression faded into distant memory, Texas became more and more conservative,
and the once progressive young New Dealer had to walk a fine line between
supporting progressive policies that would establish his bona fides in the
national Democratic Party while not alienating his increasingly conservative
base back home. An ambitious man who wanted desperately to be President, LBJ’s
tightrope act in the Senate lasted for over a decade, even while serving as the
Senate Majority Leader. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Every Democrat in the Senate thought they knew the “real”
LBJ. The southern segregationists gave him a free pass on signing the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Manifesto"><span style="color: blue;">Southern Manifesto</span></a>, a full-throated rebuke of desegregation signed by all southern
Senators with the exception of Johnson (who was “allowed” to not sign because
of his role as Majority Leader and the understanding they all had that signing
would doom his Presidential ambitions) and Tennessee’s two senators (Al Gore
and Estes Kefauver, who were both progressives on civil rights). Despite LBJ
not signing the manifesto, the southern segregationists were convinced that
Johnson was one of them. His first speech as a senator (“We of the South…”) was
a rebuke of federal overreach into civil rights issues. He had willingly
watered down the civil rights bill of 1956 to the point that, while significant
in that it was the first civil rights bill passed since Reconstruction, it
accomplished very little in actually promoting civil rights. The Strom Thurmonds
and Richard Russells of the world were convinced that Johnson was one of them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Meanwhile, Johnson had successfully convinced the liberals
in the Senate that he was actually one of them. He would privately support
their initiatives, work behind the scenes to help pass their bills, and would
explain to them in private conversations that his voting record was not
necessarily a reflection of his actual views, but rather those of his
constituents back home in Texas. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The voting public, meanwhile, was left only to speculate
that Johnson was a fairly conservative Southern Democrat based solely on his
voting record – he regularly voted against federal involvement in civil rights
issues, was hostile towards organized labor, and had a decidedly hawkish record
on foreign policy; policy issues that made him popular back home in Texas, but
not in the national Democratic Party.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then, at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_Democratic_National_Convention">1960 Democratic National Convention</a>,
presidential nominee John F. Kennedy was looking for a running mate. A New
England liberal, he knew he needed a moderate southerner or westerner to help
bring balance to the ticket. As leader of the Democrats in the senate, Johnson
was the obvious choice – besides, Kennedy was one of those progressive Senators
who was convinced that Johnson was really in the progressive camp.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When Kennedy floated Johnson’s name to party insiders as a
potential running mate, it was met with outright hostility. Civil rights
leaders did not support Johnson’s positions on race. Labor leaders threatened a
full revolt because of his poor record on labor issues. These constituents were
interested in a candidate with ideological purity – someone like Hubert
Humphrey. Bobby Kennedy very famously tried to convince his brother to change
his mind, even going so far as visiting LBJ’s hotel suite to try and convince
him to decline the nomination. But LBJ was an ambitious man, and he knew that
his only path to the Presidency may very well lie in accepting the VP
nomination, which he did. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We know the rest of the story – Kennedy was fairly ineffective
at getting his program passed through Congress, while Vice President Johnson
was relegated to the “kids table” and was rarely involved in any major policy
decisions. Then, in November of 1963, Kennedy was assassinated and Johnson
became President, and in a period of two years pushed some of the most
progressive legislation of the 20<sup>th</sup> Century through Congress: The
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, the Higher Education Act of
1965, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, the War on Poverty….the list goes on and
on.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a speech to Congress urging passage of the Civil Rights
Act, Johnson spoke of his time as a young man teaching in an impoverished
school in Cotulla, TX, a largely immigrant town near the Mexican border.
Johnson stated in that speech that he had vowed, as a young school teacher,
that if he ever had the power to help people like those children he knew in
Cotulla, that he would do so, famously stating “Well, now I have that power.
And I intend to use it.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Those Southern Democrats who were convinced that Senator Johnson
was really one of them were shocked by what they saw in President Johnson. This
was a man they did not know. Richard Russell, Johnson’s mentor in the Senate,
was famously quoted as saying he felt personally betrayed by Johnson. This man
– who had spent his entire career performing an intricate tightrope act, trying
to convince both liberals and conservatives that he was one of them – finally
showed his true colors when he became President. His domestic agenda is rivaled
only by FDR’s in its impact on disenfranchised people in America. His record as
a senator was anything but ideologically pure, but once he was freed of the
need to please the electorate in Texas, he was able to let his ideological
purity shine through. LBJ was, in fact, a progressive, and his liberal bona
fides are evidenced by his legislative achievements. But he had to become President before we
could truly find that out. And he succeeded where Kennedy failed because he
understood what it took to get legislation through Congress. He knew all the
levers of power, and he knew how to use them. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Which brings us back to Hillary Clinton. Hillary rivals LBJ
in ambition. It is clear that, much like the fictional Claire Underwood, she
has been angling for the Presidency for most of her adult life. She has
strategically and surgically picked her path, and despite a few setbacks (a
political upstart named Barack Obama and a little misunderstanding about email
servers), she has methodically plotted her path and now stands on the threshold
of the highest office in the land.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the Bernie Bros who demand ideological purity above all are
now standing in her way.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ideological purity for many elected officials is a luxury
they can ill-afford. Bernie has had the benefit of serving as a Senator from
the most liberal state in America. He has never really had to weigh his liberal
convictions against those of his constituents and vote in a way that violated
his conscience (his controversial stances on gun control being the only
possible exception – a stain on his ideological purity that his supporters seem
willing to overlook). He has enjoyed a luxury that LBJ could have only dreamed
about as a Senator.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The model for electing Democratic presidents for the last 75
years has been simple – pick a moderate- progressive from the South. Harry
Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton all fit this rule. The
two exceptions to that rule were both young, passionate, handsome, articulate
first-term Senators named Kennedy and Obama who took the political world by
storm, who broke all of the rules of Presidential politics and who, despite
their reputations, ran and largely governed as moderates.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, take a look at the “ideologically pure” liberals who
have run for President in the last 75 years whose last names were not Kennedy
or Obama: Adalai Stevenson (trounced by IKE not once but twice), Hubert
Humphrey (trounced by Nixon), George McGovern (trounced by Nixon), Walter
Mondale (trounced by Reagan), Michael Dukakis (trounced by Bush 41), and John
Kerry (beaten handily by Bush 43). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The only outlier in the dataset is Al Gore, a moderate
Southerner who lost the election but WON THE POPULAR VOTE!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So if you are a Democrat who wants to be president and are
not as handsome or rhetorically gifted as Kennedy or Obama, your formula for
becoming President in the last 75 years was to be a Southern moderate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Do you suspect Hillary Clinton has noticed this trend, as
well? I suspect she has.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Her husband ran and governed as a moderate because that was
the winning formula. Some people are now questioning his record and ideological
purity, but he governed during a time when compromise was not a bad word. He
was a progressive Democratic governor from a conservative southern state, was
President during a time in which the county was still coming to terms with
social issues that now seem straightforward (particularly issues surrounding
gay rights), and took pride in working with the other party in order to
accomplish objectives. He was more interested in effectiveness than he was in
ideological purity. His record of accomplishment is now under attack by those
who demand ideological purity (interestingly, the Tea Party demands ideological
purity of its candidates, as well). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Hillary has carved out a similar path. Her record as First
Lady, as Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State is that of a moderate
progressive – staying true to the ideals of her Democratic base, particularly on issues related to women's rights, children and healthcare, but not so far
to the left that she would be written off as “too liberal,” all the while
plotting her run for the Presidency. She has fastidiously followed the only
formula that has worked in Democratic Presidential Politics for the last 75
years, and at no point in her career had the luxury of calling herself a
Democratic Socialist or compiling the type of voting record that Bernie has
been able to compile as a back-bench Senator with not a single significant
legislative achievement to his name. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So to the Bernie Bros seeking ideological purity, I offer
this: be careful what you wish for. The Democratic Party has fallen into the
“ideological purity” trap before, and it has led to disastrous results on
election day. And let us learn a lesson from LBJ’s legacy and ask ourselves an
important question - what might a President Hillary Clinton do once she is
unshackled from the chains of moderation? Once she is given the power of the
Presidency, how might she use it? Like LBJ, might we see her true colors? Do we
really doubt that, in her heart, she is just as progressive as Bernie or any of
the other liberal icons of yesteryear? Do we REALLY believe she is a corporate
sellout aiming to do nothing more than protect her Wall Street cronies?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Hillary has methodically followed a formula for the last 40
years. It was and remains the only tried and true formula to elect Democratic
Presidents. Does that make her disingenuous? A sellout? Untrustworthy? If we
begin hurling those monikers at her, who else might we need to hurl them at?
She was and is the Democratic Party’s best chance at keeping the White House,
and I suspect that, like LBJ, she would go down in history as one of our most
progressive Presidents if given the chance. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Don’t mistake this blog as my endorsement of Hillary – I am
still weighing all of my options, and am becoming increasingly interested in
the possibility of a Libertarian as president. But as a registered Democrat who worked for John Kerry and voted for Obama twice, and as someone who cares
deeply about a progressive social agenda in this country, I have zero doubts as
to Hillary’s liberal bona fides. Frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing the
Bernie Bros pound their chests while extolling the virtues of Bernie’s
ideological purity and discarding Hillary’s “moderation” with self-righteous
indignation. Bernie Sanders would be a horrible president, not because he is a
horrible person (to the contrary, he seems like a really great guy), but
because he has zero chance at getting any of his agenda passed through
Congress. He has never passed a bill as a Senator – what makes anyone think his
legislative prowess will suddenly change once he becomes President?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
So if you want progress, and you want a champion for social
justice and economic equality who actually has a chance to get things done and
not just talk a good game, it may be time to begin rethinking your options. Ideological
purity never got us anywhere. I’ll take effectiveness over ideological purity
any day of the week. Kennedy was ideologically pure, but ineffective. It took
ideologically impure but legislatively effective Lyndon Johnson less than 12
months to do what Kennedy failed to do in more than three years. I’m not
interested in a candidate who makes me feel good – I’m interested in a
candidate who will get things done. Hillary, not Bernie, is that candidate for
the Democratic Party.<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-83880621378005924232016-03-16T10:17:00.002-07:002016-03-16T10:36:42.825-07:00How We Sell Brotherhood and Sisterhood Has Never Been More Important<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2HkPWFvLT_miTwd2EkY2vzy93ZRSu1uj7wNTY3CM3ERb9NJpX_pdy-Y01bfCLFFThJtrwH3HdWq03f8x6IWAqhZIw4byS9CgA62A6nSgqY3s7J8HbRIJ1Vfc0svcKeg_3p-4aPHH7Qztl/s1600/beer+pong.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2HkPWFvLT_miTwd2EkY2vzy93ZRSu1uj7wNTY3CM3ERb9NJpX_pdy-Y01bfCLFFThJtrwH3HdWq03f8x6IWAqhZIw4byS9CgA62A6nSgqY3s7J8HbRIJ1Vfc0svcKeg_3p-4aPHH7Qztl/s320/beer+pong.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I have a chance to speak with students about
brotherhood and sisterhood, I always ask them whether or not, when they were going
through the recruitment process, they chose the chapter that they eventually
joined, at least in part, because of their perception of its
brother/sisterhood. Inevitably, almost every hand in the room goes up when this
question is asked. I then ask what it was they saw in that group – what was it
about the brotherhood or sisterhood that attracted them to the organization.
