AFA Perspectives Spring 2007

Why We Should Close More Chapters in this issue:

NHPW: Now is the Time | Exterminating Unrecognized Groups | Searching for Common Ground

Perspectives is the official publication of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, Inc. (AFA). Views expressed are those of the individual authors/contributors/ advertisers, and are not necessarily those of the Association. AFA encourages the submission of articles, essays, ideas, and advertisements.

All Perspectives correspondence and submissions should be submitted to:

Kurtis Foriska 2007 Editor Assistant Director, The Ohio Union The Ohio State University The Ohio Union @ The Ohio Stadium 1961 Tuttle Park Place Columbus, Ohio 43210 foriska.1@osu.edu 614-688-4888 Fax: 614-292-6061

Perspectives is published four times per year.

Submission deadlines: Summer 2007 May 15, 2007 Fall 2007 August 15, 2007 Winter 2008 November 15, 2007 Spring 2008 February 15, 2008 Send address corrections to AFA: Association of Fraternity Advisors 9640 N. Augusta Drive, Suite 433 Carmel, IN 46032 317.876.1632 Fax 317.876.3981 info@fraternityadvisors.org

Board

The Interfraternal Defense Mechanism – Kyle A. Pendleton

I

recently read the book Smashed: Story of a Drunken Girlhood, by Koren Zailckas, in preparation for the author’s spring visit to campus to speak at the annual Purdue Grand Prix Fraternity and Sorority Convocation.

Students have also read the book in anticipation of her speech. The reaction to the book has been mixed, with the harshest criticism coming from fraternity men who see the author as uninformed, the book as being biased, and the memoir as being out of touch with “their” fraternity experience.

Throughout Smashed, Zailckas describes her struggles with alcohol, a battle that began in her early teens and continued as she attended Syracuse University where she was initiated as a sorority member. Page after page, the book paints a less than rosy picture of the author’s undergraduate experience. Her journey of alcohol abuse is coupled with personal accounts of hazing, sexual assault, blackouts, academic problems, and hospital visits.

Equally disturbing behavior has been documented in recent years in the books Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities by Alexandra Robbins and Goat: A Memoir by Brad Land. Like Smashed, both books ignited varying degrees of criticism within the interfraternal world due to their honest and frank accounts of sorority recruitment, undergraduate drinking cultures, sexual promiscuity, brutal hazing practices, and elitist behavior. The same stereotypes we work so hard to dispel are repeatedly confirmed in the pages of these best sellers.

Even fraternity/sorority industry “insiders” are not immune to this kind of criticism. David Stollman, Mike McRee, Mary Ellen Gillespie, and T.J. Sullivan all have very powerful messages, using real-life examples to point out the incongruence visible in the fraternity and sorority community. And each can also share extremely personal attacks they have been subjected to because they are willing to simply “tell the truth.”

I want to offer one explanation for these reactions. The authors and speakers are daring to be PROVOCATIVE; they dare to PROVOKE – and many people get uncomfortable or defensive when reading or listening to messages as direct as these, preferring instead to resist or deny the idea that perhaps there is something to learn from the reality they portray. To some people, the words “provocative” and “provoke” have the opposite meaning of what I think they should.

Here are Webster’s definitions for these two words:

Provocative: adj 1: serving or tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate; stimulating discussion or exciting controversy.

2007 Editorial

Provoke: 1. to stir up, arouse, or call forth (feelings, desires, or activity). 2. to incite or stimulate (a person, animal, etc.) to action. 3. to give rise to, induce, or bring about.

Monica Miranda Smalls AFA Vice President for Resource Development, University of Rochester

So, why are so many people afraid of being provocative? Are fraternity and sorority professionals provocative enough? Why is the initial reaction of some students, administrators, staffs, and volunteers to attack the authors’ and speakers’ credibility and validity? Haven’t these individuals simply documented their own experiences and personal accounts?

Michael Hevel, University of Iowa Megan Johnson, Dartmouth University Ray Lutzky, Lambda Chi Alpha Georgianna Martin, Creighton University Jeremiah Shinn, Indiana University Kirsten Siron-Young, Jacksonville University Todd Sullivan, University of Connecticut Allison Swick-Duttine, SUNY-Plattsburgh Nathan Thomas, Bradley University Robert Turning, The Johns Hopkins University

Perspectives / Spring 2007

When reading these books and listening to these speakers, we need to accept and own the realities of their stories, not make excuses or attack the source. We owe this to ourselves and to our professional credibility. The reality is that many of us, as well as our undergraduate students, can share these same troubling stories.

My task for you now is to read this issue’s “Why We Should Close More Chapters” by Martin Cobb and Mike McRee through a provocative lens. Read it not only as an AFA member, but as someone who has the power to provoke thinking, conversation and change. And if you have harsh criticism for any of the books or programs I’ve mentioned, I challenge you to read or listen to their messages again, with that same lens of provocation.

At the end of the day, we have the ability to embrace our flaws, admit our mistakes, accept we are not perfect, and do better. That is, only if we are willing to provoke and be provoked.

in this

issue – Kurtis Foriska, Editor

4

E

very Monday night, my roommate and I watch “Supernanny.” For those who have never seen the show, parents plead in desperation to Supernanny, a well polished British nanny, to help control their unruly children.

Throughout the program I find myself thinking, “I am never having kids.” In the end, Supernanny’s firm, yet loving approach helps the family form better relationships to confront their issues.

Why We Should Close More Chapters National Hazing Prevention Week: Now Is The Time

Sometimes I wish there was a “Superadvisor” who swept in to transform our sororities and fraternities into better organizations. Similar to watching a dysfunctional family on Supernanny, I see students throwing temper tantrums, lacking respect for themselves, their community and their leaders, and disregarding policies. I sometimes catch myself thinking, “I am never having kids,” but since I eventually want to, I instead rely on changing my approach to help confront these issues.

This issue contains several “tough love” articles that will challenge the way we think.

I hope these pieces generate discussion and dissonance among readers. Dissonance can help bring internal struggles facing our communities to the forefront so that we can work toward resolution. By examining the ways we believe things should be done, we can explore conversations of how things should be done. Perspectives will be facilitating a discussion board on the AFA online community to help readers process these articles and create a dialogue about these important issues.

I challenge readers to view these articles with an objective lens and try to gain multiple perspectives on issues facing the sorority and fraternity movement. Often, I suggest student critics of sororities and fraternities to participate in recruitment. The experience will either reaffirm or change their views on sororities and fraternities, but not having any experience at all lends to hypothesis of what they believe the fraternal experience to be. As professionals, considering opposing views to our philosophical approaches can reaffirm our beliefs or help us change for the better. And maybe we can start to form a better family that would even impress Supernanny.

10

Exterminating Unrecognized Groups

21

12

2007 AFA Award Nominations

regular columns From the Top.......................................... 2 Editor’s Notes.......................................... 3 Putting It In Perspective......................... 18

Working with fraternal organizations — just like yours — all over the Eastern Seaboard!

200 East Buffalo Street Ithaca, NY 14850

(607) 272-5550

i i i i i

Annual Budgeting Monthly Financial Statements Membership Billings Vendor Payments Payroll Services

Bookkeeping Services Quarterly Payroll Filings Annual State and Federal Tax Returns i And much more! i i i

Call us for additional information.

Spring 2007 / Perspectives

Why We Should Close More Chapters – L. Martin Cobb and Michael McRee Authors’ note: At first glance, one may think that an article on the need for the aggressive closing of fraternity and sorority chapters across North America is counter-intuitive to the advancement of the fraternal movement. This is not our intent. A real, systemic, cultural change is needed in our profession. We believe the views offered below have the ability to influence and impact the future our fraternity and sorority communities.

H

ope is not a strategy, but we rely on it frequently. We hope things will just get better in regard to declining membership numbers, atrocious hazing practices, and alcohol abuse beyond comprehension. We hope someone will do the hard work for us.

significantly and make a lasting impact.

This impact can occur if we internalize and act upon it to create a systemic, revolutionary and cultural change. So let’s get to it.

Some may say, “But there are still a few good members.” These few good members have not been able to produce the results needed to keep a bad chapter open. Period.

To put it bluntly, we are tired of the excuses.

We are tired of the misplaced arguments associated with keeping poor chapters alive. Aren’t you?

In this quagmire of cultural challenges, we have identified three central supporting players and roles: fraternity and sorority campus-based professionals, professionals working for inter/national organizations, and advisors/alumni. Each constituency has their own excuses and rationalizations – those “logical explanations” as to why we cannot close a chapter. Isn’t it interesting that in most aspects of life we all thrive on implementing positive change? But for some unknown reason that same spirit and logic just doesn’t apply when it comes to chapter accountability.

In this article, we hope to dispel the myths, circular reasoning, logic traps, and false statements that we have heard in the collective 20 years we have worked professionally with fraternities and sororities.

Chapters across the nation continue to falter because professionals in positions of leadership do not have the knowledge and sometimes the fortitude to be adults. We are all contributing to the problem of fraternity and sorority community mediocrity, one chapter at a time.

From an Organizational Learning Perspective

We believe that advisors, inter/national organizations, and universities, in our sincere and genuine desire to help young adults, actually get in the way of ourselves – at the expense of true student development.

Because of the belief in education, student affairs professionals often miss the obvious answer.

Of course we want to be liked, and we want to give the undergraduates a chance.

In organizational learning literature, distinctions exist regarding how and why organizations learn. One of these concepts is the difference between single-loop and double-loop learning. Single-loop learning is reactive and does not involve knowing or thinking about why things are done.

On the other hand, double-loop learning involves restructuring of organizational norms and restructuring of strategies and assumptions associated with those norms.

If we are serious about making real, positive change for an experience we love and believe in, it is time for an honest dialogue that has the potential to contribute

Priceless Rationalizations and Excuses (see page 5)

Perspectives / Spring 2007

The problem with closing chapters is that no one involved is comfortable being the bad guy. There, we said it.

