"Great evil does not require great words to be vanquished, rather it requires everyday people doing regular acts of love and kindness." So said Gandalf, one of the greatest wizards ever to grace the silver screen. Which got me thinking, in both The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, mountains are a nearly insurmountable destination, hobbits as heroes, sunlight as the harbringer of good, and a ring that corrupts whoever uses it to remain invisible.
For those of you who are ardent J.R.R. Tolkien fans or literature scholars, I'm sure these symbols came as no surprise to you. In Peter Jackson and Guillermo Del Toro's "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" the symbolism comes particularly fast and furious.
But as I left the midnight screening (why yes, I am a nerd and will make no apologies for it) of The Hobbit, it made me think about the symbolism in my own life. After two years travelling as a consultant for my fraternity, and going on my final semester of graduate school, surely there were lessons that I could reflect upon and apply right?
There are, and in hindsight, they were both simple but fundamental to who I want to be as a person that I kick myself for not internalizing them earlier.
1) Inaction Corrupts - Like the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, it is very tempting to want to withdraw, hide from the world, and live life observing from the shadows. Like Gollum, I was very content to live fixated on the immediate (such as my video games and other electronics) rather than embrace hard choices and difficulties. At its height, my fears became so bad that I would literally avoid checking email, voice mail, or even leaving the house for fear of being required to do something. Maybe this is why bystander intervention training resonates so deeply with me. I understand the temptations and initial gains of avoidance. At the end of the day, whether we are talking personally, professionally, or systematically, inaction only leads to more problems than the initial impulse to hide.
I will admit, life has been (relatively) difficult of late, but that is no excuse to be mean, withdraw, or otherwise run from making the most of my time.
2) Active agency and control is important to me - When I say control, I don't mean micro-managing but rather influence, engagement, and self-authorship.
It is why I like driving so much. Why I would rather give up a week of my time to drive across country to see family rather than board a plane and be where I would like to be within hours.
It made me reflect more specifically about what made me happiest when I was a travelling consultant. Specifically, many people wondered how I could stand the long distances between chapters. I realized that like Tolkien's mountains, the road became a symbol of my own agency.
I always had a starting point and there was always a required ending point, but how I got there was up to me. It was my foot on the pedal, my music on the radio, my hands on the wheel. But most importantly, there were no expectations while I was on the road. I could just as easily be dressed in a suit as gym shorts and a ratty t-shirt. I could be singing (terribly) to bad pop music or jumping from point to point thinking about a presentation I had to give.
Most importantly, I could be present and embrace the small quirks. I might not be changing the world driving around (in fact, you could argue I am just contributing to climate change, but that is an ethical question for another time), but I could work on changing myself.
And if we can't help ourselves, then we cannot help others.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Mental Illness and Student Affairs Practice
I apologize for the long hiatus from from writing. Graduate school has been nothing if not busy.
But that is not an excuse. As I was reflecting on the many people that I was thankful for this thanksgiving, I found myself particularly inspired fellow road warrior (and now student affairs colleague at Texas A&M Commerce) Kyle Hickman who wrote in his blog that student affairs professionals need to be authentic and honest with themselves and their students. He mad a great many points but most specifically, he urged his readers to embrace who they were for all of the benefits that would entail and all of the challenges that would present.
It was a very different message than I recieved when I sat in on a faculty hiring panel where one of the candidates stated unequivically that "student affairs was not a profession for fixing broken professionals."
Though the candidate did not go further about what he thought a broken professional looks like, but let me hazard a guess as to what society may mean when we say people are "broken" in some way.
If you have a persistent mental illness then you should not or cannot maintain a position working with college students. Or career tracks in general. Unless you are some sort of "sympathy" hire.
I disagree. I disagree vehemently.
According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, mental illness is a persistent issue in higher education, ESPECIALLY for the students we work with. In a national survey conducted, NAMI found that:
And that is from students self reporting. How many students wouldn't admit that they would harm themselves?
If we are to be the authentic professionals that Kyle argues helps promote excellence in student affairs, then we have to shed the fear about mental illness, both for our students sake and our own.
Is it any wonder that student affairs professionals have such a high turnover rate? I mean, the long hours and the low pay probably do not help, but that is for another conversation for another day haha.
More specifically, we have to learn to embrace our own challenges and not see ourselves as "broken" student affairs professionals.
I have come to embrace the personal story methodology of teaching. So let me tell you mine.
I have suffered depression since I was in fourth grade. For whatever reason, blue skies depressed me and large groups scared me. There was little rhyme or reason why some days I could feel on top of the world and others I could barely get out of bed. There did not seem to be a rhyme or a reason for the shifts in my mood. I could only do my best to grin, get through the day, and get back to the residence halls again. When I tried to talk with others about it, they became more frustrated then I, especially because for all intents and purposes, I had very little I should have been depressed about.
I was one of those 10% of college students reported in the NCHA survey. I took a semester off at the urging of my fraternity and mentors at college.
After coming to accept these highs and lows, I came to embrace a regime of medication, talk therapy, (relatively) healthy eating, and excersize. Though I may never be able to fully explain why I feel the way I do some days, I can manage the consequences of something that I still do not really understand. Much like a student with diabetes may take insulin to regulate their body's sugar levels, these are the steps that I try to take to keep me fully engaged and enthusiastic about what I do.
I am also inspired and learn a lot from the students I work with. Whether it is past trauma, a chemical imbalance, or the challenges of adapting to new found freedom, students' own work teaches me just as much as the research ever has. For all of the work that we do in sexual assault and dating violence prevention, for all of the negative stories that come through in the official campus messaging, it is the survivors who continue to be engaged and the bystanders who refuse to be silent that give me hope.
Does that make me a bad student affairs professional? I would hope not. Just as I would hope that my own life story can help the students I work with move their own journey facing mental illness.
If we continue to stigmatize mental illness of any variety as some sort of false diagnoses of the "prozac generation" or as a top down response to litigation, then neither students nor professionals will truly be able to, stealing the Army's former catch phrase, be the best that they can be.
If we believe that we have to work with the complete student, then addressing mental illness in an authentic way as a professional and with our students is important from a personal, professional, and policy point of view.
There is no need for good people to abandon good pursuits. This Thanksgiving as I think about what I am thankful for, I know that the people and places that are part of my support network rank high among my VERY long list. I am also thankful for a field that does not have right or wrong answers but instead embraces an intentional model of development that allows for a process of improvement influenced by a wide variety of experiences. Including our own journey of dealing with mental illness in our own lives.