The answers to that question are usually the same:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>I saw a group of people who love each other and always have
fun together</i>.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>I saw a group of people who are there for one another</i>.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>I saw a group of people who you could tell just really
enjoyed being around one another</i>.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My research partner, Dr. Josh Schutts, coined the phrase “currency
of fraternity” to describe this phenomenon. Brotherhood and sisterhood are the
currency of fraternities and sororities. Chapters are selling it, and new
members are buying it. If you think of a fraternity or sorority as a business,
then I would argue that brother/sisterhood is our product. Potential members
are consumers of brotherhood and sisterhood.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And today’s consumers of brotherhood and sisterhood are the
most informed consumers we have ever seen.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I joined Alpha Gamma Rho in the Fall of 1997 at the
University of Tennessee, I knew very little about Greek life. My older sister
had joined a sorority at East Tennessee State University, but didn’t really
enjoy it and dropped out after the first year. My parents did not attend
college, and none of my extended family who were college graduates had joined
fraternities or sororities. At that point, I may or may not had seen the movie
Animal House – I’m honestly not sure. But beyond that, I knew very little about
about fraternity life when my old 4-H buddy Lake Elliott invited me to go with
him down to the AGR house during our first weekend in Knoxville. I was an
uninformed consumer. I had no idea what I was getting myself into. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I suspect many people in my generation share a similar story.
We came to college with only a passing understanding of what fraternities or
sororities were about. We may have had a parent or older sibling in a
fraternity or sorority, but outside of that, we didn’t really know much about
Greek life. We met someone or had some experience that led us to join, and we
signed up, not really knowing what it was we were getting ourselves into, unsure
of the product we were about to be consuming for the next four years.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But fast forward from 1997 to 2016. Times have changed.
Students coming to college today are much more informed about fraternities and
sororities than those at any other time in history. TFM. TSM. <i>Greek</i>. <i>Old
School</i>. Media coverage of fraternity and sorority misdeeds. Stories that 10
years ago may not have even made it into the school newspaper are now national
headlines. Hazing. Sexual assault. Drug and alcohol abuse. Racism. All right
there staring at them on any social media venue they happen to be using. The
negative aspects of fraternity and sorority life on full display, 24/7.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And they are still choosing to join, in spite of all that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Or, perhaps, a more troubling scenario - they are choosing
to join <b><i><u>because</u></i></b> of all that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The way we sell brotherhood and sisterhood to prospective
members today has never been more important. The stereotype is out there, and
our prospective members are fully aware of what those stereotypes are, and are
choosing to join in spite of – or maybe even because of - those stereotypes. And
if our chapters don’t sell brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that dispels those
stereotypes – in a way that shows prospective members that the stereotype isn’t
necessarily true – then the problems associated with those stereotypes will
grow exponentially. In other words, more and more students will be joining
fraternities and sororities not blissfully ignorant of the stereotypes (like I
was), but in spite of or because of the stereotypes. They know what the
stereotype is, and that stereotype represents the experience the are seeking.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fraternities and sororities, now more than ever, have to
begin selling brotherhood and sisterhood in a way that moves beyond just the
fun/social side of the experience. Guys recruiting with beer pong and selling the
party scene are just reinforcing the stereotype. Women recruiting with videos that
sell sisterhood as bubbles, glitter and pillow fights are just reinforcing the
stereotype. And prospective members, who already have that stereotype indelibly
imprinted into their minds, are provided with nothing to challenge or confront
those stereotypes, and they join a brotherhood or sisterhood under the
impression that the stereotype is what the experience is supposed to be. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have to begin selling a different product.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have to make sure our chapters are selling ALL aspects of
brotherhood and sisterhood. Not just the fun side, but also the sense of
belonging, the self-betterment that comes with accountability, and the self-actualization
that can come from working with a group of people towards a common purpose.
Only when we sell brotherhood and sisterhood in this way can we really begin to
have members come into our organizations understanding that there is more to
the experience than just the stereotype. And imagine how much easier our jobs
would be if we knew that every member who joined a fraternity or sorority on
our campuses walked in the door from Day 1 understanding that the
fraternity/sorority experience was about more than just a good time. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have tried to do this for the last 15 years by talking
about “values-based recruitment.” It hasn’t worked. It is time to try something
else.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Values-based recruitment hasn’t worked because 18 year-old
college students are not interested in joining values. Rather, they are
interested in joining a group of people who they feel can provide them with a
certain experience – an experience called brotherhood and sisterhood.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, today, I want to declare the end of the “values-based
recruitment” movement and the beginning of the “brother/sisterhood-based
recruitment” movement. Stop trying to convince your students to sell their
values, and start convincing them to sell the more altruistic forms of
brotherhood and sisterhood. Convince them to sell how membership in their
organization will provide prospective members with a sense of belonging and connection,
with a group of people who will support them and have their back. Convince them
to sell how membership in their organization will make prospective members better people by
holding them to high standards and expectations. And convince them to sell how
membership in their organization will allow prospective members to work with a collective of
like-minded individuals to pursue the noble objectives of self-improvement.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Values-based recruitment is not the answer to our problems.
We have been beating that drum for well over a decade, and our problems are
only getting worse. We need to help students better understand the product they
are selling (brotherhood and sisterhood), and then help them develop strategies
to sell ALL forms of their brother/sisterhood to prospective members, not just
the type that reinforces the stereotypes that today’s well-informed consumers
are buying.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com1216tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-26261384024359929462016-03-02T12:16:00.000-08:002017-03-07T08:41:11.182-08:00Can We Please Stop Misusing Challenge and Support???<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpTbaVQKRFOd9GuAO70KAcdd4QS_QIZR9UEM_JQ9b01o7uqPY7JRUd-7HFvJ9Yp9q8SvOQwLh-_f1jftTNMHnQL9yXqSIM4WxPTG5Wuvxn7tNmH2XxczTv0O3VwQIJMsDoSBNcxrs1EBiK/s1600/I+wipe+my+own+ass.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpTbaVQKRFOd9GuAO70KAcdd4QS_QIZR9UEM_JQ9b01o7uqPY7JRUd-7HFvJ9Yp9q8SvOQwLh-_f1jftTNMHnQL9yXqSIM4WxPTG5Wuvxn7tNmH2XxczTv0O3VwQIJMsDoSBNcxrs1EBiK/s320/I+wipe+my+own+ass.jpg" width="212" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Student affairs interview season is almost upon us!
Thousands of eager second-year graduate students and disgruntled-with-their-first-job-young-professionals
will scurry about participating in the annual placement
exchange circus. This highly ritualized, often maligned, and largely
ineffective process of hiring staff is more akin to sorority recruitment than
to an actual job interview, but every year we prep our grads and young
professionals for this routine like a nervous mother preparing her 5 year-old
for his first day of kindergarten.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Don’t forget to write thank you notes.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Make good eye contact and have a firm handshake.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Be sure to dress appropriately.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Make sure to prepare follow up questions for each
interview.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, today I’d like to add another admonition to the list
of reminders we share with our little mentees as they prepare to engage in this
annual student affairs rite of passage:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Stop misusing Sanford’s Theory of Challenge and Support.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s inevitable. Some smarty pants graduate student, eager
to show how much they paid attention in their student development theory class,
will find a way to talk about their favorite theorist during their interview
when asked about their advising style, and they’ll make some banal comment like
this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Sometimes I push my students to figure things out on their
own, and sometimes I help them out with whatever project they’re working on.