Was that so bad?

It involves fundamental changes in frames of reference or prevailing theories in the organization (Argyris, 1977).

For example, a thermostat is programmed to turn on if the temperature in the room is cold, or turn off the heat if the room becomes too hot (single-loop).

Double-loop learning occurs when errors are corrected by changing the governing values and then the actions. A thermostat is doubleloop learning if it questions why it is programmed to measure temperature, and then adjusts the temperature itself (Argyris, 2002, p.116).

We argue that collectively fraternity and sorority communities are just simple thermostats responding to the environment but not understanding why or how we should be doing things.

Why is this important? Peter Senge (1990a) states that for organizations to learn and improve, people must have a shared vision and must share their mental models with others. Senge (1990b) goes on to describe that there is often tension between our current reality and where we want to go.

In this article, we are sharing our vision and the mental model behind it. We realize this will cause tension, but it is through that tension that our shared vision of having all fraternities and sororities on campus serve as truly values-based organizations in deed and name can occur.

From Fraternity and Sorority Campus Professionals…

Common Logic…

Reality check…

“Why doesn’t the organization close If you know so much about the chapter’s culture that warrants closure, why are you not this chapter? They’re horrible!” taking the initiative?

Gather documentation, make the case about why the chapter needs to close, share this information with the appropriate stakeholders, and make it happen. Force the issue by making the documentation public to the stakeholders who are supposed to be making good decisions. This does not allow key stakeholders to ignore the situation.

From Inter/National Organization Professionals…

Common Logic…

Reality check…

“We cannot close a chapter What is the insurance/liability cost associated with keeping the chapter open? The loss of this large because of the financial $10,000 this year is preferable to the multi-million dollar lawsuit that will likely be served hit on our budget.” in the not-too-distant future. That sounds like a risk worth taking.

“They are not that bad – especially Not the best defense for a jury to hear. And if it is a low membership issue, a new chapter compared to some other chapters three times the size of the current one would be an awful dilemma, wouldn’t it? Get real. on that campus.”

From Alumni...

Common Logic…

Reality check…

“If you close my chapter, I will The reality is that they are probably not giving any money to the inter/national organization not give any money back to the or university in the first place. It’s an empty threat meant to distract the decision makers and fraternity/sorority or university.” invoke emotional and fear among the organization’s leaders. Most big-time donors are level-headed, common-sense, and smart leaders. They understand in business that an organization has to constantly prune itself in order to spur new growth.

“The university will not let us Says who? Yet another myth that rarely involves factual exchange between the university back on campus.” and alumni leaders.

“Our alumni will not support WRONG! We all know which chapters should be closed – and so do most alumni. Many the closure.” are likely to say, “Thank goodness someone finally put us out of our misery.”

“We will never be able to recruit against the larger groups on campus if we close and recolonize.”

Uh huh. And the current chapter is competing so well in recruitment?

“If we disband, we will lose the Because the 18 individuals currently living in the 50-bed house are paying the bills in the house. We cannot afford to close first place? Come on! The opportunity cost is too great with rogue chapters: unfilled bed the chapter.” space, heightened legal liability, damage from inappropriate behavior, etc. This does not include the number of alumni turned off each year because of the manner in which the undergraduates treat the property/organization they helped build. Creative financing can and must be done to demonstrate responsible leadership.

“If the chapter closes on my watch, Ego, verbalized or not, is a powerful thing. Ultimately, if we are about self-governance and it will be a reflection on my abilities student development theory, it is not about the alumni – it is about the students. Thus, the and involvement.” the students’ behavior and performance must be the central issue, not an alumni volunteer’s overly inflated ego. continued on page 6 Spring 2007 / Perspectives

continued from page 5 At the end of the day, many problems within our fraternity and sorority communities stem from the fact that double-loop learning is not happening within our shared-governance system. “Double-loop learning involves restructuring of organizational norms, and restructuring of strategies and assumptions associated with those norms.

It involves fundamental changes in frames of reference or theories in use prevailing in the organization” (Shrivastava, 1983, p. 12). The problem is that negative consequences exist to this reality. “Decisionmaking tends to take a long time because of the involvement of so many people, and the simultaneous membership in several committees poses a severe time scheduling problem for individual managers” (Shrivastava, 1983, p. 23).

Because so many people are involved in the process of supporting a chapter, the length of time to get all of the main stakeholders

to agree on the actual state of a chapter is virtually impossible. Frequent turnover among university and inter/national organization personnel, undergraduate students, and alumni volunteers makes it difficult to close a chapter because the circumstances are never fully understood by decision-makers.

In the case that the reasons for closure are apparent and understood, the action is frequently too late. A major incident has to either seriously injure someone or the chapter has to just fade out of existence after limping along for years.

Eventually, as a new campus professional or chapter counselor enters the arena, the cycle begins anew. The only constant is the culture by which the chapter operates.

The Real World In order to get a more objective lens, we must temporarily depart from fraternity and sorority life. Think of the worst restaurant in town. What makes it the worst restaurant in town? Poor service? Bad food?

Deplorable environment? Do you think they would be better if those employees just recruited more labor like themselves?

What if those same people just went to a seminar on how to be a better restaurant?

Do you think things would change then?

It is unlikely. A culture like that will probably never change because the people are the problem – not the food or environment.

After all, the people are the ones preparing the food and overseeing the environment.

Simple concept, right?

No author better describes this scenario than Jim Collins (2001) in the best seller Good to Great:

The executives who ignited the transformations from good to great did not first figure out where to drive the bus and then get people to take it there. No, they first got the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to drive it (p. 13).

If we are going to make real change in our fraternity and sorority communities, we need to get the wrong people off the bus (e.g., close chapters that we know will never “get it”), bring new chapters on campus that can fuel a positive revolution, and then hold the standards high while at the same time pouring resources into the community like gasoline on a fire. It is simple:

Perspectives / Spring 2007

if you want real change in your fraternity and sorority community, start cutting the bottom-feeders and begin adding new or recolonized chapters at the top. As Kevin Kelly, executive editor of Wired Magazine, says, “It is much easier to kill an organization than to change it substantially” (Peters, 2003, p. 32).

For example, since 1996, Beta Theta Pi Fraternity closed 51 chapters. Roughly 80% of those chapters were eventually restarted (fire) coupled with the Men of Principle initiative (gasoline). The results are striking:

1998

2006

All-Beta-Chapters Grade Point Average

2.836

3.01

All-Beta-Chapters Recruitment Growth

-2.9%

+13.9%

Advisors per Chapter

1.95

4.19

Leadership Development Program Participants

15

1,060

(Beta Theta Pi Fraternity, 2006) Unfortunately, in the higher education environment, we tend to think that rules of consumerism, capitalism, and competition just cannot apply. This is an unfortunate and misguided notion. As a former executive vice president for the Kroger Grocery Company recently shared, “There were always stores that couldn’t turn a profit.

Thus, the company assessed and evaluated their progress and hired consultants to help coach them to better days. If they couldn’t cut it after a certain period of time, the stores were closed. End of story” (R.L Cottrell, personal communication, October 19, 2006).

Partner This In considering the closing of chapters, the reality is that we cannot agree on who needs to be let off the bus. Further we cannot decide how to get them off the bus once we know who they are!

We seem to take Collins’ Good to Great recommendation too literally, assuming that it is just individual members that need to be “excused” from the fraternity and sorority community (Collins, 2001). Using research from Collins’ first book, Built to Last, it would be entirely appropriate to dismiss entire chapters just as the leadership does to individuals who choose to not

buy in or support a company’s core ideology.

We should “eject them like a virus” (Collins, 1994, p. 121). Sure, individually they are good people. However, together they perpetuate a culture that is cult-like – in a bad way – and one that will not change. Enough is enough.

¸ Be more student development focused

Of course, in late-November/earlyDecember at the Association of Fraternity Advisors’ Annual Meeting, we join hands and talk about partnerships. Ironically, when people begin considering closure for a chapter, everyone runs to their corners.

The inter/national organization wants the university to act, and the university wants the organization to act. The alumni want someone to make it all go away or, perhaps worse, they are in denial that anything is wrong to begin with.

¸ Work with more consistent and better fraternity/sorority consultants

It is times like these when it is perfect to show a backbone. Let us call it “unity.”

Of course, when it is one-sided it is not a partnership. Today, each entity (university vs. organization) wants the other to do it – so the other thinks the other should do it – and in the end nothing is done while we equally blame each other. All the while, the undergraduates continue to haze, continue to abuse drugs and alcohol, continue to “just get by,” and we wonder why the chapter isn’t making progress. It is simple – we have enabled them all along the way.

Sometimes “student development” means saying no. No more. Not here. Not now.

Not in this way. You will no longer exist as a collective group on this campus because you are hurting yourself and others or you are not fulfilling the mission of your organization on this campus.

Of course, good partnerships help to provide a stiffer spine for each major entity.

Passionate yet firm. We cannot be selective in applying the terms of partnership.

The Expansion and Extension Issue We believe it is impossible to talk about closing chapters without addressing the reasons that are preventing us from taking these aggressive yet appropriate measures.

These reasons include the campus and inter/national expansion.

While many campus professionals think they know what is best for their campus regarding expansion and extension, we would like to explain how we all can “win” and: ¸ Become more closely aligned with our fraternal values ¸ Eliminate the worst chapters on campus ¸ Have a stronger fraternity and sorority community

¸ Have better leadership education from fraternal organizations ¸ Decrease the response time of organizations ¸ Improve campus/organization relationships in the process

Sound good? Well, you can have this all tomorrow if you just do some simple steps today.

In many cases, campus professionals are predicting what they think will happen if the campus entertains expansion. But do we truly know what the students will do in the future? We do not know whether or not this group of students will fail or succeed. If that is the case, then who are we to decide which groups can and cannot succeed on the (not our) campus? We frequently hear students say “that won’t work;” many of us are saying the same when it comes to expansion.