In the end, I am thankful for being able to work to be the best person I can be and I hope that others can feel the same without fear of stigma or isolation.
But that is not an excuse. As I was reflecting on the many people that I was thankful for this thanksgiving, I found myself particularly inspired fellow road warrior (and now student affairs colleague at Texas A&M Commerce) Kyle Hickman who wrote in his blog that student affairs professionals need to be authentic and honest with themselves and their students. He mad a great many points but most specifically, he urged his readers to embrace who they were for all of the benefits that would entail and all of the challenges that would present.
It was a very different message than I recieved when I sat in on a faculty hiring panel where one of the candidates stated unequivically that "student affairs was not a profession for fixing broken professionals."
Though the candidate did not go further about what he thought a broken professional looks like, but let me hazard a guess as to what society may mean when we say people are "broken" in some way.
If you have a persistent mental illness then you should not or cannot maintain a position working with college students. Or career tracks in general. Unless you are some sort of "sympathy" hire.
I disagree. I disagree vehemently.
According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, mental illness is a persistent issue in higher education, ESPECIALLY for the students we work with. In a national survey conducted, NAMI found that:
- One in three students have experienced prolonged periods of depression.
- One in seven reported difficulty functioning in school as a result of a DIAGNOSED mental illness.
And that is from students self reporting. How many students wouldn't admit that they would harm themselves?
If we are to be the authentic professionals that Kyle argues helps promote excellence in student affairs, then we have to shed the fear about mental illness, both for our students sake and our own.
Is it any wonder that student affairs professionals have such a high turnover rate? I mean, the long hours and the low pay probably do not help, but that is for another conversation for another day haha.
More specifically, we have to learn to embrace our own challenges and not see ourselves as "broken" student affairs professionals.
I have come to embrace the personal story methodology of teaching. So let me tell you mine.
I have suffered depression since I was in fourth grade. For whatever reason, blue skies depressed me and large groups scared me. There was little rhyme or reason why some days I could feel on top of the world and others I could barely get out of bed. There did not seem to be a rhyme or a reason for the shifts in my mood. I could only do my best to grin, get through the day, and get back to the residence halls again. When I tried to talk with others about it, they became more frustrated then I, especially because for all intents and purposes, I had very little I should have been depressed about.
I was one of those 10% of college students reported in the NCHA survey. I took a semester off at the urging of my fraternity and mentors at college.
After coming to accept these highs and lows, I came to embrace a regime of medication, talk therapy, (relatively) healthy eating, and excersize. Though I may never be able to fully explain why I feel the way I do some days, I can manage the consequences of something that I still do not really understand. Much like a student with diabetes may take insulin to regulate their body's sugar levels, these are the steps that I try to take to keep me fully engaged and enthusiastic about what I do.
I am also inspired and learn a lot from the students I work with. Whether it is past trauma, a chemical imbalance, or the challenges of adapting to new found freedom, students' own work teaches me just as much as the research ever has. For all of the work that we do in sexual assault and dating violence prevention, for all of the negative stories that come through in the official campus messaging, it is the survivors who continue to be engaged and the bystanders who refuse to be silent that give me hope.
Does that make me a bad student affairs professional? I would hope not. Just as I would hope that my own life story can help the students I work with move their own journey facing mental illness.
If we continue to stigmatize mental illness of any variety as some sort of false diagnoses of the "prozac generation" or as a top down response to litigation, then neither students nor professionals will truly be able to, stealing the Army's former catch phrase, be the best that they can be.
If we believe that we have to work with the complete student, then addressing mental illness in an authentic way as a professional and with our students is important from a personal, professional, and policy point of view.
There is no need for good people to abandon good pursuits. This Thanksgiving as I think about what I am thankful for, I know that the people and places that are part of my support network rank high among my VERY long list. I am also thankful for a field that does not have right or wrong answers but instead embraces an intentional model of development that allows for a process of improvement influenced by a wide variety of experiences. Including our own journey of dealing with mental illness in our own lives.
In the end, I am thankful for being able to work to be the best person I can be and I hope that others can feel the same without fear of stigma or isolation.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The Trouble With Being A "Good Guy"
I am working on a project at the University of Iowa regarding violence prevetion. It is a peer mentorship model that takes a small number of members from a particular group and fosters an environment where the participants feel comfortable opening up on a number of very controversial issues regarding masculinity, violence, sexual assault, and overall responsibility for prevention.
Almost to the individual, every member of my groups came to me saying that they considered themselves to be a "good guy" and that the behaviors we were talking about did not apply to them or their friends.
This may be an overgeneralization, but research suggests that many people would consider themselves similar "good guys." Good guys don't get violent, good guys don't abuse and exploit their friends, good guys are leaders, and good guys protect others. Certainly not all guys are blind to issues of violence, sexual assault, racism, sexism, and homophobia and other pressing issues of campus safety and respect.
And yet men as a whole are significantly more likely to be arrested or cited for an alcohol related incidents including driving under the influence. 90% or more of perpetrators of rape are men. 52% of relationships in college see some form of stalking or other forms of intimate partner violence at least once DURING COLLEGE though many are loath to admit it! In fact, partner violence, specifically sexual assault and stalking are the top crimes facing men and women between the ages of 18 - 25 according to the Department of Justice.
So where are the good men? If they are not doing these actions, then what are they doing while these acts of violence is occuring? How are they promoting or condemining these actions in word and deed? If we call ourselves leaders, do we condemn these actions in deeds? Do we glorify the proto-behaviors behind close doors? How do we react when we are confronted by behavior we feel to be inappropriate?
"It's not my problem." One student reported. Another said that he feared reprocussions towards getting involved in his friend's personal life. "If I see it, I would stop it," a third student reported. But he just doesn't see it.
These responses are not uncommon, especially amongst self-identified "Good Men." Heck, I considered my self to be a good man for the longest time! The problem is that if it were up to the victim, we would not have these problems. Good men, I would argue, need to be more aware of their surroundings and know that if they are to truly be a good men, then they need to speak up and speak out about the risks facing college students of ALL GENDERS on campuses.