You know, challenge and support.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This attitude is akin to some young mother in the middle of potty-training
her toddler saying “Well, sometimes I make him wipe his own ass, and sometimes
I wipe it for him. You know, challenge and support.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This isn’t what Sanford was talking about. Not even close.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When Sanford told us that student growth required adequate
amounts of both challenge and support, he was not intending for his theory to
be used in a vacuum to describe how hands-on or hands-off we treat the students
we advise or supervise. But more often than not, this is how I hear young (and
old) professionals in our field (mis)use his theory. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When Sanford offered us his theory of challenge and support,
he meant for his theory to be used in combination with other theories, to help
us understand how students grow along a certain developmental trajectory. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Take moral development, for example. Sanford would argue
that in order for a student to move from pre-conventional (obedience to
authority) to conventional (social norms) levels of moral development, students
need an adequate amount of challenge (i.e. forcing them to question their own beliefs
and where they come from) and support (giving them safe spaces with like-minded
others, free from constant challenge). Too much challenge, and the student may
regress or rebel, yielding no growth. Too much support, and the student is
never pushed to think differently, yielding no growth. The key is finding the
right balance, giving the student enough challenge, but not too much challenge,
to safely push them down their developmental path. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sanford only works, and should only be applied, in
conjunction with other theories (be they cognitive development, psycho-social
development or identify development). It was never intended as a stand-alone
theory to use in describing your advising style.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, if you’re prepping for job interviews and want a pocket
theory to drop in, only use Sanford if you plan on talking about another
theory. Don’t make this common mistake that too many in this field often make.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And if you’re on the other side of the table conducting
interviews, and some eager-beaver graduate student flagrantly misuses Sanford
in this way, stop the interview, give them a puzzled look, and ask them.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
“So, do you wipe your students’ behinds, or do you make them wipe their behinds for themselves?”</div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com135tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-25135456477761227682016-02-02T12:42:00.000-08:002016-02-02T12:42:11.955-08:00A Tale of Two Sororities (Or, Perhaps Its Time to Stop Evaluating Sororities Based on Recruitment Strength)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnr-w52mBUwFcOQkUbi041iBY6mhWFw-bXDf-XYbaw9WxFPv9Kny9fz5qu6Lyk3f1LQQVUrPaQlSGhOJhiwu77itnMS710Gkgmfyi9VG1pjJuwa0lKk_L_WBmNbcwR7XJ1pdZE81C1Xnwl/s1600/bid+day.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnr-w52mBUwFcOQkUbi041iBY6mhWFw-bXDf-XYbaw9WxFPv9Kny9fz5qu6Lyk3f1LQQVUrPaQlSGhOJhiwu77itnMS710Gkgmfyi9VG1pjJuwa0lKk_L_WBmNbcwR7XJ1pdZE81C1Xnwl/s320/bid+day.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is time to stop using recruitment statistics as a measure
of chapter quality.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have long felt this way, and I have long known that I am
not the only person who feels this way, but I could never really conclusively
prove why I felt this way. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Until now.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let me tell you about two sorority chapters I had the chance
to work with on a recent campus visit.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sorority A is the top-recruiting chapter in their campus
Panhellenic community of six NPC sororities. They have great members – women who
are involved on campus, who excel academically, and who win award after award
after award. SGA officers. Homecoming queens. Greek awards. Their members are
physically attractive by most definitions – slender blondes and brunettes, most
of whom were likely homecoming queens in high school. Picture-perfect in every
way, with the Relative Recruiting Strength to prove it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sorority B is on the same campus. Based on recruitment
statistics, they are a “bottom tier” organization, ranking fifth out of six on
campus. They readily admit that they have a lot of young women crying at their
house on bid day, disappointed to have received their second choice. Their
members, while attractive, are not generally considered the “classic beauties”
as seen in Sorority A, and they represent a broad diversity of body types, skin
colors, ethnic backgrounds, and rungs on the socio-economic ladder. They make
good grades – acceptable, but rarely the best on campus. Their members are involved
on campus, but rarely do they boast of a top-ranking SGA officer or homecoming queen
amongst their ranks. Most campus-based advisors, and certainly most sorority headquarters
staff, would consider them a “below average” chapter. In fact, this sorority’s
national organization is so concerned about the chapter’s recruitment
statistics that they disbanded the chapter’s local advisory board and the
chapter is now advised by IHQ staff members, who spend a few weeks with the
chapter every year.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But there is a deeper story to these two sororities – a story
that recruiting strength statistics or the “eye test” could never tell. A story
that, I would argue, should be the most important consideration of chapter
quality, but one that rarely, if ever, warrants even a passing mention in those
conversations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You see, the sisterhood in Sorority A is…well, for lack of a
better term….shitty.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And the sisterhood in Sorority B is off-the-charts awesome. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sorority A measures well-below the campus and national
averages on three important measures of sisterhood: belonging,
support/encouragement, and common purpose (click <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2015/01/how-big-is-too-big.html"><span style="color: blue;"><b>here</b></span></a> to read more about the
five schema of sisterhood). When you talk to the members of this chapter, you
understand why. They don’t see the sorority as “home” or their sisters as “family.”
In fact, many of the members joined the chapter not because that is where they
felt “at home,” but because of their perception of the sorority’s status on
campus as “the best.” They do not feel supported by their sisters, they are not
unified in any other pursuit or purpose other than maintaining their status as “the
best” sorority on campus. Relative to other chapters, they do not feel
connected to their sisters or to their organization’s purpose. Their outcomes
as a chapter are great, but the experience itself leaves quite a bit to be
desired.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sorority B, on the other hand, is off the charts on the
measures of sisterhood based on belonging, support/encouragement, and common
purpose, far outpacing both campus and national averages. They genuinely love
one another. They are connected to one another in meaningful ways. They support
one another and take an active interest in one another’s lives and in the life
of the chapter. They understand and are connected to their organization’s
values, and regularly incorporate the values and ritual into their activities
as a chapter. Women in the chapter are happy with their experience, are
committed to one another, and feel loved and supported by their sisters.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In conversations with the leaders of Sorority B, I asked
about areas where they felt they needed to improve. Their response left me
astonished, sad and angry.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><b><span style="font-size: large;">“Well, nationals think we really need to improve our image
on campus. They want us to do more social events with the guys and to work on
our image during recruitment.”</span></b></i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
They went on to talk about the lack of confidence they have
during recruitment, because of the pressure they are under to “look like and
act like” the “top” chapters on campus (i.e. Chapter A). What they really want to be able to do
is be themselves, and to share with prospective members their stories – stories
of being disappointed on bid day, but of quickly coming to understand that they
had joined a sisterhood where they weren’t judged by their outward beauty, but
by their reciprocity in loving, serving, and supporting one another. Simply,
they long to be authentic during recruitment, but are being told to instead
work on their “image.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My friends, if this is what we have boiled the sorority
experience down to, then we have much work to do. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When we reduce our definition of a successful chapter down
to Relative Recruiting Strength, we reinforce the idea that the only thing that
matters is image. Sorority B, who by every conceivable measure is providing a
positive and meaningful experience for its members, has been placed on national
receivership, is getting multiple consultant visits per year to help the
chapter “polish its image”, and is under orders to have more parties with
fraternities, all because someone at their national headquarters feels their RRS
should be 10 percentage points higher. And this amazing group of young women, whose
love for one another can literally be felt when you walk into their chapter
room, are being made to feel “less than” not by the other sororities on campus,
but by the adult leaders of their own organization. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why do we focus so much on the outcomes, and not on the
experience, of sorority membership? The point of being in a sorority, or a
fraternity for that matter, is not to focus all of our time and attention on
some externally construed notions of success. The point of joining a sorority
or fraternity is to become part of a group of people who will support you,
value you, make you a better person, and provide you with a sense of shared
purpose and identity. Sadly, the metrics we are using to determine the strength
or quality of chapters often has little to do with any of this. We focus on
grades, we focus on awards, we focus on dollars raised, and we focus on recruitment
stats. And all of these metrics share one thing in common – they often have no
bearing whatsoever on the experience that organizations are providing to their
members.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is time to seriously reconsider how we are measuring
chapter success, how we are rewarding chapter performance, and why we are
rewarding outcomes over experiences. Fraternities and sororities are
co-educational offerings that should provide students with both the challenge
and support necessary to help them learn and grow as humans, providing some fun
memories along the way. They are not about maintaining a social image. They are
not about desirability. They are not about how many homecoming queens your
chapter has had in the last decade. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />And they are sure as Hell not about Relative Recruiting
Strength. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-33343346424426713382016-01-06T14:06:00.000-08:002016-06-09T07:59:20.502-07:00Maybe We Should Stop Talking About Hazing (Or, Gentry’s Two-Pronged Hazing Test)<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFxV3bXZT-ZbUOEvPCYFFnEtvNDcVhXtVWcLSL63QrqMG8eXfRg4xCmEBJl5MQuBPv-fxYt9PCMPFQYlq9pKd6YFpgWmVZBCjE1i30XlHyVn5VAEC_SvLoggZ48S1QzNxmWS_TA6L-FTQs/s1600/Fork_in_the_road_sign.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFxV3bXZT-ZbUOEvPCYFFnEtvNDcVhXtVWcLSL63QrqMG8eXfRg4xCmEBJl5MQuBPv-fxYt9PCMPFQYlq9pKd6YFpgWmVZBCjE1i30XlHyVn5VAEC_SvLoggZ48S1QzNxmWS_TA6L-FTQs/s320/Fork_in_the_road_sign.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Catchy title, right? You probably wouldn’t expect a guy who
makes his living talking about hazing to suggest that we stop talking about
hazing. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Over the last four years, I’ve talked to thousands of
students on dozens of campuses about hazing. These conversations have informed
my perspective on hazing more than any research articles I have read (and, when
it comes to hazing, I have read them all). And all of those conversations have
led me to a singular conclusion – If we are talking about hazing with our
students, then we are usually having the wrong conversation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Students don’t want to talk about hazing. Very often, they
are not even willing to talk about hazing. But we keep talking about it, and in
all of the wrong ways. The way that professionals on most campuses talk to
their students about hazing has been reduced to one of two strategies, neither
of which are very effective.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Strategy #1 – "Check the Box" Education</b> – Check the box
education is where we gather all of our chapter leaders together a few times a
year and go over the campus hazing policy, which inevitably includes a lengthy list
of “Thou Shalt Nots.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thou shalt not strike thy pledges. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thou shalt not make thy pledges consume intoxicants. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thou shalt not deprive thy pledges of sleep. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You get the idea. At the end of this “education,” chapter
leaders sign a piece of paper acknowledging that they have read the list of
Thou Shalt Nots and understand that if any hazing goes on in their chapters,
their asses are on the line. University lawyers love this type of programming,
because if there is ever a lawsuit, the University can show where the “hazing
education” box was dutifully checked and can show where the chapter in question
promised not to hit their pledges but decided to do it anyways. But other than
providing some legal cover to the University, this strategy does very little to
stop hazing. Students will either do the things prohibited anyways, because we
failed to help them come up with something better (you can read more about that
<a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2015/08/hazing-myth-new-members-want-to-be-hazed.html"><span style="color: blue;"><b>here</b></span></a>) or they’ll come up with something just as bad that you didn’t think to
put on your list and then you have to decide how you’re going to deal with
that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Strategy #2 – "Live Your Values Education"</b> – In this version
of hazing prevention education, we gather students together and beg them –
IMPLORE them – to live their values. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“You guys, hazing is inconsistent with who we say we are!”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“What would your founders think of the way you treat your
new members?”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Live your values and don’t haze, you guysssss!!!! Please????”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I can just envision the “hypermasculine” new member