Often, campus professionals make general decisions based on limited information and opinion. We have seen many advisors make decisions on expansion and extension by variables that have nothing to do with a chapter’s future success. Examples include: ¸ Who advisors know/like ¸ Which fraternity or sorority presented the best expansion and extension presentation with cool PowerPoint and printed materials ¸ Which fraternity or sorority has a lot of alumni/ae in the area – but not necessarily whether the alumni have signed up or committed to do anything

Arguments for Open Expansion and Extension A classic rationale commonly heard from campus professionals is, “We are not ready for expansion yet. We need to stabilize the other groups on campus before we bring on another group.” Here are some alternative arguments for a pro-expansion community. ¸ An open expansion policy is more student development focused than a closed policy because it allows the students to make their own decisions about the success of the chapter. A favorite student affairs line is: “People support what they help create.” ¸ A closed policy is a bad business model – it invites bribing and lobbying which lead to failure. ¸ Undergraduates are voting on an issue they know very little about and have competing conflicts of interests or biases during their vote (i.e. fear of competition). ¸ In general, poor chapters are not closed because of the lack of an open expansion policy. Without a guaranteed recolonization date to ensure the university’s commitment to the fraternity/sorority, the organization and alumni/ae are reluctant to close a chapter. ¸ How much money could be allocated to the future success of the colony vs. the money it takes to do presentations and visit campus? Some fraternities and sororities would rather use that money to send new colony members to UIFI, Future’s Quest, regional leadership conferences, LeaderShape, etc. ¸ New and innovative groups put pressure on existing groups to improve – or help them die if they refuse to improve.

¸ Who advisors take “bribes” from by attending that fraternity or sorority’s educational conference or convention

¸ New fraternity and sorority colonies are frequently the closest example of truly following the ritual and its intent.

¸ When advisors rely on the size of the national fraternity or sorority

¸ Having a new colony is like having a constant educational program because the members are continually learning and dealing with reality issues in a supportive and nurturing environment.

¸ When advisors choose a “brand name” fraternity or sorority In other words – politics.

If, as campus-based professionals, we do not like poor consultants or lack of responsiveness in risk management, and we want better alumni/ae training and development, undergraduate training and development/programs, etc., then all the money (currently spent on the “dog and pony show”) could be used to improve these areas. Doesn’t it make sense that if resources aren’t going toward unnecessary expenses, then that money could be utilized for other, more substantive investments?

¸ By having more colonies, the campus and organization professionals alike have more students approaching issues from a perspective of “how should I do this” rather than “we don’t do that.” ¸ When colonies are starting they look for leaders, and in most cases these individuals have been rejected or turned off by the existing chapters on campus. ¸ Expansion, more than any other recruitment technique, seeks out individuals better aligned with fraternal values and continued on page 8 Spring 2007 / Perspectives

continued from page 7 those inclined to make decisions based on those values while increasing the size of the fraternity and sorority community. ¸ Expansion improves and serves as role model for year-round recruitment for the entire fraternity/sorority community.

Implications and Directions for Our Future Minor earthquakes rarely topple well-designed buildings resting on solid foundations. Similarly, environmental jolts rarely threaten the survival of soundly designed organizations with well-maintained environmental alignments.

However, seismic tremors often disclose hidden flaws in the architecture and construction of buildings, and environmental jolts trigger responses that reveal how organizations adapt to their environments (Meyer, 1982, p. 515).

One hidden flaw in our design of fraternal organizations is how, why, and when organizations are closed and when they can reopen, expand, and colonize. Instead of these being seen as “environmental jolts,” we could have well-designed and well-maintained policies, procedures, and practices that create a natural evolution of chapters that need to be closed, while allowing others an opportunity to succeed.

Knowledge grows, and simultaneously it becomes obsolete as reality changes. Understanding involves both learning new knowledge and discarding obsolete and misleading knowledge. The discarding activity – unlearning – is as important a part of understanding as is adding new knowledge. In fact, it seems as if slow unlearning is a crucial weakness of many organizations (Dodgson, 1993, p.385-6).

Our reality is changing. It is appropriate that our policies and procedures change as we become better educated and understand at a deeper level. Part of our unlearning is not doing things simply because we have always done them that way. That logic is, after all, how many of our less developed

Perspectives / Spring 2007

students think. Much of fraternity and sorority policies are based on a protectionist perspective rather than the good of the community. Think of why many of the rules we have are in place. It may be because someone once felt they were wronged and now we have a rule to legislate the behavior of everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

How inspiring. It is time to add new knowledge and discard the old.

Critics of this philosophy could include fraternity and sorority advisors who dislike organizations who “crash” campus. Will this model stop this? Not likely. On the converse, will those organizations be able to expand everywhere, all the time, whenever they want? Also not likely. Besides, do you think students considering the formation of a new fraternity on campus will not be able to determine the real deal from the fake?

Given a better alternative, we believe in the power of people to make the right decision.

Kind of sounds like student development theory, does it not?

If at this point you are still saying to yourself, “it will never work,” we ask, “why?” Why can we not let the students decide their own fate?

Ultimately, we need a plan of action.

But first, we must educate ourselves and move from single-loop learning, just reacting to situations, to double-loop learning, knowing why we do what we do. We believe it will be important to educate ourselves but also to educate the other stakeholders involved, too. This includes a plan to educate upper level administrators on these reasons so that we can actually move forward and start our very own chapter recycling program on campus.

Bad chapters go in the garbage, and new, better chapters emerge.

Hope is not a strategy. Bad chapters are labeled as bad for a reason and it is not going to change. It still will not change even if you just send one more person to UIFI. Sometimes the best student development strategy is saying no. Unfortunately, many times we are enabling individuals and chapters by allowing them to perpetuate serious bad habits, both in their personal and soon-to-be professional lives.

What does that say about all of us as student

development professionals? If only we had a little more courage to say no.

References Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115-125.

Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(2).

Beta Theta Pi Fraternity (2006).

Collins, J. & Porras, J. (1994). Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. New York: HarperCollins.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Teap…and Others Don’t. New York: HarperCollins.

Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: a review of some literatures.

Organization Studies, 14(3), 375-394.

Meyer, A. D. (1982). Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 515-537.

Peters, T. (2003). Re-imagine: Business Excellence in a Disruptive Age. London Dorling Kindersley.

Senge, P. M. (1990a). Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organizations. Sloan Management Review, 7-23.

Senge, P.M. (1990b). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Shrivastava, P. (1983). Typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20(1), 7-28.

–M artin Cobb is the Associate Director of Beta Theta Pi Foundation.

–M ichael McRee is the Vice President for LeaderShape, Inc.

continued on page 11 Spring 2007 / Perspectives

National Hazing Prevention Week: Now Is The Time [Hazing must be stopped. What are you doing about it?]

A

ssociation of Fraternity Advisors (AFA) members are aware of the devastating impact hazing can have on the success of the fraternal movement.

This why AFA has joined many other organizations in taking a firm stance against such practices.

In 2003, AFA hosted a hazing think tank at the Annual Meeting. One of the outcomes of the think tank was the National Hazing Symposium, coordinated by CAMPUSPEAK and co-sponsored by AFA along with several other organizations. The first National Hazing Symposium was held in conjunction with the 2004 Indiana Greek Leadership Conference to work towards ending hazing through educational programming.

CAMPUSPEAK then created National Hazing Prevention Week (NHPW), an awareness week designed to bring together professionals in student affairs, athletic departments, parents, military personnel, and others interested in helping to fight hazing practices. Launched in 2005, NHPW has been met with acclaim and interest nationwide from student organizations, legislators, and anti-hazing advocates.

While NHPW is the last week in September (September 24-28, 2007), campuses are encouraged to plan their own events any time during the year to suit their own schedule and needs. If practical, year-round campaigns can be effective for educating students about the dangers of hazing and helping them find alternatives to this practice.

Campuses should plan their NHPW activities in response to the unique needs of the campus community, such as considering when hazing activities typically occur.

Successful NHPW activities take many forms. In 2006, Indiana University of Pennsylvania initiated an anti-hazing pledge, which was signed by hundreds of fraternity and sorority members. They also created information packets for campus administrators, a handout on Pennsylvania hazing law, and hosted events on campus throughout the week, including films and speakers. Many campuses, including University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Case Western Reserve University, Auburn University, and State University of New York at Oswego, initiated awareness campaigns with ribbons and buttons worn by students, staff, and faculty. Still others created web sites specifically designed around anti-hazing 10

Perspectives / Spring 2007

initiatives (see the Cornell University website at www.hazing.cornell.edu).

Additional examples of campuses’ successful NHPW activities and other educational resources are available on the National Hazing Prevention Week website (www. nhpw.com). The site features articles about hazing incidents, sample policies, programs, ideas for combating hazing, posters and wallet call cards, and many other useful documents and ideas. CAMPUSPEAK, which administers the website, encourages professionals in all areas impacted by hazing to submit their resource materials to help better our communities.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Sigma Nu Fraternity, and the National Panhellenic Conference have made leadership-level contributions to earn “premier sponsor” status for NHPW and the National Hazing Symposium. Their proactive contributions show a great commitment and make a public statement about their efforts to prevent hazing.

The 2007 National Hazing Symposium focused on the role of bystanders in preventing hazing. Too often, professionals in fraternity and sorority life shrink away from hazing issues unless they become too apparent or harmful to ignore. It is time for every fraternity and sorority professional to recommit themselves to the AFA anti-hazing resolution (http:// www.fraternityadvisors.org/Resolutions/ Hazing_Education.aspx) and take a stand.

As fraternity and sorority professionals, we cannot afford to be bystanders in the prevention of hazing, and each of us must take up this cause as a personal initiative in our campus communities.