The problem is that silence only abets the problems facing college campuses. Many perpetrators feel empowered to continue their behavior unless otherwise confronted by their peers. This is compounded by how the victim feels, both isolated and hurt as target. In an effort to be cool and "keep chill" amongst someone's friends, many good men say nothing. Whether they are uncomfortable, been taught to be ok with certain behaviors or jokes, or are just scared to speak up to those they otherwise respect, good men are silenced by perpetrators. But hey....words are just words right?
As Marting Luther King Jr. said, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in the moments of comfort and conveneience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
If you are looking for more information about violence on college campuses, please read the University of Iowa's Men's Anti-Violence Council blog.
So...where do you stand?
Almost to the individual, every member of my groups came to me saying that they considered themselves to be a "good guy" and that the behaviors we were talking about did not apply to them or their friends.
This may be an overgeneralization, but research suggests that many people would consider themselves similar "good guys." Good guys don't get violent, good guys don't abuse and exploit their friends, good guys are leaders, and good guys protect others. Certainly not all guys are blind to issues of violence, sexual assault, racism, sexism, and homophobia and other pressing issues of campus safety and respect.
And yet men as a whole are significantly more likely to be arrested or cited for an alcohol related incidents including driving under the influence. 90% or more of perpetrators of rape are men. 52% of relationships in college see some form of stalking or other forms of intimate partner violence at least once DURING COLLEGE though many are loath to admit it! In fact, partner violence, specifically sexual assault and stalking are the top crimes facing men and women between the ages of 18 - 25 according to the Department of Justice.
So where are the good men? If they are not doing these actions, then what are they doing while these acts of violence is occuring? How are they promoting or condemining these actions in word and deed? If we call ourselves leaders, do we condemn these actions in deeds? Do we glorify the proto-behaviors behind close doors? How do we react when we are confronted by behavior we feel to be inappropriate?
"It's not my problem." One student reported. Another said that he feared reprocussions towards getting involved in his friend's personal life. "If I see it, I would stop it," a third student reported. But he just doesn't see it.
These responses are not uncommon, especially amongst self-identified "Good Men." Heck, I considered my self to be a good man for the longest time! The problem is that if it were up to the victim, we would not have these problems. Good men, I would argue, need to be more aware of their surroundings and know that if they are to truly be a good men, then they need to speak up and speak out about the risks facing college students of ALL GENDERS on campuses.
The problem is that silence only abets the problems facing college campuses. Many perpetrators feel empowered to continue their behavior unless otherwise confronted by their peers. This is compounded by how the victim feels, both isolated and hurt as target. In an effort to be cool and "keep chill" amongst someone's friends, many good men say nothing. Whether they are uncomfortable, been taught to be ok with certain behaviors or jokes, or are just scared to speak up to those they otherwise respect, good men are silenced by perpetrators. But hey....words are just words right?
As Marting Luther King Jr. said, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in the moments of comfort and conveneience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
If you are looking for more information about violence on college campuses, please read the University of Iowa's Men's Anti-Violence Council blog.
So...where do you stand?
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Imagine...
Close your eyes for a moment, and walk with me on a thought excersize.
Imagine the six women in your life who are most influential. Or five men. How much do they mean to you? How close to them are you?
Imagine for a moment that they go out one night. As improbable as that may seem for some of them. Imagine that they are at a bar, a book club, a concert, or traveling.
Imagine that during this activity, a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, or a family member verbally insults or hits, or even sexually assaults this person close to you. How would you feel? What would you say? What would you do? For the survivor or the perpetrator?
Now imagine for a moment that this was an act not in isolation, but had been building. Warning signs may have been present and someone else who was close to you was aware and present, who witnessed the warning signs and said nothing? How would you feel? What would you say? What would you do to that bystander?
Unfortunately, this kind of scenario (in many different forms, with different people, at different places) is all too real. For students who are entering college, supposedly one of the best experiences in their lives, these kind of attacks can utterly ruin the experience and have long lasting repercussions for the survivor.
The statistics according to the Department of Justice are terrifying. One in six women and one in five men are sexually assaulted in their lifetime, many before they even get to college. Nearly 50% of 18-25 year olds reported being stalked making it one of the most significant crimes facing college students today. Also, one in three college relationships will have a violent incident occur in the partnership at least once.
Imagine a world where this is not the case...
Imagine a world where students of all genders, religions, sexual orientations, and ethnicities can grow and be themselves without fear, without hate, without bias.
I can.
It may seem naive, but I believe if we all become more observant about our own actions, inactions, and words and those from people around us, we can have a world free from violence and hate.
To accomplish this goal, it is going to take more than survivors speaking up. It's going to take more than education about how "not" to be one of those "bad" people, but it is going to take good people standing up and speaking out about issues big and small to make change.
For me, this means take a stand against violence and microaggressions. For you it might be drinking. For someone else it might be hazing, or racism, or homophobia, or whatever issue concerns you the most. But together, we can stand for what we believe is right, support each other and our friends, and continue to challenge others where their behavior may be inconsiderate, ignorant, or cruel.
Bystander behavior is a terrible thing. It allows us to become blind because we ourselves THINK we don't engage in certain behaviors. Yet we know that a large majority of people would like to speak up against hateful speech, cruel jokes, and violent behavior or words. Even innocent sounding jokes or minor acts of kidding around with others can have a significant impact. Yet people who feel like they want to speak up, feel alone. Or they don't know what to say. Or be told to "lighten up." It's cruel that the vast majority of people who are speaking are the ones who are saying inappropriate things and those who think otherwise are deligitimized as going against the grain or seen as inappropriate in their own right. As a result those who do want to intervene either feel alone, and thus may be wrong or don't know what to say.
As the Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
Imagine a world where good people are no longer silent.
I can. It looks pretty good actually...
I apologize in advance. I will begin to use this blog as an extension of my work with the Men's Anti-Violence Council here at the University of Iowa. You can find MAC blog here.
Not that I get many readers now, but if you are uninterested in imagining a personal violence free world, then this might not be the place for you.
We may not be super heroes, but together, we can make a huge impact. Speak up, speak out, and never be afraid to challenge the inappropriate.
Imagine the six women in your life who are most influential. Or five men. How much do they mean to you? How close to them are you?
Imagine for a moment that they go out one night. As improbable as that may seem for some of them. Imagine that they are at a bar, a book club, a concert, or traveling.
Imagine that during this activity, a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, or a family member verbally insults or hits, or even sexually assaults this person close to you. How would you feel? What would you say? What would you do? For the survivor or the perpetrator?