educators rolling their eyes and tuning out…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Stop. Just stop.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you want to start addressing the hazing culture on your
campus, here is my suggestion. Stop it with the box-checking and the “live your
values” guilt trips. Stop talking to students about hazing altogether. It is a loaded word - it means different things to different people, and when we talk about hazing, we end up debating what "Is" hazing and what "Is Not" hazing. Instead of engaging in this circular debate of trying to define what is and is not hazing,
sit down with chapter leaders and ask them to subject all of their new member
education activities to Gentry's Two-Pronged Test:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Test #1 – “Is there a group-relevant point or purpose to this
activity?” </b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You have to start with the first test, and the key word here
is “noble.” Is the purpose of the activity something that we could all agree
would be a good outcome, and is the activity logically matched to producing
that outcome. The outcome needs to be specific – not some vague notion of “it
builds brotherhood.” What kind of brotherhood? How? To what end? Insist on
specific linkages between the activity and the outcome.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If the activity does not pass the first test, then you are
done. No need to go on to the second test. The activity failed. Chapters should
not be doing activities with their new members that serve no noble point or
purpose. Note: “Because we’ve always done that with our pledges” is not a good
reason and would not pass the test. Neither would “The pledges need to learn to
keep the house clean” “The pledges need to learn time management” or “The
pledges need to learn to hold their liquor.” <o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But, many activities will pass the first test. There will be
activities that are directly linked to some positive outcome, and once you have
made that determination, you are free to move on to the second test.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Test #2 – “Is the activity dangerous, demeaning, excessive,
or illegal?”</b><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think this one is pretty self-explanatory. I don’t care
how noble the outcome may be from Test #1, if it meets any of the criteria in Test
#2, it’s a no-go. No activity can put a new member in danger, we should be
above any activities that demean or degrade new members, and none of us are in
a position to allow things that are against the law. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I bring the two-pronged test up with students, there
are a few common themes that emerge when they try to push back. They’ll often
ask about the pledges as sober drivers. I always hammer home Test #1 when they
do. What is the point? Making members safe? Help me understand, if safety is
your concern, why you don’t have a sober driver program involving all of your
members? Also, I include in the “dangerous” category not only those things that
are dangerous to a person’s physical well-being, but to their overall success
in college. So, yeah….tell me more about how your pledges are doing sober
driver programs until 4:00 in the morning and that isn’t impacting their
grades?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another one that comes up is the pledge “signature books” that so many chapters love to use. Is
there a point? Ostensibly it is to help the pledges get to know the older
brothers. Is it dangerous? Not in and of itself, but it can be used as a
platform for those older brothers to require the pledge to do something that
would violate Test #2 in order to get the signature. If you want the pledges to
get to know the older brothers, I can easily help you come up with about a
dozen different activities that will do a better job of accomplishing the
objective without opening up the potential for “<a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-myth-of-rogue-member.html"><b><span style="color: blue;">rogue members</span></b></a>” to violate Test
#2.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Notably absent from my tests are “Is the activity required
of all members?” A lot of people use this test. I don’t. I don’t think that
test is legitimate, because the new member education process is just that –
about new members. Once you go through it as a new member, you don’t do it
every year. New members can and should be asked to do things that older members
are not expected to do, but only if those activities pass the two-pronged test.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
The beauty of the two-pronged test is that it allows you to avoid having to categorize things as "hazing" or "not hazing." If a new member activity doesn't pass the test, it may or not be hazing, but it isn't a good activity because it doesn't pass the test. We don't have to categorize it or debate it endlessly. It didn't pass the test. Period.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My favorite example of the problem with traditional
prevention education strategies is that we inevitably put things on the “list
of thou shalt nots” that, if done correctly, would pass the two-pronged test. A
perfect example is scavenger hunts. In the Fall of 1997, as a new member of
Alpha Gamma Rho at the University of Tennessee, my fellow new members and I did
a scavenger hunt. It was probably my favorite thing that we did in our entire
new member program. Our new member educator obviously put a lot of time and
energy into putting it together. It was designed to help us learn about
important landmarks and the history of the University. We were divided into teams
of 3-4, and were given clues about important or historic locations on campus. When
we figured out a clue and went there, a brother was waiting there to tell us
all about the building or statue, its history, its importance, and to give us
our clue to the next landmark. I still remember things I learned from that
scavenger hunt. And today, it would pass both of my tests. Was there a noble
purpose? Yup – learning the history and important landmarks of the school made
me even more excited and proud to be a student there. Was it dangerous or
degrading? Not at all. We weren’t drinking, we weren’t encouraged to break the
law, and we didn’t get yelled at if we didn’t solve all of the clues. It was a
great new member activity – we learned a lot and had a great time in the
process.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But some well-intentioned fraternity/sorority advisor on
some campus today would get asked about doing a similar activity by a well-intentioned new member educator and would tell that student they couldn’t do it because at some point in the past one of their predecessors had placed “scavenger hunts” on the list of “thou shalt nots.” It is easy to just say
“No” to all scavenger hunts – but it is also lazy. And it isn’t developmental
or educational. If we were less concerned about enforcing policies and
more concerned with helping our students think critically and develop, we’d
probably be more willing to use something thoughtful like this two-pronged test
instead of just reading our students a list of things they aren’t allowed to
do. Intentionality is more than just a buzzword! It takes time and effort
to be intentional and to actually help students think and learn. Being the
captain of the “No Police” is not what any of us were hired by our campuses to
do, but for whatever reason, about half of the questions I see posted on the
NASPA Knowledge Community page have something to do with asinine policies. WE
NEED TO BE DOING MORE THAN ENFORCING POLICIES, PEOPLE!!!</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Should you still have a hazing policy that lists some
specific activities? Yes, and you should make sure your students read it.
Should you still be talking to students about how their behavior reflects on
who they say they are, and encouraging them to be more consistent with their
stated values? Of course. But our hazing education and prevention work
needs to become more advanced if we are going to A) get students to listen to
us and; B) actually do something to prevent hazing. In the New Year, let’s all commit
to being more intentional and, as a result, more impactful in our work to
prevent hazing.<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com49tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-48992043189400741142015-12-09T10:57:00.000-08:002015-12-09T11:39:40.971-08:00I'm Sick and Tired of Hearing About the H-Word<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjO4eMXoXBZphg-Nbll0oDfuem_ap9qdQ86lcIEP0ftFcWPl9jGxLf333KK_bZfJqsQaVQe3BcQyd-krmnpTd4R0IE4esFxMcr7i_4ysdXMm9euw-KhLm8zPv8P0vHf-lWcjjUFWwPMGgWF/s1600/dudes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjO4eMXoXBZphg-Nbll0oDfuem_ap9qdQ86lcIEP0ftFcWPl9jGxLf333KK_bZfJqsQaVQe3BcQyd-krmnpTd4R0IE4esFxMcr7i_4ysdXMm9euw-KhLm8zPv8P0vHf-lWcjjUFWwPMGgWF/s320/dudes.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Were you at the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors
annual meeting closing banquet this past week in Fort Worth? If you were not,
then you missed out. If you were, then you got a chance to hear Anson Award
winner Tom Jelke speak some uncomfortable truths in his acceptance speech. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He asked us some really uncomfortable questions – questions that
made us think about the ways in which we do our jobs. While there were a number
of zingers in his speech, here was my favorite:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Are you reaching out and developing all of your students,
or just the ones with whom you feel comfortable working?”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This question, out of all of his questions, triggered something
that I have been feeling now for quite some time. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the last 5-10 years, we have alienated about 80 percent
of the male students on our campuses, particularly in our fraternity chapters.
We have alienated them to the point of having a name that we call them – a term
that in many circles is met with derision and scorn.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We call them “Hypermasculine.” The H-Word.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Hypermasculinity has become a buzzword in student affairs
in the last decade. Initially, the H-Word was used only to describe a
relatively small portion of our students, and only in a clinical setting –
those whose behavior exaggerated stereotypical masculine behavior, such as physical
strength and sexual aggression. It was a new way of describing what had
previously been referred to as “jock culture,” where physical and sexual
aggression were ways of life for a small percentage of male students,
particularly among male athletes. When the word first came into popular use, it
was met with hostility in some circles, as <a href="http://www.musedmagonline.com/2014/03/hypermasculine-code-word-attack-black-mens-masculinity/"><span style="color: blue;">some felt it was a racist term</span></a> to
describe black male athletes. But its use persisted. Originally just a
psychological term, it came into popular use through books such as Michael
Kimmel’s “<a href="http://www.guyland.net/"><span style="color: blue;">Guyland: The Dangerous World Where Boys Become Men</span></a>,” a pseudo-scientific
tome which lamented the fact that *GASP* some men were waiting later than
previous generations to get married and that *GASP Again* because of that
phenomenon, many of them were living communally (i.e. they had roommates) and
those roommates occasionally did crazy things like drink beer and/or play video
games *AUDIBLE GASP.* <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
KIMMEL WAS TALKING ABOUT ME! THAT BASTARD! You see, guys
like me are apparently everything that is wrong with America. We shun
responsibility. We fastidiously avoid “growing up.” Whereas our fathers got
married and started families in their early 20’s (by the time my father was my
age, he’d been married for 18 years and had a teenage daughter), we were
waiting until our late 20’s or *GASP* even our 30’s before settling down. And
Kimmel said this was a huge problem!!! Never mind the fact that the divorce
rate for our parent’s generation is now well over 50 percent and perhaps – just
perhaps – we were trying to avoid their mistakes. Never mind the fact that, for
many of us, this “delaying of adulthood” was actually used to further our
educations and better prepare ourselves to be able to financially support our
future families.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All of a sudden, after Kimmel’s book (and, in all fairness, others like it) became popular in
student affairs circles, a lot of traditional male behaviors began getting
tossed onto the Hypermasculinity trash heap. Guys living together in apartments
or fraternity houses? Hypermasculine. Guys who like to hang out with their
buddies and drink beer? Hypermasculine. Guys who go to the gym? Hypermasculine. Guys who have sex with women outside the confines of a committed relationship? Hypermasculine. Guys who choose to set at home on a Tuesday night and play video games instead
of coming out for a program on campus? Hypermasculine, not to mention
irresponsible. You get the idea.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So now, any guy who fits the traditional male gender
stereotype is hypermasculine. On many college campuses, if you are a
cis-gendered male, you are generally lumped into one of three categories: gay, hipster, or
hypermasculine. We have created very
little room for any sort of in-between.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here’s why all of this is a problem - Our use of the H-word
is driving heterosexual college men away from engagement on our college campuses
in droves. We started calling them names, and now we act surprised or
frustrated when they become “disengaged.” A lot of fraternity/sorority advisors
that I talk to will readily admit their discomfort or, even worse, their
outright disinterest in working with “hypermasculine” fraternity men. And as a result, a population that arguably needs our support the most is getting the least support!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Need proof? The decline in men’s engagement on college
campuses throughout the last decade is <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/In-Terms-of-Gender/135290/"><span style="color: blue;">well documented</span></a>. My guess is that on 90
percent of college campuses in America, resident assistants, orientation leaders,
peer leaders, student activity board members, etc. are made up of a disproportionate
ratio of gay to straight men. While survey research tells us that gay men make
up anywhere from 10-15 percent of the men on our college campuses, my guess
that on most campuses they outnumber straight men in these areas of student
involvement by a ratio of somewhere between 2 or 3-to-1. And I don’t think it
is because all of a sudden gay men started clamoring to get more involved on
campus – it happened because slowly, gradually, straight men became less and
less engaged, and less and less interested in getting involved in any sort of traditional
student affairs engagement offerings. It happened because, somewhere along the
way, student affairs professionals forgot how to sit down and have a
conversation with a straight student who occasionally enjoys sex, beer and
video games. And instead of reaching out to them, we’ve demonized them and
started calling them the H-Word.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Want the straight men on your campus to become more engaged?