NHPW does not happen on a campus overnight (or over a week!). Professionals seeking to empower their fraternity and sorority community to tackle hazing issues must recognize that such an effort is transformational. As such, professionals can learn from the experience of other functional groups and industries that have undergone transformational change, such as financial planning or information technology. For many of these, “maturity models” have been used to help communities improve capabilities in a structured and manageable way.

Maturity models define discreet and

– Ray Lutzky

sequential levels of capability. Capabilities are defined by specific, repeatable behaviors.

Maturity models are useful tools because they help objectively benchmark an organization’s current state, and they explain required sets of behaviors to achieve a desired target state. With current and desired states identified, a maturity model helps an organization build a roadmap for transformation from point A to point B. In the case of hazing awareness and building an anti-hazing movement, a maturity model can be an effective way for professionals to benchmark community-wide success.

A three-level maturity model for NHPW on your campus could look something like this: [Level 1: Awareness Builders.] This is where to start if NHPW has never been tried on your campus and you are unsure how the community will respond. Simply showing support for anti-hazing initiatives can have a viral impact on campus. Button campaigns, ribbon campaigns, banners, posters, t-shirts, and even sidewalk chalk can help create a grass-roots feel to your NHPW activities. The goal is to grow support and acknowledge that hazing is an important issue that must be dealt with by all members of the campus community.

Sometimes achieving this buy-in can be one of the most challenging steps in building anti-hazing initiatives.

[Level 2: Educators.] Education is a good place to begin if the campus community acknowledges hazing as an issue to attack.

Typical activities can include speakers, retreats, teleconferences, and seminars designed to better inform participants of the negative impacts of hazing. Written educational materials such as brochures, handbooks, articles, web sites, and newsletters should also be used. These educational initiatives should not be limited to students; administrators and faculty can always use a refresher on campus policies and state laws. Campuses may also choose to involve local first-responders, such as the police, counseling professionals, and student judicial officers, since they are often most likely to view the aftermath of hazing incidents when they occur. Use these educational opportunities as a way to build community-wide dialogue.

[Level 3: Anti-Hazing Advocates.]

Initiating change on campus, or even across your state, requires an informed campus

community that recognizes the urgency of the issue. If the campus has already begun NHPW activities, there are ways to adapt them that can lead to positive changes.

For example, an anti-hazing pledge, while symbolic, can be made more significant if it

As NHPW gains momentum across the country, many campuses will move from Level 1 to Level 2, and from Level 2 to Level 3. Partnering with local campuses that have made progress on their own NHPW activities can provide insight

something” is a step in the right direction.

As even more campuses bring light to this critical issue, its importance will expand beyond the fraternity and sorority community.

Through understanding of resources available and use of tools such as a maturity

Simply showing support for anti-hazing initiatives can have a viral impact on campus. Button campaigns, ribbon campaigns, banners, posters, t-shirts, and even sidewalk chalk can help create a grass-roots feel to your NHPW activities. requests changes to campus policies or even state law. Focusing on a specific policy issue around hazing can be a challenge for an entire campus community, however there are usually small ways that such changes can assist the anti-hazing effort.

For example, a goal for NHPW can be to propose a campus amnesty program for students that report hazing activities they were associated with, or to create an anonymous hazing reporting hotline. Starting with small steps can have a big impact.

and ideas for improvements in your own campus community and moving along the maturity model.

The theme of the second National Hazing Symposium, held in conjunction with the 2005 AFA Annual Meeting, was “Just do something!” While many campuses have adopted National Hazing Prevention Week, there are others that have not yet been able to organize related events in their communities. For those groups, “just doing

model to benchmark success, professionals can become well equipped to tackle the terror of hazing. Ultimately, NHPW cannot continue to be a success without the personal commitment of all AFA members, and collective success is dependant on our forward momentum.

– Ray Lutzky is the New York City Alumni President for Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity and a speaker with CAMPUSPEAK, Inc.

Spring 2007 / Perspectives

11

Exterminating Unrecognized Groups – Allison Swick-Duttine with Judge Mitch Crane & David Stollman

Author’s Note: Six months after I began my professional career, the student coordinator of Greek Week asked if she could plan a celebration party so that members of an unrecognized “fraternity” (that had closed a year earlier) could participate in the week’s festivities. From that point on, I began a battle to eliminate unrecognized groups on the campus. After several semesters of emotionally charged conversations (and many arguments), the fraternity/sorority community finally made a commitment to disengage these groups from their community.

Unfortunately, State University of New York College at Plattsburgh suffered a setback on March 13, 2003, when freshman Walter Dean Jennings died as a result of hazing by members operating as an unrecognized fraternity.

This article reflects the lessons I have learned during the past eight years with the perspectives of two experts who helped me through it.

A Legal Perspective on Unrecognized Groups and Freedom of Association

T

he laws are clear that a public institution cannot refuse to recognize any group of students that comes together to advocate some purpose although reasonable standards may be set for these groups. Private institutions have the absolute right to refuse such recognition except in cases when an institution that accepts federal funding discriminates against protected classes. Fraternal organizations and students are not protected classes.

The issue is a little different when the unrecognized organization is a group that lost recognition for violations of law. In these cases, public institutions in some federal circuits have the right to prohibit membership in such organizations. A greater concern is what is the liability for failing to take action against such organizations?

Courts in many states have allowed negligence and wrongful death suits to go

12

Perspectives / Spring 2007

to trial against inter/national fraternal organizations even when the chapter involved lost its charter. Suits have also been allowed to reach trial against institutions that had withdrawn recognition against chapters, but where the chapters continued to operate openly. Why? Until the early 1970s the doctrine of in loco parentis gave institutions the responsibility and power over students’ lives on campus. The lowering of the voting age to 18 in 1972 effectively ended that authority. However, a doctrine of civil law allows a victim to make a claim against an organization and an institution where the victim relied upon representations made, either outright or understood. There is also the expectation that an organization that operates on a campus does so in a manner that would not endanger its members or guests. Therefore, the mere withdrawal of recognition by a university and/or revoking a charter by an inter/national organization may not be enough to protect from liability in cases where officials knew or should have known the unrecognized chapter was likely to engage in illegal and/or dangerous activities.

An institution that touts its high moral and ethical standards will be held to those standards. This same higher standard applies to fraternal organizations that promote such attributes as friendship, character, obedience to rules and law, respect for others, and a non-hazing policy. An institution that promotes its fraternities and sororities creates the expectation that they are safe.

For those reasons it is imperative that the institution and the inter/ national organization do more than disavow a chapter they no longer recognize. An inter/national organization must take every reasonable step to ensure the chapter ceases operating in its name and to protect students and guests from the unrecognized group.

What steps are reasonable for an institution? They need to publicize widely the reasons the chapter lost recognition (this is not a violation of the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act which protects individual, not organizational records). The institution should inform incoming students of the difference between the recognized and no longer recognized groups, why the latter lost recognition, and the dangers of affiliating or socializing with them.

Private institutions should create policies that forbid recognized organizations from social activities with unrecognized groups, prohibit those groups from participating in any institutional activities (e.g., meeting space, student organization fairs, intramurals), and allow for disciplinary action against students who join those organizations that lost recognition for repeated violations of law or endangerment of others. Public institutions may want to consider creating similar policies as well.

Campus professionals need to be aware that they may have personal liability in cases where they know or should know of illegal and/or dangerous activities by these unrecognized chapters and where no attempts are made to report these activities to the proper authorities or to notify potential victims of the danger.

Too often, unrecognized groups define the campus image of “fraternity” more than the recognized organizations.

The First Step: Getting Student Buy-In It can be tough to build the necessary momentum in a fraternity/ sorority community to get members to realize the importance of exterminating unrecognized groups. It can be even more difficult to get students to take significant action. In many cases, it takes starting the conversation each semester before real action is taken.

Although there are probably good members caught in these bad chapters, they simply cannot be allowed to continue. As a professional, if you find yourself in a situation where an unrecognized group has started, you must take immediate action to exterminate them because another will soon follow. Unrecognized groups demonstrate to other fraternities and sororities that there is “life after death.” It is useful to drive this point home with student leaders by asking, “What risks would you take if you knew there were no consequences?” Rob a bank? Jump a ravine Dukes of Hazzard style? Or an easier way to get students to understand this concept is to ask, “How fast would you drive if speeding fines were only five dollars?”

Unrecognized groups demonstrate to the average fraternity member that there are no real consequences to negative behavior.

They see a chapter get in such “big trouble” that recognition is removed. They then observe these groups throwing open parties, hazing, recruiting when and how they want, and paying less money. Recognition becomes little more than a set of rules that comes with a higher price tag. Fraternal leaders might understand why it is undesirable to be unrecognized, but the average member sees it as appealing. (“We can do whatever we want, because if we get caught… oh well.”) Once one unrecognized group exists they become an anchor weighing down the community. This prevents significant cultural change from happening because chapters lose the desire for real improvement.

Acknowledging that the existence of these groups is “bad for business” is one good way to start the conversation of eliminating unrecognized groups. It really must be a conversation for this to work. If students are not engaged and are just listening to a lecture, the arguments for action will not take root. They have to feel they are able to express their honest opinions so you can address them logically. Some key points to make: These groups are “bad for business”… …in the example they set for the worst of their members.

Each organization has at least one member who thinks that what unrecognized groups do outside the rules is acceptable.

Leaders must realize that their members are using these groups as role models. They must understand they cannot increase the performance of their fraternity or sorority if they have members who advocate lowering chapter standards to the level of the unrecognized groups.

…in terms of recruitment. Often leaders will dismiss this notion because they do not want to attract the same type of members that join unrecognized groups. While recognized groups should be commended for their commitment to high standards, they must be made to realize the negative impact unrecognized groups have on the public image of the fraternal product on that campus. Too often, unrecognized groups define the campus image of “fraternity” more than the recognized organizations.