Now imagine for a moment that this was an act not in isolation, but had been building. Warning signs may have been present and someone else who was close to you was aware and present, who witnessed the warning signs and said nothing? How would you feel? What would you say? What would you do to that bystander?
Unfortunately, this kind of scenario (in many different forms, with different people, at different places) is all too real. For students who are entering college, supposedly one of the best experiences in their lives, these kind of attacks can utterly ruin the experience and have long lasting repercussions for the survivor.
The statistics according to the Department of Justice are terrifying. One in six women and one in five men are sexually assaulted in their lifetime, many before they even get to college. Nearly 50% of 18-25 year olds reported being stalked making it one of the most significant crimes facing college students today. Also, one in three college relationships will have a violent incident occur in the partnership at least once.
Imagine a world where this is not the case...
Imagine a world where students of all genders, religions, sexual orientations, and ethnicities can grow and be themselves without fear, without hate, without bias.
I can.
It may seem naive, but I believe if we all become more observant about our own actions, inactions, and words and those from people around us, we can have a world free from violence and hate.
To accomplish this goal, it is going to take more than survivors speaking up. It's going to take more than education about how "not" to be one of those "bad" people, but it is going to take good people standing up and speaking out about issues big and small to make change.
For me, this means take a stand against violence and microaggressions. For you it might be drinking. For someone else it might be hazing, or racism, or homophobia, or whatever issue concerns you the most. But together, we can stand for what we believe is right, support each other and our friends, and continue to challenge others where their behavior may be inconsiderate, ignorant, or cruel.
Bystander behavior is a terrible thing. It allows us to become blind because we ourselves THINK we don't engage in certain behaviors. Yet we know that a large majority of people would like to speak up against hateful speech, cruel jokes, and violent behavior or words. Even innocent sounding jokes or minor acts of kidding around with others can have a significant impact. Yet people who feel like they want to speak up, feel alone. Or they don't know what to say. Or be told to "lighten up." It's cruel that the vast majority of people who are speaking are the ones who are saying inappropriate things and those who think otherwise are deligitimized as going against the grain or seen as inappropriate in their own right. As a result those who do want to intervene either feel alone, and thus may be wrong or don't know what to say.
As the Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
Imagine a world where good people are no longer silent.
I can. It looks pretty good actually...
I apologize in advance. I will begin to use this blog as an extension of my work with the Men's Anti-Violence Council here at the University of Iowa. You can find MAC blog here.
Not that I get many readers now, but if you are uninterested in imagining a personal violence free world, then this might not be the place for you.
We may not be super heroes, but together, we can make a huge impact. Speak up, speak out, and never be afraid to challenge the inappropriate.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Do You Yahoo? A Warning Tale For Greek Leaders
Do You Yahoo?
At first the slogan was an obnoxious YAHOOOOOO! shout. Then it was a pleading question. Now...the second CEO in as many years is getting her walking papers as the once dominant search company was challenged and then replaced by a new upstart known as Google. But even before Yahoo came onto the scene there was "Altavista," "Excite" and even the primitave "Yahoo Directory."
Though Yahoo remains one of the largest search engines today, with almost 600 million unique visitors, it is rapidly fading into obscurity as it's board frantically searches for a new direction.
This is a particularly heart wrenching tale for me. Jerry Yang (Co-Founder and former CEO) is a Phi Kappa Psi. I also created my first independent (read non AOL) account through Yahoo.
But what does this heart wrenching story of a former Phi Psi have to tell us about Greek Life and leadership on college campuses today?
Take a look at yourself, your chapter, your community, and your campus. Where do you sit? Pretty high and mighty I might imagine? Maybe you're pushing "top tier" membership numbers with all of the best Greek Week pairings? Or maybe you win a lot of awards? Perhaps you have a lot of famous alumni/ae who speak on your behalf at University functions? Maybe you're just active in your campus community and have a lot of fun together, right?
Or maybe you're none of that.
Maybe you're looking at one more risk management hearing before you're in the Dean of Student's office defending yourself at a "show cause" hearing.
Either way, there may be a lot of reasons for where you're at. It's often times tempting to chalk up success or failure to campus climate, behavior of advisers, a particularly talented (or lethargic) recruitment chair, or maybe it was just a cloudy day and all of your members were bummed out.
Regardless, I would ask you to do what the New York Times is asking of the Yahoo Board of Directors. Don't blame the winds. Blame the ship. Take a good hard look at yourself, your leadership, and your chapter and start with yourself.
I know in these past few months I've had to do a lot of soul searching and I haven't always liked the answers I've come up with even though things are going well.
Regardless of where your chapter, your community, or your campus are at, ask yourself this: Why are we doing the things we're doing. Are we achieving what we want to be achieving? What do we gain by being successful?
Success, in and of itself, just gets you to the next benchmark be it more impressive numbers, a shinier plaque room, or a bigger chapter house. Innovation, learning, and making an impact are what creates lasting legacies. It's what separates the super large Yahoos of the world from the Googles from the up and coming social media outlets that are bringing facts from a global to the hyper local perspective.
Let us not ask if we're still relevant but why we're going to continue to be relevant.
Let's ask how we're going to make ourselves relevant and not how we're going to pass the buck on.
For the complete New York Times article, go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/technology/carol-bartz-yahoos-chief-executive-is-fired.html?_r=1&hp
At first the slogan was an obnoxious YAHOOOOOO! shout. Then it was a pleading question. Now...the second CEO in as many years is getting her walking papers as the once dominant search company was challenged and then replaced by a new upstart known as Google. But even before Yahoo came onto the scene there was "Altavista," "Excite" and even the primitave "Yahoo Directory."
Though Yahoo remains one of the largest search engines today, with almost 600 million unique visitors, it is rapidly fading into obscurity as it's board frantically searches for a new direction.
This is a particularly heart wrenching tale for me. Jerry Yang (Co-Founder and former CEO) is a Phi Kappa Psi. I also created my first independent (read non AOL) account through Yahoo.
But what does this heart wrenching story of a former Phi Psi have to tell us about Greek Life and leadership on college campuses today?
Take a look at yourself, your chapter, your community, and your campus. Where do you sit? Pretty high and mighty I might imagine? Maybe you're pushing "top tier" membership numbers with all of the best Greek Week pairings? Or maybe you win a lot of awards? Perhaps you have a lot of famous alumni/ae who speak on your behalf at University functions? Maybe you're just active in your campus community and have a lot of fun together, right?