Stop calling them names. Reach out to them. Talk to them. And stop blaming them
for all of the problems on campus.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So many challenges we face with men on campus have
mistakenly been chalked up to hypermasculinity. Hazing, for example, is often
thought of as a rite of passage caught up in displays of hypermasculine
behavior (and in some groups, particularly some culturally based groups where
ethnic identity has taken the place of hypermasculinity,<span style="color: blue;"> <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Does-Violent-Hazing-Plague/233728"><span style="color: blue;">that may be the case</span></a></span>),
but in reality it is generally the result of a group-think mentality wherein
groups have convinced themselves that the prize of membership is worth abusing
prospective members, flexing our evolutionary impulses to not allow newcomers
to immediately exploit the benefits of membership. Hazing very often has nothing
at all to do with masculinity, which becomes even more evident when you
consider the fact that sororities haze, too! Does hypermasculinity contribute
to the severity of hazing in some cases? Possibly. But it is not the underlying
cause of a culture where hazing is viewed as a requisite component of group
membership. As my good friend Jeremiah Shinn likes to say, just because something
seems true doesn’t mean that it is.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So what are some strategies that we can employ to re-engage
all of these “Hypermasculine” men that we have slowly disengaged over the last
decade, while still confronting the real problem of actual hypermasculinity?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some of it we are already doing – we are finally targeting
groups traditionally associated with hypermasculinity (fraternities, athletes,
etc.) and inviting them to be part of the solution, helping them think through
and challenge traditional male stereotypes and helping them better understand
problems associated with the objectification of women. But we can’t stop there.
We need to intentionally be recruiting men to be involved in things like
orientation leaders and resident assistants, providing them with training that
will allow them to be positive male role models for future new students who may
then also seek out those opportunities in the future. Frankly, we need to make
it cool to be involved.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I also think <a href="http://www.campuspeak.com/campuspeak-facilitators-gentry-mccreary-ph-d-joshua-schutts-receive-chuck-eberly-research-award/"><span style="color: blue;">the work that Josh Schutts and I are doing related to brotherhood</span></a> has some implications related to this conversation. In
particular, chapters where solidarity or shared social experiences are viewed
as the most salient forms of brotherhood also tend to have the most
demonstrations of hypermasculine behavior (hazing, competitive binge drinking,
fighting, etc.). Working with chapters to move beyond solidarity and towards belonging
and accountability can be among the most important work we can do in changing
the cultures that permit hypermasculine attitudes to thrive. This notion is
backed by<span style="color: blue;"> <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/08/hypermasculinity-sexual-aggression-link-non-fraternity-members-points-need-broader"><span style="color: blue;">another study</span></a></span> that found that individual levels of hypermasculinity did
not predict sexual violence among fraternity men, but it did among non-affiliated men. The group culture in fraternities is more powerful than any individual predisposition that members may possess. If we can move
chapter cultures away from solidarity and towards belonging and accountability,
we can create group cultures where problematic hypermasculinity is replaced
with genuine engagement, involvement and a feeling of being able to be yourself
(as opposed to fitting the masculine mold) and being accepted for who you are
and what you bring to your group.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Is hypermasculinty a real problem in our society? Of course
it is. But instead of a disease inflicting 80 percent of our males on campus,
it is a psychological disposition that impacts a small portion of men in
serious ways, and a larger number of men in minor ways. It is often passed on
to them through male role models in their life, popular media, violence in
sports and video games, and a belief in traditional gender roles. All of these
are things we can help alleviate by just having conversations with them,
helping them unlearn that which society has taught them. Let’s stop calling our students names, and
start practicing what we preach by “meeting them where they are” and helping
them become better.<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-74551598151425789762015-11-06T09:17:00.001-08:002015-11-07T08:42:39.481-08:00Gentry’s Semi-Annual Rant About Bystander Training (And Why Most of Us Are Getting It Wrong)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4yYDC_LVrAdgv0qVOAzTnT9GwT3nmQgjAT6rzLwjcJ46DTnkoTVRJFYjoh7jaMfGQ3gWtEqg462mLIhIS-DJLi7k397wf7WK_Vqsoydl16I4XdP7C-Wn7y1v-Xf8sBU1JlSrYfZdF7oQG/s1600/kitty-genovese_96252740.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4yYDC_LVrAdgv0qVOAzTnT9GwT3nmQgjAT6rzLwjcJ46DTnkoTVRJFYjoh7jaMfGQ3gWtEqg462mLIhIS-DJLi7k397wf7WK_Vqsoydl16I4XdP7C-Wn7y1v-Xf8sBU1JlSrYfZdF7oQG/s320/kitty-genovese_96252740.jpg" width="249" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I had a chance to work with a campus recently who was
interested in doing some bystander training. I happily obliged them, but after
giving them my caveat of “my research has led me to believe that bystander
training on its own is not a very effective prevention tool.” But, for whatever
reason, many campus administrators and “prevention specialists” have convinced
themselves that bystander training is the end all, be all of prevention
programs, especially in the sexual assault realm. Someone told some Congressman
at a hearing that bystander training showed promise as a primary prevention
strategy, it made it into some legislation and a White House report, and now
most campuses feel the need to dutifully check the “bystander training” box on
their compliance checklist every year. WELL I’M NOT BUYING IT!!!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As my good friend <a href="http://preventionculture.com/about-us/"><span style="color: blue;">Aaron Boe</span></a> (who does some amazing prevention
work) likes to say, bystander intervention is not a new concept. Cavemen likely
understood the concept of helping out their fellow cavemen if they found
themselves in a dangerous predicament. Famed biologist E.O. Wilson discussed
this concept in his book “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Social-Conquest-Earth-Edward-Wilson/dp/0871403633"><span style="color: blue;">The Social Conquest of Earth</span></a>,” theorizing that
natural selection has taken place along two parallel tracks – individual-level
selection, and group-level selection. Groups that were more altruistic, consisting
of individuals who were willing to sacrifice their own desires for the needs of
the group, tended to win out over more selfish groups, and those altruistic
traits have been genetically passed down over the millennia. We’ve literally
evolved to be helpful, proactive bystanders. Helping one another is in our DNA,
and you certainly don’t need to pay me (or anyone else) to come talk to your
students about how they can be more helpful in dangerous situations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you read the literature on bystander behavior (which,
having written a <a href="http://libcontent1.lib.ua.edu/content/u0015/0000001/0000929/u0015_0000001_0000929.pdf"><span style="color: blue;">dissertation on the topic</span></a>, I can assure you I have done), you
will find that there are a number of things an individual must do in order to
intervene in a dangerous situation (i.e. not be a bystander). The first, and
arguably most important, thing on that list is that the person must interpret
the situation as an emergency worthy of intervention. People fail to correctly
interpret situations as problematic for one of two reasons: ambiguity, or
conformity. In ambiguous situations, it isn’t clear whether a situation is an
emergency. A great example of this is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese"><span style="color: blue;">Kitty Genovese murder</span></a> – one of the
things that gets lost in the Kitty Genovese story is that many people who heard
the attack incorrectly interpreted it as a lover’s quarrel, and not a situation
that required any sort of intervention (in fact, they were often surprised to
learn that a murder had taken place). <br />
<br />
The second reason people fail to interpret events as emergencies worthy of intervention is conformity. Much has been written of conformity – most famously
the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments"><span style="color: blue;">Asch Study</span></a> in which individuals discuss the lengths of lines and conform to
the answers of those around them. A lesser known study applies directly to
bystander behavior – the Latane and Darley “<a href="http://www.sociallypsyched.org/item/the-smoke-filled-room"><span style="color: blue;">Smoke-Filled Room</span></a>” study. In this
study, individuals were placed in a waiting room in one of two conditions –
alone, or with confederates (individuals who were “in on the joke,” so to
speak). After a few minutes waiting, smoke began entering the room through a
vent. Those in the “alone” condition immediately got up and said something to
someone or left the room 75 percent of the time. But in the “with others”
condition, the confederates would sit silently and pay no attention to the
smoke. The research subject would notice the smoke, but then notice that
everyone else seemed to be paying the smoke no mind. In such conditions, less
than 10 percent of research subjects said or did anything related to the smoke.
