Leanna Stager - Alright. I'm not going to be able to hit every point right now but first the inactivity thing. First, in the case of people who go inactive because they are too overwhelmed by other responsibilities to actively participate: I fully agree that we need to never forget the human aspect of what we're doing here, and that these are our friends. However, the unfortunate truth is that there is a business/money aspect to all of this and right now Psi U comes with a REALLY high price tag because the brotherhood is so small. This means that the people who are paying and are putting a lot of time and effort in get (and I think rightfully) really touchy when a brother ducks out of their responsibilities because they are too busy and then they show up to all / most of the fun things. I don't think its right to ban these people from the house. We should be understanding of the situation and happy to see them when we can. But its extremely difficult to draw a line as to how much someone can be around when they cited they can't be around as a reason for going inactive. The current house is apparently taking the hard-line approach on that one. This could be for a million different reasons including their own inability to get the basic shit together, let alone try to figure out nuanced rules for how to deal with different types of inactivity so I'm not going to sit around and speculate on that.
(warning: slight rant)
For what its worth, I will say that I find this new trend in "opps, gotta do other things" inactivity to be really troubling. I know everyone deals with life differently but it hurts to see someone just toss aside something you take so seriously. I've always had tons of things to do (pre-5am wake ups for crew, anyone?) but I always found time for the house. Fact is, everyone is busy at RPI and it sucks when one of your friends looks at you and says they're walking away because they have too much to do, leaving you to scramble to pick up the pieces. All of this, of course, refers to the lazy way out, not to people who cite this as a reason when its really something else like they don't get along with someone. To them I say put on your big girl panties and grow the fuck up and figure it out. You should be able to be civil to the vast majority of the people on this planet, especially when you very well knew what you were getting yourself into (pledge process, yeah?) because that is life and thats how we get by. You don't have to like everyone, but you should be able to not shit on someone's day if you don't get along necessarily.
/end rant
Next there are the people who have some sort of genuine conflict with the values of the house (which they somehow completely failed to notice while pledging headdesk ). These people tend to leave and not want to come back and that's fine. It happens sometimes. Easy to deal with. But then there are the people who are causing major issues within the house and get along with some people and not others which means they might actually come back from time to time. In the most recent case other brothers were ready to go inactive if this brother did not, citing reasons of sexual harassment among other things (to the point where they are willing to press charges). In this case active brothers are profoundly uncomfortable with the idea of the brother who went inactive being around the house at all and I see absolutely no reason not to ban someone like this from the house.
So yeah. Issue #1 here is that not all inactivity is the same and we can not treat it as such and the undergrads are.
Issue #2: many of them are wildly immature in one way or another. None of them are bad people or anything like that but they have a lot of growing up to do and that includes learning how to deal with people you don't see eye to eye with. I learned a TON about this from the house, but now they are all so young and many of them butting heads (with their glorious overabundances of personality, as psi u's tend to have) that they have no one to look to. Also, this has lead to a major breakdown in communication. I believe its gotten a little better but they were absolutely not talking about their issues or trying to work things out.
Issue #3: many of the actives are pretty shy (which again leads to confrontation and communication problems). Rush isn't an easy thing, and I say that as someone who is fairly comfortable talking to random people. The house is lacking some of the really strong, social personalities that draw new people in and help unify the current brothers. Its easy to rely on these people to bring rushees around so the less outgoing brothers have a chance to meet them at all. A corollary of this is that as a small house with money/size issues they are scared which brings a certain desperation to rush and that stress makes it WAY more difficult to be successful. With no older brothers to look to to tell them stories of how the house naturally waxes and wanes in numbers watching membership drop very low can be a terribly daunting thing.
Alright, this is getting very long. I'm going to stop here. I think I got out a good deal of what I wanted to say for now.