…in terms of relationships with the campus administration, faculty, parents, and community. Other than campus fraternity/ sorority professionals, who really makes a distinction between what an unrecognized group does and what the recognized chapters do? To the majority of those in the community, the actions of unrecognized groups and those of recognized fraternities or sororities are synonymous: “It’s all Greek to me.”

Both men and women in the community must be challenged to do something about the threat to their fraternal business caused by unrecognized groups. They must not expect “the college” to do it for them. They can ask university administrators, town officials, or inter/national organizations for help, but they as fraternity/sorority members must take the lead.

This initial conversation frequently causes heated and passionate debate. However, it is imperative that the conversation turns toward developing a strategy to solve this problem. No matter what plan the students develop, it must captivate a significant portion of the fraternity/sorority community leadership or it will not work. There can be several reasons for a lack of leadership among students, including fear of ostracism, confrontation, reprisal, or even physical assault.

Once students feel sufficiently supported by campus professionals and by their peers, they are ready for a plan. The council presidents should go to the leaders of these groups and offer them three options: 1. Reaffiliate, 2. Quit, or 3. Be exterminated.

Option #1: Reaffiliation. Showing support for the group to regain recognition may be the best place to start. Even if the group will have to fulfill some lofty standards in order to be re-recognized, offering this option shows support and can build good will.

Option #2: Quit being a fraternity. Members of unrecognized groups can be given an ultimatum: stop using the term “fraternity” or Greek letters and stop recruiting new members. Simply graduate into extinction so that the community can move forward.

Option #3: Be exterminated. Fraternal leaders must be resolute that they are willing to take drastic steps to exterminate these groups. How? The fraternity and sorority community must come to a collective agreement that they will ostracize unrecognized groups from their peer network. This includes the willingness to stop having social events with them and to stop referring to them by their former organizational names. If some of the groups refuse, the fraternal leaders must be willing to be tough on their peers.

Several years ago, the University of Delaware’s Interfraternity Council took a stance against unrecognized groups. The fraternities mandated that if any sorority attended an unrecognized group’s social event then all fraternities would refuse to have social events with that sorority. They also sent a letter to the offending sorority’s inter/national organization informing them of the incident. It was amazing that after years of the sorority presidents telling the IFC officers they would not be able to get their sisters to stop supporting the unrecognized groups, they actually could. Why? The men were not bluffing, and when push came to shove, they stood together. A similar boycott of intramural sports can be taken, especially with buy-in from the intramurals office. continued on page 14 Spring 2007 / Perspectives

13

continued from page 13 On most campuses, the unrecognized groups are former fraternities.

Although unrecognized women’s groups exist, they do not seem to pose as many problems (or last as long) as men’s groups. With this in mind, we have found that the single most common obstacle to success in exterminating unrecognized groups has been the women (most frequently sorority women) that support them. These women do not see the problem with these groups because they know the one or two “good guys” who are members. They ignore or discount the negative impact of the group on the community. In the spirit of engaging in debate with sorority women, we offer the following: • “You can’t tell me who I can be friends with!” I am not telling you that. I am saying that you cannot go to their parties because you swore an oath to a higher standard when you joined the sorority, and I will hold you accountable to that. Supporting this group hurts the standards of this entire community. I’ll compromise. If you want, you can attend all of the positive things they do for our community, like their educational programs and community service events.

• “If you do this, I’ll quit.” Okay, there is the door. I will mail you the membership termination papers and you can sign them. If it is more important for you to go to their parties than remain a sister, you should quit.

• “I can’t tell my sisters who they can hang out with.” Really?

You can tell them what to wear in recruitment, what they can and can’t post on their Facebook profiles, when they have to stop drinking, how many hours of service they must do, and what grades they must maintain, but you can’t tell them they aren’t allowed to go to this unrecognized group’s parties? You don’t have to tell them who to be friends with, but you can ban them from their parties. Let’s be honest, you don’t want to tell them that. It will be unpopular. Or, you still want to go to their parties yourself and aren’t as concerned with being the leader this community and your chapter needs you to be.

These debates are rarely pleasant, and it can be mentally exhausting to have this conversation over and over again. In order to make any progress in eliminating unrecognized groups, the buy-in from fraternity and sorority members is simply critical.

Taking Proactive Measures to End Unrecognized Groups While there are numerous solutions for the problem of unrecognized groups, we must make two assertions: Eliminating unrecognized groups may take years and will result in many failed attempts, and there is not a single “one size fits all” solution.

Campuses are different and professionals must try different combinations until they begin to see success. We maintain, however, that there are many fundamental steps that are necessary for any campus battling this issue: • Never refer to unrecognized groups as “fraternities,” “sororities” or “unrecognized fraternities.” The title gives them validation.

• Even if you think you will fail, you must begin the conversation on your campus about prohibiting membership in groups that have lost recognition. Include this clause in your student code of conduct and hold students accountable.

• A letter must be sent to the families of all students about the dangers and consequences of joining unrecognized groups.

Do not forget to include positive information about your fraternity/sorority community.

14

Perspectives / Spring 2007

• Faculty and staff members must be informed of the problem and how they can be part of the solution.

• Multiple stakeholders should be engaged in the conversation about eliminating these groups (e.g., campus administrators, landlords, advisors, city officials, etc.). These people most likely will suggest solutions that would not be proposed otherwise.

• Develop a partnership with the inter/national organization to plan for the group to return to campus (even if the “national” still recognizes the group but the college does not). While the problem of unrecognized groups seems insurmountable, a campus fraternity/ sorority professional and an inter/national staff member must begin a conversation about how to prevent a tragedy from occurring.

In order to prevent the creation of an “underground system,” institutions and inter/national organizations must discuss the future of these groups prior to closing them. For those campuses where a culture of unrecognized groups already exists, conversations should begin immediately with fraternal leaders and campus administrators about exterminating them before their behavior gets even worse and disaster strikes. There simply is not enough room in a newspaper headline for “Unrecognized Former Fraternity Kills Freshman.”

–A llison Swick-Duttine is the Director of Fraternity/Sorority Life & Leadership Development at the State University of New York College at Plattsburgh.

– Judge Mitch Crane is a judge and a speaker for CAMPUSPEAK, Inc. – David Stollman is co-founder of CAMPUSPEAK, Inc.

Contribute to the advancement of the study of college fraternities and sororities by publishing your work in the premier journal for fraternal research:

The Research Journal ORACLE:

of the Association of Fraternity Advisors.

Oracle advances the study of college fraternities and sororities through a peer-reviewed, electronic academic journal promoting scholarly discourse among partners invested in the fraternal movement.

Oracle is now accepting submissions for the Summer 2007 issue.

For more information please visit: www.fraternityadvisors.org/Oracle.aspx or email journal@fraternityadvisors.org

The Value of Supporting the AFA Foundation “My time at MMI [Mid-Level Management Institute] was one of the best professional development experiences that I have had thus far in my career.

My experience would not have been possible without the generous support from the AFA Foundation.”

Kyle F. Jordan Coordinator for Student Leadership & Programming The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

The mission of the AFA Foundation is to secure, invest, and distribute the necessary resources to support the education objectives of the Association of Fraternity Advisors.

Through the generous support of our donors, the AFA Foundation was able to award over 20 scholarships in 2006. These included: • • • •

8 Graduate Annual Meeting Scholarships 12 Professional Annual Meeting Scholarships 1 Rick Barnes IFI Scholarship 3 Mid Level Management Scholarships

In addition, the AFA Foundation was able to support the following programs and initiatives in 2006: • Opening session speaker at the Annual Meeting in New Orleans • Graduate Training Track at the Annual Meeting made possible by a gift from Rho Lambda National Leadership Recognition Society • An educational program grant to support National Hazing Prevention Week • Support for AFA’s strategic planning to advance the Association

Through your support, the AFA Foundation will be able to fund additional programs and initiatives in 2007. Please join other professionals and volunteers to ensure that fellow AFA members are provided with critical resources.

How Can I Help the AFA Foundation Fulfill its Mission?

There are several ways you can make a donation to the AFA Foundation: 1. A cash gift (check or credit card).

2. S et up automatic credit card payments.

For credit card gifts, please visit: http://www.fraternityadvisors.org/ Foundation.aspx 3. H ave the AFA Foundation listed as a beneficiary in your will, estate, or life insurance policy.

Please consider making a gift of $25, $50, $100 or more today!

Checks can be made payable and sent to: AFA Foundation 9640 Augusta Drive, Suite 433 Carmel, IN 46032

For more information please call the AFA Foundation at 678-654-6207.

The Association of Fraternity Advisors Presents: Be. R.E.A.D.Y. – The First 90 Days Program Planning to start a new campus-based fraternity and sorority advising position this fall?

The First 90 Days Program is the newest professional development opportunity created by the Association of Fraternity Advisors specifically designed to assist with the transition into this new role.

Launching in July 2007, the inaugural program will enable participants to: • Have the unique opportunity to participate in an eight-session virtual seminar program and interactive online community; • Develop a plan for success in the First 90 Days of their new position; • Develop skills and core competencies necessary for the advising profession; and • Build a network of support with other professionals.

The program fee is $150 and will cover participation in all sessions facilitated by a variety of experienced AFA members. Additionally, participants will receive a variety of resources to be mailed in early July that will support their progress throughout the program.

To register, visit the AFA website at: http://www.fraternityadvisors.org/Foundation.aspx

association of fraternity advisors

Spring 2007 / Perspectives

15

2007 Campus Activities

Magazine Awards We appreciate all of the AFA members

Dr. Lori Hart-Ebert

for their votes!

Best Overall Speaker AND Best Female Speaker

Ross Szabo

CAMPUSPEAK

Best Male Speaker

2007 Agency of the Year

Joe Bertolino & Bil Leipold Best Diversity Artists

Book these and other great speakers today!