The reason they did not say or do anything is often mistakenly attributed to
diffusion of responsibility (I assumed someone else would do something), but
the inaction was actually due to conformity. They looked around to see how
everyone else interpreted the situation. When they surmised that they were the
only person interpreting the smoke as a problem, they conformed to the norms
around them and decided that the smoke was not a problem after all. It isn’t
that they assumed someone else would do something (diffusion of responsibility)
– they assumed that nothing needed to be done because of the inactions of those
around them. By conforming to the responses of those around them, they failed
to correctly interpret a dangerous situation as an emergency worthy of their
intervention.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, at this point in the post, you might be asking yourself “That’s
great, Gentry, but what does any of this have to do with bystander training?” It’s
a fair question. I plan to answer it now.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So often, bystander training focuses on “helping skills”
(please read that as “quote unquote helping skills”). We spend hours talking about diffusion of
responsibility, and telling students that if they see something they should say
something, that they shouldn’t just be a bystander, and then we “teach”
students how to help or intervene in a variety of dangerous situations (sexual
assault, hazing, alcohol poisoning, etc.). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But here is what the bystander research tells us – that if
students are not correctly interpreting situations as emergencies worthy of
intervention, then all the bystander training in the world will not get them to
intervene. If a situation is ambiguous, or if others are not interpreting it as
an emergency, then the odds that a student will correctly interpret the
situation as problematic and intervene are very, very low. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What all of this means is that bystander training needs to
be context-specific. That is, until students have a critical understanding of
the issue you are trying to address (sexual assault, hazing, bullying, etc.)
and the harm that can be caused by those behaviors, then trying to get them to intervene
when they see these situations is an exercise in futility. Before bystander
training can be effective, we need to help students understand the harm that
can be caused by the behaviors we are trying to curb.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My friend and colleague <a href="http://preventionculture.com/bystander-intervention-training/"><span style="color: blue;">Aaron Boe</span></a> is probably doing the most
innovative work in this area as it relates to sexual assault prevention, and his ideas have informed my own in this area. In his
programs for men, he starts by helping them understand the trauma that can come
from having your body violated by someone else – even if it is someone you know
and trust, and even if it doesn’t seem particularly “violent.” The idea behind
his approach is that most of the sexual assaults on college campuses are not
perpetrated by scary strangers, and they do not meet our classic definitions of
violent, and as a result, many college men fail to understand the harm that can
be caused in a non-stranger assault involving alcohol. His program begins by
helping them understand that harm, and then moves on to ways they can improve
the culture around them by creating healthier norms and not being bystanders. Critical
understanding of the harm comes first, conversations about bystander behavior come second. This is a critical concept for those of you interested in doing
bystander training. If your students don’t fully understand the harm that can
be done by having someone do something to your body that you don’t want to
happen, then getting them to intervene in any meaningful ways is a tall order. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Bystander training probably isn’t a total waste of time, and
that is not the concept that I want people to take away from this post. What I
want people to understand is that bystander training is only effective when it
is done as part of a broader prevention program that begins with helping
students understand the critical issues involved in any particular behavior.
Every time I do bystander training, and I offer a scenario involving a
dangerous situation and ask them how they could intervene, students are
immediately able to come up with several ideas, many of which are really
thoughtful and creative. Students don’t need to be trained on how to intervene.
They know how to intervene. What they don’t always know is when or why they
should intervene. If we spent more time helping them understand the critical
issues that would give them a better understanding of when to intervene, and
less time teaching them what they innately already know, then our prevention
efforts would be drastically more impactful. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-60282259638903726032015-09-11T09:03:00.000-07:002016-08-05T14:05:58.743-07:00Sisterhood's Biggest Impediment<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyEVWBkccKV_ExcMpXmJFjBHPxsmSahUmslBOi2_OzJBiCXrfwLLnYcz9taDUAqyUH7wax3M0EyoMYUKu-kc-kV4cqxOb5VLRsi8LCLviktZ3WOiPZiq2JRlWpJtfk5U7GFCaQ8q1qZfI8/s1600/alpha+phi+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyEVWBkccKV_ExcMpXmJFjBHPxsmSahUmslBOi2_OzJBiCXrfwLLnYcz9taDUAqyUH7wax3M0EyoMYUKu-kc-kV4cqxOb5VLRsi8LCLviktZ3WOiPZiq2JRlWpJtfk5U7GFCaQ8q1qZfI8/s320/alpha+phi+2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Over the last few years, I have spent more time than I care
to admit sitting around talking to sorority women about sisterhood. Hours and
hours of conversations about sisterhood. This has not been for my health, nor has
it been for my own amusement. If you are not familiar with the research that
Josh Schutts, Sarah Cohen and I are doing related to sisterhood, you can read
more about it <a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2015/01/how-big-is-too-big.html"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The least altruistic version of sisterhood, or what one
woman described as the “sisterhood of selfishness,” is sisterhood based on
shared social experiences. Women who
think of sisterhood in this way view the sorority as a primarily social outlet,
and see the main purpose of their membership as “meeting people and having a
good time.” We also see that, relative to men, women are more likely to join a
group based on their perception of its social status rather than the sense of
belonging and connection they feel to the group. Anecdotally, we have all
experienced this. Fraternity/sorority advisors who have worked with sorority
and fraternity recruitment understand this phenomenon all too well. We all know
her – the PNM on preference night who sits at the voting computer in agony for
hours trying to decide between her groups. Our research tells us that, very often,
her inner monologue might go something like this:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
“<i>I really like Gamma Beta – I really felt a connection to those girls. I
feel like I could really be at home there. But….the Kappa Theta’s are the best
sorority on campus. Everyone wants to be there. I’m not sure I liked the girls
as much, but would I be crazy not to rank them first? I’m so confused! I don’t
know what to do!”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The agonizing choice between joining the chapter where one
feels at home and connected vs. the chapter where one is likely to enjoy the
highest social status is one that plays out in every recruitment voting lab on
every college campus in America multiple times over. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Have you ever noticed that this agony is much less prevalent
with men? How many times have you sat with a prospective fraternity member on
bid day who was agonizing over his decision of which fraternity to join. In my
ten years as a F/S advisor, I can remember only one. The reason for this is
that men are much more likely to join the place that they feel that they best
fit in. To them, the decision is easy – most men join where they feel the
greatest sense of belonging. This is clearly evident in our research on
brotherhood, as brotherhood based on belonging accounts for an overwhelming
amount of the variance in our overall brotherhood model. This is the most
salient form of brotherhood, and the type of connection that most men crave in
a fraternity experience. In addition, fraternity men measure significantly higher than sorority women on the construct of belonging. Simply, the conflict between joining a chapter where
you feel at home and a chapter with social clout is much more pronounced with
sorority women than with fraternity men.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The fact is, a great number of women join the wrong sorority
for the wrong reasons. They join an
artificially constructed social image for social reasons instead of a group of
people with whom they connect. As a result, many sorority members get stuck in
a schema of sisterhood in which the social aspect of the sorority takes
precedence over more altruistic forms of sisterhood. Women who join the social
image only care about the social image, and sisterhood suffers as a result.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why does this happen with such regularity? Why are so many women
joining sororities for the wrong reasons?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The answer, I suspect, lies in the manner in which
sororities recruit their new members.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Sorority recruitment
is sisterhood’s biggest impediment.<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The manner in which we bring new members into sororities is
the reason that so many young women join for the wrong reasons, and is the
reason that more altruistic forms of sisterhood are so difficult for many
chapters to attain. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I want to lay out five reasons that sorority recruitment
reinforces the social nature of sisterhood at the expense of more altruistic
forms of sisterhood. I will present this list not in my own words, but in the
words of women we have interviewed about sisterhood in the last two years. You
see, it isn’t just my opinion that sorority recruitment is problematic – it is
a theme that has come up TIME AND TIME AGAIN in our hours of interviews and
focus groups related to sisterhood. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, in the words of sorority women across the country, here
are five reasons that sorority recruitment is bad for sisterhood:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>The Structure<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“How are you supposed
to really get to know someone and what they are about in 20 minutes?”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“The whole process is
just one big production. It isn’t about getting to know the girls going through
– it is about selling an image of what we want them the think about us. There’s
no way you can really get to know the girls going through during recruitment. Once
you get in and see what its really like, you become kind of jaded.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The structure of sorority recruitment is incredibly
ill-suited for allowing women to connect with one another in any sort of deep,
meaningful way. Depending on the campus, the “first round” of structured
recruitment is anywhere from 15-30 minutes per party. So, young women have
roughly 20 minutes to find out whether or not they find a deep sense of
connection and belonging with a group of people. In the meantime, they have
been strictly forbidden from having any sort of conversations with sorority
members for the last six months outside of a 20 minute party. The sorority is
evaluating you, and you are evaluating the sorority, based on a 20 minute
conversation. The entire concept is outlandish.
At the most basic level, the process works in terms of moving women
through the process and having good retention through bid day, but the
impression that it leaves with new members is one that reinforces the social
nature of sisterhood (“I’m being evaluated based on what I’m wearing, how I
look, and the impression I leave after a five minute conversation with someone
who doesn’t know me at all”) that creates so many problems for our chapters. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
By
forcing both chapters and potential members to make fast decisions based on
very surface-level observations and conversations, we are reinforcing the very
negative TSM stereotypes that we try so fastidiously to avoid. By not giving
women an opportunity to connect with one another in meaningful ways, we set up
a system whereby most people use social prestige as the lone measuring stick of
which sorority is best for them, and chapters are left to make decisions about
prospective members based on their looks and one very brief, surface level
conversation.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>The Videos<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>“</b><i>The sisterhood videos are the worst thing. I
hate glitter.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“The videos are all
cute, cute, fun, fun instead of what the sorority is really like.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“OMG look we have the
best sisterhood! Not really. These videos are not genuine with new members
about what the experience is really like.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The recent controversy related to the <a href="http://college.usatoday.com/2015/08/21/univ-of-alabamas-alpha-phi-recruitment-video-oppresses-diversity-and-individuality/"><span style="color: blue;">Alpha Phi recruitment video</span></a> at the University of Alabama was so bizarre to me because that video was
indistinguishable from the hundreds of other videos I’ve seen in the last few years.
Perhaps the lakeside, bikini-clad, inflatable candy blow up toy fight was a bit
over the top, but otherwise, that video was pretty milquetoast. These videos
have become all the rage in recent years.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These videos usually represent the absolute worst that
sororities have to offer – the surface level, social nature of sisterhood.
Blowing glitter and/or bubbles into various and sundry bodies of water; holding
hands and skipping through random places on campus; synchronized jumping; more
glitter. You get the idea.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Who are these videos targeted towards, and exactly what
message are they trying to convey? My guess is that these videos are
productions whose aim and purpose is to supplant a realistic version of sorority
life with a made up dream-world where everyone walks around with endless
supplies of glitter in their pockets.