Ines Martinovic - Jeff, I think you bring up a good point with structure, or lack thereof. I think the house is currently at a point where there aren't enough experienced brothers to lead the structure, so some very overpowering people take over, and the rest of the house is pretty shy. The shy people are afraid to stand up if they don't disagree with something. People don't know the answers (or the fact that there ever really are any). Young pledge classes vs older pledge classes make a difference too.
Josh, I can see what you mean about it being a natural progression- I hadn't really thought about it from that perspective. I think what upsets me about it the most though, is that it's currently done on purely an emotional basis. Leanna brings up some fantastic arguments as to why it bothers her; I could definitely see it from her perspective- and if people were that rational about it, it wouldn't be so bad. But the reality is that people are just pissed at each other no matter what, and practically use it as just more fuel for being pissed. The way it's handled is so poor, it's an emotional retaliation along the lines of "You don't want to be here? uhm.. well... fine! We don't want you anyway!!!"
Leanna, you bring up a lot of good points too. I agree with pretty much everything you've said- it's not an easy position and there are a lot of problems going on. Regarding issues with values of the house, we would hope that people figure that out while pledging, but honestly, pledging is such a fun, exciting period and you are often left out of the major issues. I know when I was a pledge, I was completely blind to the problems in the house, so I could understand how some people might change their minds later after being exposed to more of it. Sometimes these things take time.
But I do think that if the actives are shy and rush is a problem, they shouldn't kick out extra brothers who come in to see how things are going. I know there are always enough issues about actives not going to rush events- why kick people out? Besides, an inactive at a rush event isn't nearly as bad as the active who was sitting and talking with the rushees, got up without saying a word, and stormed upstairs and slammed the door, refusing to come out until Ted leaves. How's that for portraying the house in a positive light? If the rushees are even half perceptive, they'll realize what a hostile environment it is these days.
I think a major part of the problem is the immaturity and stubbornness of some of the actives, and unwillingness to resolve issues. Many of them are at each others' throats. I know that some of last year's nibbles had issues with each other since they were pledges, but at that time, the issues were much smaller. Many actives tried really hard to encourage people to work out their issues, to talk, to have a mediated discussion, whatever. They were completely unwilling, and refused to even be in the same room as each other (and this was over petty bullshit, not anything big). Now the issues have just escalated. It isn't just 1 or 2 people who are like this; there are a number of people who completely refuse to talk about anything (let alone do it in a constructive manner).
Josh, I can't stress how much I agree with you that fear of losing numbers inspires the worst. In desperation for numbers, I think it is easy to fall into the trap of giving people bids before truly knowing them, and pushing people through pledging and into brotherhood despite clear problems. For example, if 2 pledges are at each others' throats to the point where they don't want to be in the same room with each other, that's likely a sign that you should hold back on making them brothers until the problems are resolved- or maybe that stubbornness can tell you a lot about what they will be like as a brother when a problem arises. We need to use that information and realize that we need level-headed brothers; ones who are causing problems while pledging will only continue to do so. Or if that one person showed up to one rush event and you think they're cool but you're not sure, you shouldn't give them a bid. Sometimes people say "We'll get to know them in pledging, we need the numbers now", but by the time the brother vote comes around, it's not easy to let someone go (nor is it really fair to them at that point). While Leanna is exactly correct in that there is a business/money aspect and Psi U comes with a high price tag, I think that is what leads to some of the problems. A focus on the money has led to a situation where people forget about brotherhood or friendship.
At the end of last semester, things hit a real low. I heard many local alumni talking about how they worry it might get to a point where there might not be anymore undergrad actives, and the alumni might have to rebuild. I know some people are already prepared for this. When I first heard it, I thought it was sad, but a realistic scenario. Now that I think about it though, I'm not sure that as alumni, we really stand a chance at rebuilding a fraternity. I think we need to try to help the situation before it all goes down. I see the 2 major problems being stubbornness, and reliance on numbers. We can try to beat the numbers thing out of people and encourage them to be friends first (with a good, friendly house, numbers will naturally come), but I don't know if there's much we can do about their current lack of abilities to prevent and handle conflicts. We could do some sort of training type of thing, but nobody ever takes those seriously.