Call 303.745.5545

invite a great idea to campus 16

Perspectives / Spring 2007

2006 Donor Recognition Thank you to the following donors who made a gift and/or silent auction purchase in the 2006 calendar year. Your support is much appreciated and helps to fulfill the Foundation’s mission: To secure, invest, and distribute the necessary resources to support the educational objectives of the Association of Fraternity Advisors.

Believers Club $1,000 + Thomas Jelke* David Stollman* Beta Theta Pi Birmingham Southern University Capstone Development Corporation* Central Missouri State University Delta Delta Delta Delta Sigma Phi Emory University George Mason University Illinois State University North Carolina State University Pittsburg State University Rho Lambda National Honorary Sigma Phi Epsilon Sigma Sigma Sigma Southern Methodist University University of Wisconsin, Madison William Woods University Zeta Tau Alpha Foundation Advisors Club $500 – $999 Rosalind Alderman Ron Binder Jacqueline Isaacson* Randy McMullin Kyle Pendleton* Richard Peralta Alpha Chi Rho Foundation Delta Gamma Kappa Alpha Order Pi Beta Phi Purdue University IFC Region I Sigma Alpha Epsilon Foundation Sigma Chi Tau Kappa Epsilon UNC Student Activities Fund Office Wittenberg University 1976 Club $200 – $499 Jason Anhorn* Anne Arseneau* Rick Barnes Mark Bauer Vic Boschini Jonathan Brant* Shelly Brown Dobek* Amanda Bureau Daniel Bureau* Ginny Carroll* Robert Dudolski Allison Foster Matt Glowacki Patricia Goodfriend* Marian Gough* Bridget Guernsey Riordan Grahaeme Hesp Glenn Hohn Sonia ImMasche Stacy Jones Kelly Jo Karnes* Melissa Komasz Sue Kraft Fussell* Susan LeGalley Gregory Mason

Mike McRee Kara Miller Kimberlee Monteaux* Karyn Nishimura Sneath Mary Peterson Jason Pierce LuAnn Riegl Beth Saul* Darald Stubbs* T.J. Sullivan* Todd Sullivan* Shelley Sutherland* Brian Tenclinger Amy Vojta* Rebecca Wald Stoker Linda Wardhammar* Charles Warner* Susan West* Carolyn Whittier* Chi Omega Kappa Delta Rho Foundation Ness & Co. LLP Old Dominion University Phi Gamma Delta Foundation Phi Kappa Sigma Phi Mu Phi Mu Foundation Sigma Kappa University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill Valparaiso University Vantine Imaging, LLC Sustaining Donor $100 – $199 David Adams Jeremy Blanchette Kenneth Clinton Linda Collier* Cari Cook Buck Cooke* Bethany Deines* Patty Disque Ashley Dye* Melissa Flanagan* Glenn Gnirrep Shannon Greybar Milliken Michelle Guobadia* Ned Kirklin Mark Koepsell Jayme Little Kari Murphy William Nelson Elizabeth Quick* Rusty Richardson Eve Riley* Joel Rudy Stephen Rupprecht* Alexander Seltzer Teresa Shaffer Allison St. Germain* Cindy Stellhorn Barbie Tootle Charles Trabold* Maggie Watkins Gayle Webb Ryan Williams* Gary Wiser Alpha Epsilon Pi Foundation Alpha Phi Foundation Alpha Sigma Phi Foundation, Inc. Delta Upsilon

HRH/Kirklin & Co., LLC Kansas State University Pi Kappa Alpha Foundation Roanoke College TKE Educational Foundation Donor $1 – $99 Olivia Acosta Travis Apgar* Gregory Austin Corey Bailey Jamaal Bailey Blake Balajadia* Gary Ballinger James Barber Nicole Barrett* Janna Basler* Rhen Bass* Curtis Baylor Dana Ruth Becker* Stephen Becker Carlton Bennett Tara Benson* Jason Bergeron* Andrew Bergman Valerie Black Diane Blackwelder* Angela Bong* Scott Bova William Brennan Kris Bridges Joan Brown* Martha Brown* Lana Bulger Joni Burke* Julie Burkhard David Butler Mari Ann Callais* Thatine Camargo Katherine Carnell* Marsha Carrasco Cooper Tom Carroll Douglas Case* Michelle Castro* Samuel Centellas Scotty Chapanian* Benjamin Ciesinski Aaron Clevenger Sally Cobb Colleen Coffey Angelo Colon Randi Congleton Philip Covington Brandon Cutler* Jenifer Doane* Gina Dowell* Thad Doyle Charles Eberly* Lauren Elliott* Michelle Espino* Beverly Farmer* Todd Farmer* Victor Felts* William Foltz Marilyn Fordham* Kurtis Foriska Richard Funk Kristin Garcia* Andrea Gaspardino* Natalie Giantsos* Kathleen Gillan

Marlene Gilpin* J. Elizabeth Gittons Julie Gleason* Joel Goldman Joshua Goldman Matthew Goodwin* John Green Hayden Greene Willard Hall* Thomas Hansen* Jody Hare* Angela Harper-Pedersen* Lori Hart Ebert Mark Hartley* Steven Hartman Tyler Havens Michael Hayes* Kathi Heatherly Joy Helsel Joseph Heyward Carolyn Hill* Judson Horras Michele Howard Drew Hunter M. Carolyn Hunter Sara Jahansouz Michelle Janisz* Christopher Jefferson Cara Ann Jenkins* Megan Johnson* Jennifer Jones* Jennifer Jones-Hall* Kyle Jordan Bradley Joutras Reneé Kashawlic* Dana Katz* Jamison Keller Eli Ker Kassie Kissinger* Katie Klimas Kevin Kolman Andrew Kowal Stacy Kraus* Melissa Krueger* Alissa Krutoff* Danielle Kuglin* Julie Lassalle Jennifer Leung Stephanie Lipscomb Ray Lutzky Cara Luyster* Elizabeth MacDonald* Tracy Maxwell Johnathan Mayo Christine McGill* Richard McKaig Cheyenne McPherson Pam Mirabelli Larry Moses John Mountz Eric Norman Andrea Obrochta Lauren Paitson Margaret Pape* William Paris Terence Parker Edward Pease* Erin Peck Kathleen Peoples* Rueben Perez* Lorin Phillips* Roy Rasheed*

Anna Ratliff* Teena Reasoner* Katherine Reed* Shelley Reynolds* Julia Roberts* April Robles* Whitney Romanowski* Alysia Rourke Karen Rubican Sabrina Marie Ryan Elizabeth Sarneso* Elizabeth Schafer* Wesley Schaub Kaye Schendel* Linda Schnetzer Elizabeth Searcy* Mary Beth Seiler* Lindsay Sell Natalie Shaak Andrew Shafer Amber Sibley* Steven Sikorski* Christopher Silva Gregory Singleton* Kirsten Siron Young* Jeremy Slivinski Monica Smalls* Jessica Smestad* Carrie Smith Hamilton Smith* Michelle Snyder Ardern Catherine Sohor Emily Stander Jessie Stapleton Beth Stathos Michael Steele Sally Stetler Eileen Stevens Erin Strine* Stanley Sweeney* Allison Swick-Duttine* Mendy Tarwater* Bobby Thompson Kristin Torrey* Teniell Trolian* Kimberly Turner* Parice Tyler Bowser* Inez Vanable Lisa Wallace Carol Warren* Patricia Watkins* Thomas Wible Jessica Wickiewicz Timothy Wilkinson* John Winnett Mandy Womack* Daisy Wood Jessica Wrann* Bonnie Wunsch* Tyler Young Anonymous Beta Theta Pi Foundation Courage Communications Lambda Chi Alpha Phi Kappa Tau * Contributor to the $30 for 30 campaign, benefiting Habitat for Humanity and the AFA Foundation

Let’s start 2007 off strong! Consider supporting the AFA Foundation today! Please send a check made payable to: AFA Foundation; 9640 N. Augusta Dr., Suite 433; Carmel, Indiana 46032 Want to make a gift by credit card? Please go to: http://www.fraternityadvisors.org/Foundation.aspx

Spring 2007 / Perspectives

17

– Justin Kirk & Jeremiah B. Shinn

Searching for Common Ground: A Model for Critical Dialogue Between Campus and Inter/national Organization Professionals

D

uring our time working with fraternities and sororities, Justin (JK) on inter/national organization staffs and Jeremiah (JBS) as a campus advisor, we notice a tendency to be suspicious of those working on the ‘opposite side’ of the profession. There is an unproductive belief in both sectors of the fraternity/sorority world that the other side is simply misguided in their frame of reference.

Contentious topics do not lend themselves to simple answers. However, there are other issues where we must begin to identify common ground to ensure the fraternity movement remains relevant on college campuses. We must form a respectful, purposeful and productive partnership between campus and headquarters professionals.

What follows is a brief debate of four issues that the two of us have considered during the five years working together.

Our respect for the other’s abilities and commitment to the profession make this debate possible. This article is not meant to be an exhaustive collection of all of the critical issues facing the campus and inter/national organization relationship, but we hope it serves as an invitation to professionals on both sides of the fence to engage in a thoughtful dialogue to guarantee a bright future for our fraternities.

Q u al i t y C o n t r o l JBS (Campus Lens): I’ve heard frequently that the reality of fiscal survival requires inter/national organizations to operate with a focus that is similar to that of a business.

Using this business analogy, it appears that many of our fraternal organizations experience shortcomings in the area of quality control. Businesses use quality control as a means of ensuring that products or outputs are consistent with a defined purpose and guiding values.

Fraternities and sororities too often fall short in their quality control efforts, assuming the goal of the organization

18

Perspectives / Spring 2007

is to develop men and women who not only know the values of the organization, but also believe in the values of the organization, lead the organization based on those values, and incorporate the values into their own lives. During my professional tenure, I have worked with thousands of men from virtually every inter/national organization, hailing from hundreds of college campuses.

Because I worked with these student leaders in the context of a leadership development experience, I have expected much from them.