These videos promote the idea that sisterhood is all about looking good
and having fun. As a result, the wrong women are joining sororities. These
videos target the “always joiners” – those women who are joining the stereotype
– instead of the maybe joiners, who really want to know how being in a sorority
will add value to their college experience. Instead of serious students looking
to make an impact, these videos tend to attract students who are only
interested in the social aspects of sorority life. The result? Chapters where sisterhood is a
largely social construct, made up of members who joined a social image and not
a group of women dedicated to making one another and society better.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>The Instagram Feed<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>We’ve created an
environment where our members feel entitled and get upset if they aren’t
featured on the chapter’s Instagram before recruitment.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“I don’t see a lot of
pictures of us studying or doing service [on the Instagram feed], which would
be a more realistic depiction of what it’s really like.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“It creates an
environment where no one wants to do the work – they just want to take
selfies.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraph">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In addition to recruitment videos, highly produced Instagram
photos now litter the college sorority landscape. Rare is the chapter that does
not have its own Insta account, and rare is the account which doesn’t include
overly produced, unrealistic, staged photoshoots. There is an arms race among
sororities on most campuses to see which chapter can get the largest number of
PNM’s to follow their Instagram account. Those who follow these accounts are
bombarded with images that bear little to no resemblance of what sorority life
actually entails.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Much like the videos, the Instagram accounts promote a
sisterhood of superficiality – where pretty members do pretty things in pretty
outfits, flashing the sorority hand sign in conspicuous places. I have never
seen a chapter Instagram account feature pictures from a chapter service
project, a late night study session, or any other “real” activities that go on
in a sorority on a daily basis. Instead of seeing and joining what is “real,”
prospective members are bombarded with and join artificially constructed images
that are anything but real.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>The Skits<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“The skit – it’s all
about trying to seem to be something we aren’t.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“I think [the skit] is
about social status and fun and how we look rather than promoting or attaining
values.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Skits during recruitment have long been the whipping-boy of
the “no-frills” movement. It is surprising, then, that so many campus
Panhellenic recruitment processes still feature some variation of a skit night.
Proponents of the skit love to point out that skits give the chapter an
opportunity to “showcase its personality.” This viewpoint is not shared by the
majority of the women I have spoken to in the last two years. They view skits
no differently than they view videos or any other productions that portray an
unrealistic version of sisterhood.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The skit is problematic not only in that it usually portrays
an unrealistic or superficial version of sisterhood, but it takes away valuable
time during the recruitment process that could be better spent allowing
meaningful conversations to happen. As a result, women join a contrived
portrayal of a sisterhood instead of a group of women looking to improve their
lives and the lives of those around them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>The Superficiality <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“ ‘Are you friends
with everybody in your chapter?’ That’s the question they (PNM’s) ask to define
sisterhood and to be perfectly honest, it’s a blatant lie when recruiting
sisters go ‘Yes, I’m best friends with everybody in my chapter.’ And we all know it’s a lie. I personally
think that the sisterhood aspect that we sell to our PNM’s isn’t the most
genuine that we can tell them about. When you’re in a chapter of 150 women,
there’s going to be at least one person that you’re like ‘wow, you are so
irritating’ You love them, because they are your sister, but you’re like ‘wow,
you’re irritating’.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“<i>So we teach our
members during recruitment that if they get a question about a sister and they
don’t know the answer, to just make something up. We want the PNM’s to think
that we are all best friends and know everything about one another</i>.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“Everything we do in
recruitment is fake – it is about seeming rather than being.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All of the issues with sorority recruitment and sisterhood
come down to this one concept. The current structure of recruitment on most
campuses in one in which a sisterhood of superficiality is front and center.
Chapters seeking to establish their social bona fides find themselves in a
“race to the bottom” in which they say and do whatever necessary in order to
convince potential members that they offer a sisterhood in which everyone has
fun all the time and is best friends with one another. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The message that potential members receive throughout
recruitment is the wrong message. It is a message that promotes the
superficial, social nature of sisterhood, often at the expense of more
altruistic notions of sisterhood. Instead of prospective members joining a
sisterhood in which women support one another in their endeavors, where they
feel a high sense of belonging, and feel held accountable to a set of shared
expectations, they join a sisterhood of glitter, bubbles, overly-produced
skits, and false expectations.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We need to take a long, hard look at the sorority
recruitment process. It is time to move beyond “no frills” and “values-based”
and into a world of “promoting a realistic version of sisterhood.” Just getting
rid of frills is not enough. We need to develop practices that allow for all
levels of sisterhood to be sold to new members – from the social experience to
accountability and common purpose. We need to get rid of the superficiality –
no more glitter, no more bubbles, no more skits. Glitter, bubbles and skits
recruit members who care about the social elements of sisterhood. Replace the
glitter and bubbles with meaningful conversations – not about watered-down,
abstract values, but about how sorority membership makes you a better person
and adds value to your college experience. If we replace glitter with
substance, we’ll be recruiting the right women for the right reasons, and sisterhood will grow and thrive as a result.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
But don't take my word for it.</div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com49tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-91207696353116360452015-08-25T08:57:00.000-07:002015-08-25T09:03:38.175-07:00Hazing Myth - New Members Want to be Hazed<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRoaogEcj_5MebM5B9XhmRUEeJvqJdluDo4Xl0ShXc27DtcgE46dNL1OVolPhV6PDt2b7BKSwU3KgnMJhk_Pb_k7YXjvnOY7W3POehRsLjK_C0i3uZITzQiM87RcV-dZFDXK1BHf6JMJAs/s1600/Hazing2-300x225.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRoaogEcj_5MebM5B9XhmRUEeJvqJdluDo4Xl0ShXc27DtcgE46dNL1OVolPhV6PDt2b7BKSwU3KgnMJhk_Pb_k7YXjvnOY7W3POehRsLjK_C0i3uZITzQiM87RcV-dZFDXK1BHf6JMJAs/s320/Hazing2-300x225.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In my line of work, I get to spend a lot of time having
frank, open and honest conversations with chapter leaders about what really
goes on in their chapters. In fact, my experience has taught me that bringing
in someone from the outside to have confidential conversations with chapter
leaders is money incredibly well-spent, because it provides opportunities to
cut through the BS and discuss the things really going on in a chapter. Campus
visits that offer these types of conversations are often my most productive. In
order to get students to think differently about what might be going on in
their chapters, it helps to provide them with a safe space to have open, honest
conversations about what is actually going on.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have also written previously of the “<a href="http://doctorgentry.blogspot.com/2015/03/regression-to-mean-and-single-most.html"><span style="color: blue;">regression to the mean</span></a>” that happens within a given campus context. Over time, fraternity new
member programs on any given campus come to generally resemble one another, and
a salient campus culture emerges for what a “normal” new member program looks
like. Organizations who deviate from this campus culture initially (i.e. a new
chapter that begins doing things the right way immediately after colonization)
will be pulled towards it over time. Variance within these systems is not rewarded.
Fraternity new members hear these myths and are generally aware of the norm
when they join a fraternity on campus – they hear stories from their friends in
high school and come into an organization expecting a certain amount of hazing,
depending on the cultural norms on the campus in question. Sometimes the hazing
will be worse than they expected, and sometimes it won’t be quite as bad as
they had expected.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sometimes a chapter will decide, for various reasons (it
gets into trouble, it elects a conscientious president, it gets new chapter
advisors, etc.), to try to address its hazing culture and deviate in some way
from the campus norm. The chapter will choose some of the most dangerous or
high risk activities in which it engages and eliminate them from the new member
education program. In doing so, they
often make a critical mistake – they fail to replace those high risk activities
with other meaningful new member activities. They eliminate hazing, but they
put nothing meaningful back in its place. This mistake is the most common one
that I see chapters make when they try to address hazing, and it has very
predictable consequences.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I recently met with a group of chapter leaders who had made
this mistake – they had gotten into trouble two years ago for hazing and had
cleaned a few things up in their new member program. They took some bad things
away, but they put nothing back in place of those things. The results of this
were both typical and predictable – they felt the pledges didn’t come together
and didn’t really get much out of the new member period. And they stated to me
what many chapter leaders over the years have stated to me after trying to
deviate from the campus hazing norm:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">“The pledges told us they were disappointed that they
weren’t hazed. They wanted us to haze them more.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My guess is that I am not the only person working in the
fraternity/sorority industry who has ever heard a statement like this. I
suspect this type of mentality is fairly common.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So how do I respond when I hear this logic? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“When your pledges tell you that they wish they had been
hazed more, what they really mean is that they wish their new member experience
had been more <b><i><span style="font-size: large;">meaningful</span></i></b>.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Much has been written about adolescent men and their need
for meaningful rites of passage. They seek meaning and a deep sense of
connection in their experiences. They seek to bond with others in powerful ways.