Collapse this comment
9:32 AM
Cameron Van Sant - I'm going to be straight, and say what no one wants to say. I will try to be as tactful as possible, but the stories that get back to me all revolve around the exact same people, time and time again.
I think there are a handful of brothers, a very small handful, say three, who are ruining it for all the rest. I will not name names, but I'm sure you will all know who I mean. I think sometimes we get people like this in the house, but usually there are enough older, wiser, more mature people who have strong enough personalities to keep them in check. Unfortunately, the kinder, gentler people we have in the house right now are not willing to stand up to these people, and disrespectful behavior is not being addressed AT ALL. They currently have full run to be as disrespectful to other brothers as they wish, and I've seen it happening again and again and it is really disappointing me.
One brother in particular is prone to rages and stomping and storming, and has abused the considerable power with which the brotherhood has entrusted them. Another is prone to using drama and manipulation as a way to control things that happen in the house. There is a third who is blind to their own tactlessness, and can be really really mean, often without realizing it, but also without apologizing for it. No one stands up to these people or corrects them when they are wrong, and at least two of these people hold positions of power in the house. I honestly hate to place blame so specifically, but I truly think these people are driving other people from the house. They are driving brothers from the house, alumni from the house, and probably rushees and pledges as well.
You all have very good points, but when the house is so small, having an entire third of the house being so bad at interacting positively with others is a very difficult thing. I was hoping that by having inactives and alumni show up in droves during rush, the influences on the more difficult people could be, ah, diluted?
4:32 PM (edited) - Edit
Ines Martinovic - Cameron- YES. I agree. I was trying to avoid mentioning that issue, not even to avoid being tactless (because I selected a group I felt I could be straight with), but largely because I was trying to look at issues in a very overall, time-independent kind of frame- like if the same thing happened 10 years from now, independent of specific people, what are the issues?
But, there are a handful of brothers who are a core of the problem. Their influence can not be diluted by having inactives and alumni show up during rush, because they have intentionally driven these people away.
Unfortunately, they also drive away people who might make excellent potential brothers. I am worried about how we can sustain a house that is currently so unhealthy. Is there anything that alumni can do to handle blatant abuse of power, and behaviors that are not acceptable? Or do we merely have to watch people cry house meeting after house meeting, as the numbers decline? I honestly think that if things continue the way they have been, we risk not having an EI anymore. Maybe we will be lucky and things will pass through a rough patch, but what if they don't? I know we've been very small in the past, but we've made it through because the brotherhood was relatively strong- sure, those people had their strong personalities, but not like this. But here, I wonder if we can make it through a rough patch with behaviors like the ones that are currently going on.
I also feel like many alumni don't even know it is going on. I imagine some things will get discussed at alumni meeting, but the core issues will not. Much of the blame is getting put in the wrong place. A lot of it is being put on the people who leave because they can't take it anymore, and not the completely inflexible and unforgiving personalities who require everything to go their way at every given second.
4:43 PM
Cameron Van Sant - Who do these people respect? Who will they listen to? Is there someone who can actually get through to them?
I think there is one case where perhaps this person may actually need to be removed from their position in the house, as the power of it has been blatantly abused in at least one situation, and probably others as well. But no one talks about it, no one is open about it. If there were a way to have an alumnus or another willing undergrad with experience (I don't think there is one) temporarily take over the position, the alumni association could make that happen, if it's proven that this person is abusing their power.
Also, this ban against inactives at rush needs to end, somehow, and perhaps that is something that could happen via a few carefully placed words?
I honestly don't know, but I think that there does actually need to be some very serious intervention in these two areas for EI to survive. Maybe I am not putting enough faith in the brotherhood, or maybe I am calling for too much intervention, but I do not want to see EI go away forever. :(