Or maybe you're none of that.
Maybe you're looking at one more risk management hearing before you're in the Dean of Student's office defending yourself at a "show cause" hearing.
Either way, there may be a lot of reasons for where you're at. It's often times tempting to chalk up success or failure to campus climate, behavior of advisers, a particularly talented (or lethargic) recruitment chair, or maybe it was just a cloudy day and all of your members were bummed out.
Regardless, I would ask you to do what the New York Times is asking of the Yahoo Board of Directors. Don't blame the winds. Blame the ship. Take a good hard look at yourself, your leadership, and your chapter and start with yourself.
I know in these past few months I've had to do a lot of soul searching and I haven't always liked the answers I've come up with even though things are going well.
Regardless of where your chapter, your community, or your campus are at, ask yourself this: Why are we doing the things we're doing. Are we achieving what we want to be achieving? What do we gain by being successful?
Success, in and of itself, just gets you to the next benchmark be it more impressive numbers, a shinier plaque room, or a bigger chapter house. Innovation, learning, and making an impact are what creates lasting legacies. It's what separates the super large Yahoos of the world from the Googles from the up and coming social media outlets that are bringing facts from a global to the hyper local perspective.
Let us not ask if we're still relevant but why we're going to continue to be relevant.
Let's ask how we're going to make ourselves relevant and not how we're going to pass the buck on.
For the complete New York Times article, go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/technology/carol-bartz-yahoos-chief-executive-is-fired.html?_r=1&hp
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Unlock your own personal Crazy Eddie
I'll admit it...I love science fiction. Even though some of the books were "before my time" I really enjoy the so called "hard science fiction" where politics and theoretical science fact (well above my own comprehension) intersect. Perhaps one of the most enjoyable stories I've read to date is "The Mote in God's Eye" by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle published in 1973.
The story revolves around human kind finding a lost civilization bottled in an isolated part of the galaxy with no way to break out of their sector because they had neither "faster than light" drives or shields that would allow them to transfer energy as you moved through the orbits of suns. This lost civilization, known as "Motes" are otherwise VERY advanced. Through the ages, they evolved a caste like system with a very informal style of governance. Their lower tiers, or engineers, could deconstruct and rebuild items so quick it appeared as if they customized every item by magic. Moreover, they recycled almost everything and created items that would handle many functions all in one. They had a problem thought...
The Motes reproduced so quickly that every thousand years or so, their planet would become overpopulated that the loose confederations of their society would devolve into massive warfare. In time, the survivors would find their way back to these "museums" where they would rebuild their socety all over again. The Motes called these "cycles" and their caste system openly acknowledged that so long as they were stuck in their own sector they would be doomed to repeat these cycles over and over again.
Sound famaliar?
Perhaps because I've been a fraternity consultant for too long, but this immediately struck me as describing one of the fundamental problems facing any student organzation. High turnover rates in student organizations tend to facilitate similar "cycles" as Niven writes about in his book. True, we rarely see apocolyptic wars as a consequence but we do see groups that are "best of the best" turn into mediocre or even bad organizations.
I find it also interesting to note that despite the strong institutional organization (organization literally bred into this alien species) present in the Motes, they still manage to fall into the same problem over and over again. In much the same way that I've heard students tell me that they are "unique" or don't have the resources to change or cannot fight campus climate, they still barrel head on into actions with large negative consequences. True, "failing" is part of the learning process but why do we do the same thing time and time again while expecting new results?
The Motes had a term for individuals that tried to break the mold. They called those individuals Crazy Eddie, who once tried to build a time machine to change the course of history for the Mote Civilization. These individuals are roundly critized or are even exiled from the Mote society. In the end, even once the Motes found a new species, they stuck to their way and tried to hide their faults, almost leading to genocide of their people rather than reach out and be honest with the humans.
Now, I'm not saying every time machine idea should be promoted, but would it hurt to encourage others to think outside of the box? A good manager, a good scientist, and a good engineer all affirms current actions through repition but new products, new outcomes, and new innovations come from recognizing a bad situation and trying something new.
Even the best organizations suffer when all you have are good managers. So the next time you are on a retreat with your chapter (or other student organization) and you're talking about fighting apathy, promoting a positive image on campus, recruiting new individuals, or something I haven't even thought of, don't be afraid to try something new. Sometimes we all need to tap into our own Crazy Eddie.
The story revolves around human kind finding a lost civilization bottled in an isolated part of the galaxy with no way to break out of their sector because they had neither "faster than light" drives or shields that would allow them to transfer energy as you moved through the orbits of suns. This lost civilization, known as "Motes" are otherwise VERY advanced. Through the ages, they evolved a caste like system with a very informal style of governance. Their lower tiers, or engineers, could deconstruct and rebuild items so quick it appeared as if they customized every item by magic. Moreover, they recycled almost everything and created items that would handle many functions all in one. They had a problem thought...
The Motes reproduced so quickly that every thousand years or so, their planet would become overpopulated that the loose confederations of their society would devolve into massive warfare. In time, the survivors would find their way back to these "museums" where they would rebuild their socety all over again. The Motes called these "cycles" and their caste system openly acknowledged that so long as they were stuck in their own sector they would be doomed to repeat these cycles over and over again.
Sound famaliar?
Perhaps because I've been a fraternity consultant for too long, but this immediately struck me as describing one of the fundamental problems facing any student organzation. High turnover rates in student organizations tend to facilitate similar "cycles" as Niven writes about in his book. True, we rarely see apocolyptic wars as a consequence but we do see groups that are "best of the best" turn into mediocre or even bad organizations.
I find it also interesting to note that despite the strong institutional organization (organization literally bred into this alien species) present in the Motes, they still manage to fall into the same problem over and over again. In much the same way that I've heard students tell me that they are "unique" or don't have the resources to change or cannot fight campus climate, they still barrel head on into actions with large negative consequences. True, "failing" is part of the learning process but why do we do the same thing time and time again while expecting new results?
The Motes had a term for individuals that tried to break the mold. They called those individuals Crazy Eddie, who once tried to build a time machine to change the course of history for the Mote Civilization. These individuals are roundly critized or are even exiled from the Mote society. In the end, even once the Motes found a new species, they stuck to their way and tried to hide their faults, almost leading to genocide of their people rather than reach out and be honest with the humans.