They seek challenge and accomplishment. One of the primary reasons that hazing
not only persists but is often glorified as a positive experience is because,
in the short term, it provides these feelings of meaning and accomplishment. Take a group of 20-30 young men and put them
through Hell for 12 weeks and they will take a sense of pride and
accomplishment out of that experience. They will feel closer to one another
because of that experience. They will derive meaning from that experience.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But there are other ways to create a meaningful experience
that do not involve hazing. There are ways to facilitate authentic, meaningful
conversations that will build trust and connectivity within a group. There are
ways to facilitate a sense of accomplishment that do not involve physical or
mental abuse. It takes time, energy and creativity to develop and implement
these activities. That’s another reason that hazing is so prevalent – it is
much easier to implement. Any idiot can scream at a group of pledges who don’t
perform well on a pledge test. It takes a little more creativity to facilitate
a conversation or activity that facilitates meaningful bonding.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have failed our fraternities by completely decentralizing
the new member education experience and expecting 19-21 year old men to come up
with constructive programs on their own. Most chapters simply have not spent
the time and energy required to develop meaningful new member education
activities. They take the simplest path to creating meaning within their new
member programs – they haze. I can offer a brief, bulleted list of what the
fraternity new member process looks like in 90 percent of fraternity chapters
across America:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ul>
<li>Bid night – get shitfaced.</li>
<li>Have pledges memorize things from the national new member
book. Give them a weekly test. If they fail the test, yell at them and make
them do calisthenics.</li>
<li>Run errands for older members in the name of “getting to
know the older members.” This may or may not involve getting signatures in book
or soliciting interviews with these older members while performing menial tasks
for them.</li>
<li>Big brother night – get shitfaced again.</li>
<li>Lots of cleaning.</li>
<li>Hell Week! Lots of yelling and calisthenics and cleaning and
getting shitfaced.</li>
<li>Initiation. Welcome to the frat, brother. Now let’s get
shitfaced!</li>
</ul>
<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have failed to change this pattern because we have failed
to help our fraternity chapters develop more meaningful ways to bring a group
together. The formula above is prevalent because it is the easiest, simplest
way to bring a group of new members together and foster a sense of
accomplishment. It requires zero effort, zero creativity, and zero initiative.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you are a campus-based advisor, here is how you can make
a difference: Set a meeting with every fraternity executive board on your
campus. Block off two hours for each chapter. Begin the meeting by asking them
about the purpose of their new member education program. After hearing their
thoughts, provide them with an alternative framework – that the new member
education process is about building good members of the chapter. Once they buy
into this concept (they will), ask them to make a bulleted list of 8-10
characteristics to describe the ideal chapter member (if we agree that the
pledge process is about building good members, it helps to define what a good
member looks like). Some chapters will struggle with this, some will not. Push
them. Get them to think both in terms of tangible behaviors (i.e. shows up to
things, pays his dues) and intangible values (a man of integrity, an honest
person, etc.). Once they come up with that list of ideal member qualities, help
them brainstorm 3-4 activities for each of those qualities on that list that
would either teach that quality to new members or give new members an
opportunity to demonstrate or practice that quality. You’ll be amazed at the
things that they come up with. So will they. They will amaze themselves at the
meaningful activities that they are able to come up with in just a few short
hours of brainstorming.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At the end of this exercise, each chapter will have a list
of 30-40 MEANINGFUL new member activities that they can use to replace some of
the stupid things they are doing that really have no point or purpose. It will
make the new member programs on your campus better, and it will reduce the
likelihood of hazing creeping back in to the chapter, because everyone,
including the new members, will see and understand the benefits of a meaningful
and purposeful new member program.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
New members don’t want to be hazed, and I suspect that 90
percent of chapter members don’t want to engage in hazing (10 percent of
society has sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies…). Chapters haze because it is
the only way they know how to create a meaningful experience for their new
members. We need to spend time and energy showing them a better way. We need to
invest resources in helping them come up with better ways to provide meaningful
experiences in ways that will work towards constructive ends and that are not
dangerous, demeaning or degrading.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
We need to be better at our jobs. This is a good place to
start.<o:p></o:p></div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com265tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8384046705046471570.post-40194120430868992502015-07-14T06:44:00.002-07:002015-07-24T08:32:02.003-07:00Should Fraternity Conduct Boards be Hearing Title IX Cases?<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMiqe7iHdrvQiQc4xnMaPwHmE1-EmjyIY_ZBVLogsasFYOe37YXBscagbYBUNhaM6RYa3g98QGaaVyDlwfb93_xRqK_k-5_zdZrLBU-KTnMgID2odSf7L2xCFped3Wl88NKZXvANUwelVK/s1600/gavel3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="264" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMiqe7iHdrvQiQc4xnMaPwHmE1-EmjyIY_ZBVLogsasFYOe37YXBscagbYBUNhaM6RYa3g98QGaaVyDlwfb93_xRqK_k-5_zdZrLBU-KTnMgID2odSf7L2xCFped3Wl88NKZXvANUwelVK/s320/gavel3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Earlier this week, Inside Higher Ed published <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/23/greek-councils-administrators-clash-over-how-sanction-fraternities"><b><span style="color: blue;">an intriguing article</span></b></a> related to some of the problems associated with peer-led fraternity conduct boards, using recent cases at Penn State and the University Idaho as examples. This piece has generated quite a bit of healthy discussion in both the student conduct and fraternity/sorority advising circles, illuminating both the positives and negatives of peer accountability boards.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let me start by saying this – I think peer accountability is a good thing. IFC conduct boards have a role to play, because ultimately the college experience is designed to be educational. We know that peer-governance and accountability is a powerful developmental tool, linked to gains in moral development, cognitive development and self-authorship for the students serving on these panels. We also know that peer-administered sanctions are more impactful to the individual/group being sanctioned, consistent with both Perry’s Theory of Intellectual Development and Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development. Students in stages of relativistic thinking and conventional moral judgment (which is where most college students are developmentally) are more likely to be influenced by the attitudes and opinions of their peers than by those of adult authority figures. Peer accountability systems provide students with valuable opportunities to learn from and be influenced by one another in positive and developmental ways. Peer accountability is, developmentally at least, a good thing.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But, as we all learned in our organizational theories classes, the developmental frame is not the only lens through which we can view the problem of how to best address fraternal misdeeds. In the current environment, the legal frame cannot be ignored when determining the appropriate levels of self-determination and peer-accountability.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As we ponder this problem through a legal frame, let me first lay out a few principles that will provide context for what I am about to say:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Organizations only have as many due process rights/protections as we provide to them in our codes of conduct. Our relationships with individual students are Constitutional (at least at public institutions), but our relationships with organizations are largely contractual. We must have a fair process for addressing student organization behavior that is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Other than that, organizations have no “rights” that are commonly associated with the traditional student conduct process. We can address organizational conduct in whatever manner we choose, so long as that manner is inherently fair and applied evenly.</span></li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">The civil rights investigative/adjudication model provides us with the most appropriate framework for addressing not only Title IX cases, but also any other types of cases that would constitute a victim-based violation (hazing, assault, exploitation, etc.). The civil rights model provides for an independent investigation, followed by the determination of a finding based on the facts outlined in the investigation. It is appropriate for victim-based crimes because it less adversarial, provides necessary protections to victims, reduces the likelihood of retaliation or re-victimization, and eliminates redundant questioning wherein a victim is required to tell his/her story multiple times to multiple parties.</span></li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">The key ingredient to a successful civil rights investigation/process is the elimination of bias. OCR and other legal bodies have been clear on this matter. Investigators should be </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">unbiased. </i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">They should have no stake in the eventual outcome of the case, and they should not be involved in the adjudication of the case (outside of answering questions about their investigation). In a hybrid model where a traditional hearing still takes place, panelists are expected to be </span><i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">unbiased. </i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">They should have no relationship with any of the involved parties that would call their independence or subjectivity into question. </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Many institutions of higher education have spent the last few years designing systems that build clear walls between the investigative and adjudicative roles in Title IX cases. This has been done to eliminate bias from the process inasmuch as possible.</span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fraternity peer-accountability boards should not be placed in a position to adjudicate ANY victim-based crime (Title IX or otherwise), because the use of such a system leaves multiple opportunities for bias to be introduced into the process. The problem is not that fraternity members are <i>inherently biased</i> to rule in favor of or to show leniency towards their inter-fraternal brothers (although that may often be the case). Rather, this type of model provides no safeguards through which we can ensure that the process is unbiased, and that represents a major flaw and drawback to peer-led systems of accountability. The mere fact that such a process has fraternity men deciding cases involving other fraternity men, bound to one another by an unspoken vow of fraternal solidarity, injects inherent bias (whether real or imagined) into the process, Such a process also renders cases decided by such a system wide open for legal challenges (not to mention OCR complaints).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Campuses would be wise to consider the transition to a civil-rights process for ALL cases (both organizational and individual) that constitute victim-based violations. As an example, consider some of the problems associated with adjudicating a fraternity hazing case using the traditional model vs. a civil rights model, as depicted in the table below:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<b>Traditional Process<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td><td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
<b>Civil Rights Process<o:p></o:p></b></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
Hazing victims required to testify in front of their organizational leaders, as well as students from other organizations<o:p></o:p></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
Hazing victims only required to share their story with an independent investigator, and are not required to testify in an open hearing<o:p></o:p></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
Hazing victims required to tell their story to multiple parties and to endure harsh cross examination<o:p></o:p></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
Hazing victims only required to tell their story once to an unbiased investigator<o:p></o:p></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
Modestly trained student panelists with little investigatory experience<o:p></o:p></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
Adequately trained investigator with experience investigating cases and determining fact patterns<o:p></o:p></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
Time intensive (preliminary investigation, scheduling hearing, training panelists, actual hearing, layers of appeal)<o:p></o:p></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
Less time intensive (Investigation, written report, finding, appeal)<o:p></o:p></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
Subject to political influence, bias, administrative vetoes<o:p></o:p></div>
</td><td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 239.4pt;" valign="top" width="319"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center;">
Less subject to outside political influence, bias, or administrative overreach<o:p></o:p></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In our current compliance environment, it makes no sense for colleges and universities to willingly introduce the potential for bias into their disciplinary process, especially when they do not have to. A civil rights model is superior, because it reduces bias, is victim-centered, is more likely to find the truth, and limits opportunities for retaliation, legal challenge, and political interference. At Penn State, in the case featured in the Inside Higher Ed article, the IFC conduct board’s sanctions were eventually overturned by the University. Is it truly peer-governance when the administration has to reserve the right to have the last say? Is that really developmental? Is that really the eventual result we want – students making decisions that are regularly and summarily overturned by administrators? What, exactly, does that accomplish for the students involved, the university, or the victims?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Most peer-accountability processes, particularly those involving fraternity judicial councils in which fraternity men decide the fate of their interfraternal peers, are antiquated – vestiges of more adversarial judicial models that proliferated American higher education in the wake of the Dixon vs. Alabama case. Perhaps most importantly, panels consisting of all fraternity men are poorly designed to fulfill institutional obligations to women under Title IX.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In light of all of this, I recommend the following:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ol>
<li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Campuses should transition to a model where all victim-based violations are adjudicated under a single civil rights investigative model. This will make everyone's lives easier, and provide a better process for victims while ensuring due process protections for alleged perpetrators.</span></li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Investigators should receive specialized training related to not only Title IX cases, but also other victim-based violations, especially hazing.</span></li>
<li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Campuses should partner with and embrace fraternity (and sorority) peer accountability boards to adjudicate victimless violations (i.e. alcohol/drugs, university policies related to facility upkeep, university/council risk management policies, etc.) as well as violations of their own rules (i.e. recruitment policies).</span></li>
</ol>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Greek peer accountability boards still have an important role to play on college campuses. My most meaningful and developmental experience as an undergraduate (and the one most responsible for leading me into this profession) was my experience as the chair of the IFC judicial board at the University of Tennessee. I learned and grew a great deal because of that experience, and for the most part, I think we acted with the community and university’s best interests at heart. But I also reflect back on that time, and I think about how ill-prepared I was to deal with serious issues involving real victims who suffered real harm, where the institution’s compliance with federal law hinged on my being able to do my job in an unbiased manner. Could countless hours of training and rigid oversight have prepared me to handle those cases? Perhaps. But for a majority of institutions struggling to get this right, time and money are precious commodities, and the level of time and energy needed to adequately train new student boards year after year may eliminate those models as viable options. For those campuses, the civil rights model presents the most effective and efficient model for addressing not only Title IX cases, but all victim-based violations.</div>
Gentry McCrearyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12352202752529729052noreply@blogger.com2