I do not lament the fact that professionals seem to be having a similar conversation with each successive group of students.

I have never heard a Physics 101 professor say “I’ve been teaching this course for 10 years, and they still don’t get it!”

In a similar fashion, we must not expect that everyone “gets” fraternity and sorority overnight. The fraternity and sorority experience is one of learning and growth.

I understand this concept and cherish the unique opportunity to build better men and women. What I do not understand is how it is possible (and in some cases, probable) for a young man to engage in a recruitment process, sign a bid card, participate in nearly a semester of new member education, be initiated into a fraternity, yet have very little understanding of the mission, values and purpose of the organization.

I have had far too many conversations with students in high-level chapter, council and alumni leadership roles who were clueless as to the core purpose of their organization.

If the purpose of fraternity is to promote values-based leadership, I fear the quality control mechanism is broken. While fiscal realities necessitate that certain goals are met in order for fraternities to remain financially viable, communication and protection of the core purposes of these organizations must be a significant priority if we are to continue to refer to fraternities as “values-based” organizations.

JK (Inter/national Organization Lens): The fraternity experience is one of learning and growth. At the end of the day, each of our members is an individual.

Some will “get it” while others will not. On a macroscopic level, fraternities simply do not have the resources to oversee the intake of members for every chapter. We can educate our men and women on a selection process built on a set of standards and values, but we do not have a parental relationship with local chapters. They will select the men and women with whom they wish to associate. We hope they will use the organization’s standards and values as their guide, but at best, an inter/national organization has an arms-length relationship with the chapter. In most cases, the campus professional has a closer relationship and can help facilitate a face-to-face conversation with the men and women on values and standards.

The entire college experience is one of learning and growth. Much like fraternities, colleges have admissions standards and provide an opportunity for development. Upon accepting a student for admission, the institution desires that he or she will graduate.

Judging from graduation rates, it is apparent some students “get it” and some students waste a golden opportunity.

Fraternal organization staffs are typically directed by a board of directors. Many board members come from a corporate background and govern using a business model. For most organizations, the staff is measured on their ability to increase membership numbers and minimize accounts receivable. Knowing that your job is on the line, it is a challenge to balance growing membership counts and staying true to the organization’s mission and purpose (and sometimes we fall short). I will concede that fraternities and sororities, in general, need to do a better job of educating men and women on the true purpose of the organization. This conversation may need to start at the board level for many groups.

D i sc i pl i n e a n d C o mm u n i ca t i o n JK: Campuses and inter/national organizations claim to be partners with a common goal.

I propose that this is an ideal concept rather than the current reality. Campus professionals advise chapters and develop programming meant to supplement education encouraged by the national organizations. We do partner in this area.

This so-called partnership, however, is quickly abandoned when discipline issues arise. Suddenly, the situation often turns into the campus professional pointing a finger at the organization, saying “This is your problem with your chapter and your members. Why didn’t you prevent this?” Both the campus professional and organization professional can be part of the solution. Don’t we both have a relationship with the students?

If there is a discipline issue, there needs to be an open line of communication early in the process to partner and improve the situation and chapter. A standard response from a campus professional is “it is the young men’s and women’s responsibility to communicate with their organization.”

I concur. However, it is also the responsibility of the campus professional. Too often, the organization is left out of the process until it is too late for the staff to provide meaningful assistance.

In other instances, institutions are quick to pass judgment without engaging the inter/national organizations. When closing a chapter, why is an institution so quick to immediately ban the chapter from returning to campus for five years? On average, a member is only involved with the chapter for 2.5 years. By closing a chapter for five years, you may disengage a group of local alumni who are vital for the chapter’s future success.

JBS: I agree; there is no one “right” solution to any given problem. Neither the campus nor the organization has perfected the concept of decision-making. In order for us to successfully develop chapters, ongoing communication, information sharing and commitment to the improvement of our organizations is absolutely vital.

It is unproductive for campus professionals to “sit on” information until a major negative event occurs, only to wield this information when action is necessary to “bust” the chapter. This is uncalled for and does nothing to foster trust and dialogue.

Our students need to view us as partners rather than adversaries.

It is fair for organizations to expect that they will be informed of chapter failures, successes, and potential issues.

It is also reasonable for them to work with campus professionals as partners in the intervention process. Conversely, I believe it is acceptable for campus professionals to expect action and attention from the organization when their chapters are failing to embody the mission and values of the organization. Organizational action and attention only in extreme cases or in response to financial or headcount issues cannot be the standard solution.

JK: Let’s turn the talk about partnership into action. This partnership must include the inter/national organization professionals, campus professionals, and key volunteers.

Campus professionals should take the time to meet the local chapter advisors, an often ignored group of dedicated volunteers. We believe the best chapters have strong local advisors, not simply by coincidence.

The local volunteers have the most direct contact with the chapter and can be an ally in the process. If a chapter does not receive a visit from a consultant in a given year, it should not cause alarm and insinuate that the inter/national fraternity or sorority does not service its chapters. Some groups are moving to a model of training regional and local volunteers to service chapters rather than a recent graduate who can only spend two to three days with the chapter. These seasoned volunteers are more equipped to help the chapter over a long period of time.

L eaders h i p D e v el o pme n t / Val u es I n t egra t i o n P r o gramm i n g JBS: Leadership and member development programming is essential to the communication of organizational purpose and to the connection between the fraternity ritual and individual member action. Inter/national fraternities and sororities collectively allocate large amounts of money each year toward leadership experiences, which may or may not result in increased leadership competencies among participants.

Often, these programs are developed and facilitated by alumni who have studied leadership development to the extent that I have studied civil engineering. I would not consider myself qualified to build a bridge after participating in a civil engineering club and reading a book about it, so I question the notion that one can be equipped to write leadership development curriculum and facilitate the process of leadership development after simply having been a member of a fraternity or sorority and reading a business book or a leadership fable about moving my cheese.

Even the best curriculum can be corporate and product-focused rather than developmental and process-oriented. This type of programming misses the opportunity for students to fully understand how their organizations’ purpose and values can be mobilized to identify core issues and to develop appropriate, values-based solutions.

Often, these leadership experiences are disconnected, if not completely removed from the ritual and values of the fraternity or sorority. If an organization espouses certain values, it would make sense that those values would be infused into every area of functioning; particularly the piece which socializes men and women into the organization.

JK: For most fraternities, resources for programming are scarce. Many organizations do not have the funds available to hire an outside source to develop leadership programs. If we have an alumnus with a background in leadership development, we try to engage him in our programming.

If campus professionals feel they have the expertise, I urge them to volunteer for any inter/national organization, regardless of whether or not they are a member. We need the help.

We are partners in the education process.

Could it be that many organizations do Spring 2007 / Perspectives

continued on page 14

JBS: The paradigm shift must begin with fraternity and sorority boards of directors.

Let the conversation begin! For better or for worse, the “boys will be boys” era has passed. If fraternities and sororities are to remain relevant and sustainable in the future, organizations must commit to repairing quality control mechanisms.

It is true that not every member will “get it,” but these instances should be isolated. While headcounts and minimum standards checklists will likely be central to an organization’s assessment of their chapters, they can not stand alone in determining the worth or success of these values-based organizations.

19

continued from page 19 not know there is a more effective model?

Rather than sitting idly by and wondering why organizations do what they do, have an active voice. If you are a member of an organization and believe its programming could be better, and do nothing to effect a change, then I’ll take the guy who has read the latest and greatest business or leadership book. He is doing what he can to better the member experience.

Colleges have a wealth of resources in comparison to fraternities. Campus professionals refer to themselves as educators.

Instead of spending budgets on role playing organizations such as student government, program planning, and formal recruitment, use your talents and resources on leadership development. If you want inter/national fraternities to leverage their resources for leadership development, follow the same course. Help educate. The development of these members is a collective responsibility.

JBS: It is true that universities have a wealth of resources. Despite that, fraternity/ sorority life or student activities offices are generally minimally funded, with the possible exception of staff salaries. Further, it is sometimes difficult to justify allocating additional resources dedicated to a relatively small group of student organizations that are engaged in risky behavior. You are correct, campus professionals easily fall into programming mode and miss opportunities for values integration and leadership development. We are not doing as much as we could at the campus level.

In terms of leadership development and values integration programming at the inter/national organization level, I understand that financial realities limit programming efforts. However, I would challenge the assertion that there is no additional funding available to invest in these areas. Priorities must be revisited and funding redirected.

It might be that a national conference is held somewhere other than in a fancy hotel in New Orleans or on a cruise ship to compensate for the additional expense of cutting-edge educational programming.

This is not a lofty sacrifice.

Lastly, I believe campus professionals (those with leadership development knowledge and experience) should be active in partnering with inter/national organizations to develop, implement, and assess leadership development and values integration programming. In turn, inter/ national organizations must be willing to allow unaffiliated individuals with expertise in student development to serve as partners in the process.

R ecr u i t me n t JK: Members are the lifeblood of any membership organization. Whether it is the Boy Scouts, Future Farmers of America or any organization with an admirable mission and purpose, a primary focus is organizational growth. Without a sufficient number of dues-paying members, an organization simply cannot function. Dues income is a significant and sometimes the only revenue source supporting programs and services.

While fraternities desire open recruitment without restrictions, all too often, campus professionals put rules in place that hinder the organization’s ability to grow or even sustain its membership.

Allowing or encouraging the governing councils to create “rush rules” that “level the playing field” is the wrong life lesson.

Once these members graduate into society, they will quickly realize that the real world operates differently. For example, if Sprint, Verizon, and T-Mobile decided that certain offerings or features provided an advantage to one company, then eliminated them in order to level their playing field, the corporations would be subject to jail time for collusion. The fraternity experience is an opportune time to teach life lessons in a safe laboratory. A campus professional has an obligation to teach, and to teach the right lessons.