Now, I'm not saying every time machine idea should be promoted, but would it hurt to encourage others to think outside of the box? A good manager, a good scientist, and a good engineer all affirms current actions through repition but new products, new outcomes, and new innovations come from recognizing a bad situation and trying something new.
Even the best organizations suffer when all you have are good managers. So the next time you are on a retreat with your chapter (or other student organization) and you're talking about fighting apathy, promoting a positive image on campus, recruiting new individuals, or something I haven't even thought of, don't be afraid to try something new. Sometimes we all need to tap into our own Crazy Eddie.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Fraternity Law, Practice, and Reality: The Fight Between FIPG and Student Decision Making
NOTE: This post is meant to ask serious questions regarding the role of litigation, liability insurance, and practice that provokes thought and conversations. It does not constitute the official position of my Fraternity, any of my future employers, or a rejection of my respect for the laws of the United States. I am curious and constantly trying to challenge my own effectiveness. These are musings I've had over the course of my two years as a consultant.
That I had to make such a disclaimer says alot about the topic of risk management education these days doesn't it?
Let's be honest with each other, many students drink in college. Not "everyone" drinks, as many chapters are fond of saying, but enough that the idea of abstinence before the age of 21 seems laughable. The problem, for Fraternity and Sorority consultants is that when we go into a chapter we are first and foremost agents of our respective organizations. Many organizations operate under the Fraternity Insurance Purchasing Group founded early in the 1990s to fight a spate of high risk incidents that drove premiums up across the board for all organizations. Though it does not directly sell insurance (as its name implies) FIPG creates a set of "risk management guidelines and educational resources to help member fraternities and sororities be more effective in their risk management policies and education efforts." These policies were adopted by 45+ Fraternities and Sororities and quickly set the standard for policies of other organizations and institutions around the country. It laid out base line definitions for "Bring Your Own Beer" events and qualifications for third party vendors. Universities and Professionals hailed these universal standards and the phrase "FIPG Compliant" become a trademark phrase around the country. This in turn led to decreasing insurance premiums for many organizations and thus everyone wins, right?
I'm not so sure.
Alcohol
As I mentioned earlier, drinking on college campuses remains high. There is a strong indication that banning alcohol consumption for those under the age of 21 does not in fact reduce college drinking and, on certain campuses where there are strict drinking enforcement regimes, may actually increase high risk drinking. This has given rise to organizations such as GAMMA (Greeks Advocating for Mature Management of Alcohol), CHOICES, and BACCHUS. All of those programs are peer education seminars where students themselves are the primary focal point NOT for abstinence but instead encourage responsible life choices. These programs show significantly more effectiveness than the average consultant visit. A survey conducted by Ohio University found that students retained 30% more information about FIPG when having a conversation with another trained undergraduate than when they heard a similar presentation from a Graduate Assitant or Fraternity / Sorority consultant. The issue is so thorny that many college presidents have gotten together and signed a public letter asking states to lower the drinking age back to 18 while promoting open and honest conversations about responsible drinking.
The liability aspect of alcohol conversations are even worse. An untrained consultant operates under a "wink, wink, nudge nudge" mentality that turns a blind eye to drinking. This denies a chapter the ability to have an open and honest conversation with a potential resource. Moreover, chapters run into the issue that the more formalized a chapter is in its risk management practices, the more likely they are to get into trouble if there is an accident. The biggest example is that of the designated driver program. As late as several years ago, even the insurance companies (including the Fraternity Insurance Purchasing Group) advocated their use. One of the greatest source of fatalities as a result of alcohol are those resulting from driving under the influence (Almost 2000 deaths of students aged 18 - 24 according to the Government in 2008-9). States pore huge resources into combating these fatali.
But then it became clear that the courts considered the organizations that sponsored the designated driver programs groups that "promoted intoxicated behavior and were responsible for the health and safety of all individuals who participated in these programs." Without proper training, student organizations were relying on younger drivers who were more prone to distraction and more likely to get into accidents. Some schools responded to this by taking the extra liability on their own shoulders and offering "safe ride" ride programs. Some institutions rejected the additional liability and continued to try and enforce abstinence at all costs. FIPG made a switch and issued a memorandum instructing Fraternities and Sororities to dissuade their chapters from utilizing these programs as well.
Suddenly, those shared standards that made FIPG so effective became liability red-herrings for many groups. The idea of a common "FIPG compliant" chapter moved away from shared standards on good risk management procedures to "legal compliant" and it became easier to use the law and liability as a hammer rather rather than promote safe practices of today's students. Schools that once utilized FIPG as a benchmark for best practices start going their own way leaving alumni, headquarter staff, and University Professionals dancing circles around each other unsure of what to say and when, in an ever expanding effort to avoid "liability."
Hazing
Hazing has been talked about almost ad-nauseum in a number of blogs, articles, and programs around the country. Needless to say the idea of hazing, in principle, activities designed to create subservience, dependence, or mental and physical harm are universally considered a detriment to the mission of Fraternity and Sorority life. I am absolutely against these practices and seek at all opportunities to discuss positive alternative programming whenever and wherever I can.
I won't comment at length here. I will merely to point out that the idea of "mental or physical harm" is such a broad definition and almost every institution has a different conception of the the idea of harm that only becomes somewhat more clear when there are claims brought against groups. Again, like the liabililty of drinking, hazing (despite our best claims) prevention does not seem to be prevention in many cases as it is selective reaction. The burden is on the consultant, the organization, and the University to take situations on a case by case basis in fighitng this scourage. The best example I can give of this double standard is the difference between a football team and a Fraternity intermural team. A Football team runs 2 a day drills at the request of its coach to develop team cohesion and develop physical endurance is a disney sports movie while a Fraternity that does the equivilant is harshley criticized. That said, I stand with most experts here in that while I am not condoning this "sports and / or military training analogy" there are some substantive issues in how we address the analogies while still maintaining the notion that we treat each student and organization relatively equitably.
Moreover, as a consultant, I'm troubled by the distinction of "minor hazing" or "little h" versuses "big H" hazing. I know that different campuses have VERY different tolerances for behavior and different responses. Sometimes looking soley to the Inter/National organizations or the alumni or sometimes working entirely in-house without any cooperation from anyone to punish hazing. For any consultant or professional who works at certain schools (specifically in the SEC among many others), these tolerances are a source of significant frustation and confusion.
The Theory
Insonsistency is a large problem for students. No one likes to be held (or think they're being held) to a double standard. There are a number of reasons why this is the case. Think about your own life experiences, in the work place, in your own classes, or in social scenarios (like the following). A man has sex with a large number of women and he's hailed as the epitome of manliness. He's sexy, he's a "player" etc, etc. A woman who has sex with a large number of men is a "slut" or is insecure about herself and lashing out as a response. How is that in any way fair?
The other example of our natural frustrations with inconsistent application of rules are speeding tickets. Just because lots of people go five miles per hour or more over the limit doesn't mean it feels any better to be the unlucky SOB who gets caught, does it?
The University Learning Outcomes Assessment demonstrates that Fraternities and Sororities tend to foster enhanced levels of student development between Freshmen and Junior years of college while plateuing during senior year compared to undergraduate peers that are "unaffiliated" or minimally affiliated with other social groups on college campuses. When you read these developements against William Perry's model of academic maturity, there are some (in my mind) significant implications.
During the first stage of academic maturity, a student operates in "dualist" thought patterns. There are right and wrong answers and they need someone to teach them those "right and wrong" responses. This is why hazing is so damaging and why many individuals do not consider hazing to actually be hazing. When a "pledge master" says that you must have 18 dollars and 52 cents on you at all times, there is no doubt that every pledge in the chapter had to do the same and that the symbols are important. As far as the pledge is concerned, it is the "right" way of doing things.
The same understanding goes for alcohol consumption. When you tell a pledge that he cannot (or must) drink, the natural mindset is to consider the rules to be "right" or "wrong" regardless of what the law says and what the campus practices are.
Most students, mainly freshmen and sophomores, tend to then morph into the second stage of Perry's model. They percieve problems in terms of problems that have solutions that they know or solutions that they don't know. When students realize that there are solutions that they don't know, they tend to go for broke as it were. Most schools play on this desire and encourage experiential learning as a major component of their first and second year curriculum. They hope that through hands on application and taking ownership over their own experiences, freshmen and sophomores will gain a bigger impact from their lessons than if they were in lecture classes alone.
Fraternity and Sorority students tend to fall into the same pattern. As they're exposed to more chapters (either at national events or through Greek Leadership Conferences), they tend to find that the comfortable world of pledging is no long as simple as they thought. Since few people follow "the rules" exactly as it is drilled into them from their Pledge Masters, their consultants, and the University officials, it is natural to want to experiment with a wide range of issues from alcohol, to drugs, even different world views and chapter operations. If left unconstrained, there is a great potential for damage both physically and emotionally vis a vis a student or a chapter's social actions as a result of running afoul of "The Rules."
The third major stage of Perry's model indicates that students become "relativists" or "proceduralists." In this stage, you begin to find significant chapter leadership for better or worse. Without clear rules, a student believes their situation to be "truly unique" and thus each response to any event must be viewed in context of their individual circumstance. Here we find chapters responding to critiques of their behavior and their procedures with the common refrain that "well, that doesn't work here because we're UNIQUE (or different)." However, in later stages of relativism, leaders may see the need to create proactive or alternative solutions. This is where most institutions begin modifying or "straying" from FIPG to accomidate the experiences of their individual chapters. We see this in the use of "off campus" or "annex" houses (apartments leased by seniors), bus parties, designated driver programs, and "alternative" or gimmick based new member education programs. Ironically, all of these may be influenced by consultants constantly challenging chapters to mix things up and engage in proactive leadership. Not to mention all of the ideas that students pick up from each other and other organizations!
Finally, while Perry does not make a normative claim on the value of the final stage of intellectual maturity, his framework is clearly where our Inter/National organizaitons are going. Perry talks about students making solid committments, facing challenges to those values based committments and learning that these committments are life long.
Doesn't that sound like "living your values" argument or "having a life long chapter obligation" rather than a three to four year committment?
Conclusion
The problems are multiple. First and foremost, consultants (often the face and the teachers of risk management) are not trained adequately to make simple declarative statements about the risk of running afoul of the liability line of FIPG. Second, even if you could make a cogent argument to follow the law to the T, you're not meeting students at their developmental level. Talking about brotherhood and love as a retention model while looking to the future of the chapter reflects a stage four development more often seen in seniors if it is seen at all in a chapter. Moreover it may well confuse the new members while frustrating the stage two and three leaders who see their model as "unique." Third, when talking about risk, you really are dealing in a relative argument that plays to the second and third stages of Perry's model of intellectual development. You frustrate those freshmen, sophomores, and juniors who are still looking for a line in the sand that they cannot cross and when you do put a line in the sand you run the risk of running afoul of the FIPG standards yourself let alone put your organization and the school at risk of a liability claim. Finally, you're a fighitng a culture where 90% of students make positive and constructive life decisions EVEN WHILE DRINKING and as thus, they don't see the risk that that poses to the bottom 10% who suffer from personal emotional issues that create the probability of further harm and conflict in the chapter.
Peer counseling is definitely a way to address these issues. Reducing The Rules, at least in the legal restrictions of drinking in college where personal experience trump any consultant, may be a significant step. Standardizing enforcement and making enforcement more transpearent is another great step.
Unfortunately, so long as students will be students (ie making mistakes) and the rules are so complex that any Fraternity and Sorority event presents some signficant liability while the victims of drinking are just as criminalized as their providers, then students will always remain unsure of where the line is until they cross it.
I do not condone under-age and irresponsible drinking. Nor do I condone hazing or acitvities that are designed to seperate and pit new classes of men and women against the older (or at least create the appearence thereof), but I do believe there is a significant problem with our liability models. I think that all chapters (and their alumni advisors) think of increasing measures to protect themselves and their brothers, they demonstrate further involvement in often times risky and often illegal (but accepted behavior) which should be integrated into our judicial process and the way we determine liability settlements in the courts. I also believe that de-criminalizing drinking (as the amethyst intiative suggests for adults over the age of 18) would also help us. Since then we could focus on educating against truly harmful behaviors.
There's certainly no perfect answer. I wish it would be as simple as promoting the ideals of brotherhood and sisterhood and that chapters that recruited properly grew at greater sizes than those that didn't. But there are a lot of conflicting models where bad practices win big and good practices flounder. These mis-gotten successes will only encourage others to make similar decisions with potentially radically different (and not positive) results.
As one Greek Advisor told me "Love is a Recruitment and Retention Strategy. We just need to find a lever to teach love."