The promotion of deferred recruitment is also not the answer for other problems within the community. The desire to improve freshmen grades may be a noble goal, but it does not trump the First Amendment. The attempt to cure an ill is not enough to restrict a civil right. Restricting freedom of association, for example, does not become ethical because the campus has a moral objective (in the campus’ view).

The recruitment of new members can provide ideas, enthusiasm, a renewed sense of purpose, and a vehicle for change.

Rather than using an approach that is educational in nature, some campus professionals will restrict the recruitment of new members as a disciplinary measure. Restricting membership recruitment does not teach a group of students to be more responsible with their alcohol use.

Restricting recruitment does not educate a group of students in neighbor relations.

Restricting recruitment only accomplishes a slow death for the chapter. Allow the new members to join the organization and engage them in purposeful conversation about the true values of the organization.

NIC member fraternities have agreed to hold themselves accountable to a set of minimum standards. In return, they ask host institutions to support open expansion and open recruitment. Many institutions will look to their fraternal partners and ask if they are holding up their end of the bargain when it comes to minimum standards, yet they continue to ignore this request.

The partnership must work both ways.

JBS: The complexity of this issue stems from the fact that both campus and organization professionals must simultaneously commit to an alternative course of action to achieve success. Campus professionals should not advise their IFCs to disregard the NIC standards pertaining to recruitment practices.

Exercising control over which groups can come to campus at what time is counterproductive, as is the tired, unjustifiable “band aid” of deferred recruitment, provided that organizations are willing to meet campuses halfway to ensure that men in fraternities are provided the best opportunity to succeed.

There must be a realization that an organization’s right to exist on a college campus doesn’t necessarily mean that an organization should exist. It is unacceptable for an organization to colonize on a campus without having a functional advisory board and adequate service and education to ensure the chapter’s success. Proliferation beyond an organization’s ability to provide service and education ultimately causes problems for both the campus and the organization.

I believe that when campuses cease to place undue restrictions on expansion, the truly values-based organizations will be more likely to close those chapters that contribute nothing to the campus or the organization.

JK: The point that just because you can expand, it doesn’t mean that you should expand is valid. Let’s compromise. If campuses are willing to support open expansion and recruitment, inter/national organizations are obligated to provide the necessary support to ensure that the chapter can sustain long-term success: creating a functioning advisory board in place prior to the expansion; providing officer and advisor training before you leave campus; and educating the students on the ritual and purpose of the organization. Our partnership will be strong, if we can commit to the above.

C o n cl u s i o n Whether at AFA, FEA, IFI, UIFI or some other “alphabet soup” experience, the topic continued on bottom of page 21

20

Perspectives / Spring 2007

2007 AFA Award Nominations

T

0

he AFA Awards and Recognition Committee invites you to nominate your colleagues for the 2007 honors. Each year, AFA seeks to recognize outstanding contributions by our members/colleagues in TEN different categories. It takes only a few minutes of your time to submit a nomination.

The process relies on your nominations and has been streamlined for ease of the nominator. Nomination instructions, lists of previous recipients, and related information may also be accessed on the AFA website (www.fraternityadvisors.org). All nominations must be emailed by

Friday, July 27, 2007.

The recipients of the 2007 awards will be announced during the AFA Annual Meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio. The awards to be presented at the Closing Banquet are the Robert H. Shaffer, Jack L. Anson, and Sue Kraft Fussell Distinguished Service Awards. All other awards will be presented at the AFA Awards and Recognition Luncheon.

Nomination Instructions

The Jack L. Anson Award

All awards nominations should be submitted electronically to awards@fraternityadvisors.com. The email subject line should contain the name of the award for your nomination submission.

The email should include the following information for both the nominee and yourself: name, position, institution/organization, mailing address, telephone number, and email address. Please attach your nomination letter(s) providing, in detail, the reasons why you are nominating this person/initiative/program and why this person/initiative/program is exceptionally deserving of the recognition. Ensure that any special requirements listed in the award description are also included. Completed nominations must be emailed by July 27, 2007. You may direct any questions to Stacy Kraus, Awards Chair, at awards@fraternityadvisors.org or (215)898-5263.

This award was established in 1982 in honor of the retiring executive director of the National Interfraternity Conference. This award is presented to a well-respected individual not in the field of higher education, who has demonstrated a long-term commitment to the fraternity/sorority community beyond just his/her respective organization. The individual should have assisted in developing partnerships with higher education and the interfraternal community, fostered change to advance the fraternal movement and served as a role model for students.

The Robert H. Shaffer Award

Sue Kraft Fussell Distinguished Service Awards

This award was established in 1980 by AFA in honor of Robert H. Shaffer, professor of education at Indiana University and mentor to many professionals in the fraternity movement. The award is presented annually to an individual in the field of higher education who has demonstrated a long-term commitment to fraternities and sororities on his/her campus. The individual should have demonstrated a commitment to fostering change in the fraternity/sorority community, building partnerships in higher education and the interfraternal community and mentoring both new and seasoned professionals.

This award was created in 1985 and re-named for AFA’s second Executive Director, Sue Kraft Fussell, in 2006. The purpose of the award is to recognize individuals who have exhibited high professional standards and achievements in fraternity/sorority advising and outstanding achievements in one or more of the following areas: service to AFA; programming and/or service which reaches beyond the recipient’s campus; development and research activities; and/or service to the college and fraternity/sorority communities.

Sue Kraft Fussell Distinguished Service Awards will be presented to no more than five members of the Association each year.

In addition to your nomination form and letters of nomination (a minimum of three letters are required), a one page biographical synopsis including education, professional positions and interfraternal service is required.

Nominees must be Affiliate, Associate or Professional members of AFA and may not be a member of the Executive Board or Awards Committee. Previous recipients are ineligible.

Self-nominations are accepted. continued on page 22

among campus and organization staff is likely to center on collaboration or building partnerships. Despite this verbal commitment, thoughtful debates, and concessions, commitments and partnerships are rare. If the fraternal movement is to remain relevant and sustainable, we as professionals must be willing to engage in uncomfortable dialogue. Both sides must be willing to make concessions and change our ways of thinking. There is no one right way to cure what ails the fraternal movement, but the first step is for both sides to understand it as it is…from both perspectives.

In addition to your nomination form and letters of nomination (a minimum of three letters are required), a one page biographical synopsis including education, professional positions and interfraternal service is required.

– J ustin Kirk is the Director of Programs for Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity and a member of the Sigma Tau Gamma Board of Directors.

– J eremiah B. Shinn is the Associate Director of Student Activities at Indiana University and Assistant Director of the Interfraternity Institute.

Spring 2007 / Perspectives

21

continued from page 21 Diversity Initiative Award

Established in 1994, this award is presented to an individual, institution or organization that has contributed significantly to the development of multicultural relations or diversity education in the university fraternity/sorority community.

Criteria for this award include Affiliate, Associate, Graduate or Professional membership in AFA or institutions/organizations with at least one eligible AFA member and significant involvement in diversity issues. Detailed information should be included in the letter of nomination regarding the diversity initiatives implemented.

Outstanding Volunteer Awards

This award is presented annually to up to eight appointed volunteers in recognition of outstanding contributions.

Nominations are solicited from supervising volunteers.

Excellence in Educational Programming Award

Perspectives Awards

Two awards are presented for educational programming efforts: one to a fraternal organization for efforts directed to undergraduate or alumni members and one to an Associate member organization for educational efforts.

These awards were established in 1988 to recognize those fraternity and sorority professionals who have written thought-provoking articles that are educational and enlightening to the AFA membership. The authors of up to two articles will be awarded. Items authored by more than one individual shall be considered.

Organizations may not receive the award more than once for the same program in a three-year cycle. Separate application materials for this award will be sent to each inter/national organization and Associate member organization and will be available on the AFA website.

Gayle Webb New Professional Award

This award was established in 1990 and re-named for AFA’s first Executive Director, Gayle Webb, upon her retirement in 1999. The purpose is to recognize outstanding contributions to the field of campus advising by an AFA member during his/her first two years of professional employment.

Nominees must be campus-based Professional members of AFA and may not be a member of the Executive Board or Awards Committee. Self-nominations are accepted. Two letters of recommendation are required and may be submitted from any of the following three (3) choices: supervisor, student or colleague.

Nominations will be judged on the contributions of the nominee in the following areas: Campus/professional experience; AFA experience; Outstanding projects/programs/initiatives.

Letters of recommendation should address at least one, but preferable all three, of the judging criteria.

Oracle Award

This award was established in 2006 to recognize the outstanding written contributions to Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors during the past academic year (August – July). Items authored by more than one individual shall be considered. Evidence of research should be shown.

Please include the name of the article and the issue in which it was published in your letter of nomination.

Outstanding Change Initiative Award

Established in 1996, this award is presented to institutions of higher education or Associate member organizations that have made tremendous progress and improvement in the fraternity/ sorority community. The award recognizes major initiatives or long term plans that have led to positive changes within the fraternity and sorority community and measured improvements, results and positive outcomes in all or some of the following areas: scholarship, educational programs, leadership development, risk management, retention and membership recruitment.

22

Applications and/or nominations from anyone impacted by the change initiative are strongly encouraged. Please provide certified information regarding the environment that led to the change as well as the actual initiative and how it sought to develop a partnership between the host institution, alumni, students and inter/national organizations.

Perspectives / Spring 2007

Articles must have been published in Perspectives between Fall 2006 and Summer 2007. Articles may have been previously published. Evidence of research should be shown. Please include the name of the article and the issue in which it was published in your letter of nomination.

1JDUVSF UIJT

431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, AL 35223 205.414.6400 205.414.6405 fax capstonecompanies.com

Association of Fraternity Advisors www.fraternityadvisors.org 9640 N. Augusta Drive, Suite 433 Carmel, IN 46032

Presorted First-Class U.S. Postage PAID Ames, Iowa Permit No. 307