How do you teach a concept such as love?
Some resources:
http://www.amethystinitiative.org/
http://www.bacchusgamma.org/mission.asp
http://www.stophazing.org/index.html
http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/
That I had to make such a disclaimer says alot about the topic of risk management education these days doesn't it?
Let's be honest with each other, many students drink in college. Not "everyone" drinks, as many chapters are fond of saying, but enough that the idea of abstinence before the age of 21 seems laughable. The problem, for Fraternity and Sorority consultants is that when we go into a chapter we are first and foremost agents of our respective organizations. Many organizations operate under the Fraternity Insurance Purchasing Group founded early in the 1990s to fight a spate of high risk incidents that drove premiums up across the board for all organizations. Though it does not directly sell insurance (as its name implies) FIPG creates a set of "risk management guidelines and educational resources to help member fraternities and sororities be more effective in their risk management policies and education efforts." These policies were adopted by 45+ Fraternities and Sororities and quickly set the standard for policies of other organizations and institutions around the country. It laid out base line definitions for "Bring Your Own Beer" events and qualifications for third party vendors. Universities and Professionals hailed these universal standards and the phrase "FIPG Compliant" become a trademark phrase around the country. This in turn led to decreasing insurance premiums for many organizations and thus everyone wins, right?
I'm not so sure.
Alcohol
As I mentioned earlier, drinking on college campuses remains high. There is a strong indication that banning alcohol consumption for those under the age of 21 does not in fact reduce college drinking and, on certain campuses where there are strict drinking enforcement regimes, may actually increase high risk drinking. This has given rise to organizations such as GAMMA (Greeks Advocating for Mature Management of Alcohol), CHOICES, and BACCHUS. All of those programs are peer education seminars where students themselves are the primary focal point NOT for abstinence but instead encourage responsible life choices. These programs show significantly more effectiveness than the average consultant visit. A survey conducted by Ohio University found that students retained 30% more information about FIPG when having a conversation with another trained undergraduate than when they heard a similar presentation from a Graduate Assitant or Fraternity / Sorority consultant. The issue is so thorny that many college presidents have gotten together and signed a public letter asking states to lower the drinking age back to 18 while promoting open and honest conversations about responsible drinking.
The liability aspect of alcohol conversations are even worse. An untrained consultant operates under a "wink, wink, nudge nudge" mentality that turns a blind eye to drinking. This denies a chapter the ability to have an open and honest conversation with a potential resource. Moreover, chapters run into the issue that the more formalized a chapter is in its risk management practices, the more likely they are to get into trouble if there is an accident. The biggest example is that of the designated driver program. As late as several years ago, even the insurance companies (including the Fraternity Insurance Purchasing Group) advocated their use. One of the greatest source of fatalities as a result of alcohol are those resulting from driving under the influence (Almost 2000 deaths of students aged 18 - 24 according to the Government in 2008-9). States pore huge resources into combating these fatali.
But then it became clear that the courts considered the organizations that sponsored the designated driver programs groups that "promoted intoxicated behavior and were responsible for the health and safety of all individuals who participated in these programs." Without proper training, student organizations were relying on younger drivers who were more prone to distraction and more likely to get into accidents. Some schools responded to this by taking the extra liability on their own shoulders and offering "safe ride" ride programs. Some institutions rejected the additional liability and continued to try and enforce abstinence at all costs. FIPG made a switch and issued a memorandum instructing Fraternities and Sororities to dissuade their chapters from utilizing these programs as well.
Suddenly, those shared standards that made FIPG so effective became liability red-herrings for many groups. The idea of a common "FIPG compliant" chapter moved away from shared standards on good risk management procedures to "legal compliant" and it became easier to use the law and liability as a hammer rather rather than promote safe practices of today's students. Schools that once utilized FIPG as a benchmark for best practices start going their own way leaving alumni, headquarter staff, and University Professionals dancing circles around each other unsure of what to say and when, in an ever expanding effort to avoid "liability."
Hazing
Hazing has been talked about almost ad-nauseum in a number of blogs, articles, and programs around the country. Needless to say the idea of hazing, in principle, activities designed to create subservience, dependence, or mental and physical harm are universally considered a detriment to the mission of Fraternity and Sorority life. I am absolutely against these practices and seek at all opportunities to discuss positive alternative programming whenever and wherever I can.
I won't comment at length here. I will merely to point out that the idea of "mental or physical harm" is such a broad definition and almost every institution has a different conception of the the idea of harm that only becomes somewhat more clear when there are claims brought against groups. Again, like the liabililty of drinking, hazing (despite our best claims) prevention does not seem to be prevention in many cases as it is selective reaction. The burden is on the consultant, the organization, and the University to take situations on a case by case basis in fighitng this scourage. The best example I can give of this double standard is the difference between a football team and a Fraternity intermural team. A Football team runs 2 a day drills at the request of its coach to develop team cohesion and develop physical endurance is a disney sports movie while a Fraternity that does the equivilant is harshley criticized. That said, I stand with most experts here in that while I am not condoning this "sports and / or military training analogy" there are some substantive issues in how we address the analogies while still maintaining the notion that we treat each student and organization relatively equitably.
Moreover, as a consultant, I'm troubled by the distinction of "minor hazing" or "little h" versuses "big H" hazing. I know that different campuses have VERY different tolerances for behavior and different responses. Sometimes looking soley to the Inter/National organizations or the alumni or sometimes working entirely in-house without any cooperation from anyone to punish hazing. For any consultant or professional who works at certain schools (specifically in the SEC among many others), these tolerances are a source of significant frustation and confusion.
The Theory
Insonsistency is a large problem for students. No one likes to be held (or think they're being held) to a double standard. There are a number of reasons why this is the case. Think about your own life experiences, in the work place, in your own classes, or in social scenarios (like the following). A man has sex with a large number of women and he's hailed as the epitome of manliness. He's sexy, he's a "player" etc, etc. A woman who has sex with a large number of men is a "slut" or is insecure about herself and lashing out as a response. How is that in any way fair?
The other example of our natural frustrations with inconsistent application of rules are speeding tickets. Just because lots of people go five miles per hour or more over the limit doesn't mean it feels any better to be the unlucky SOB who gets caught, does it?
The University Learning Outcomes Assessment demonstrates that Fraternities and Sororities tend to foster enhanced levels of student development between Freshmen and Junior years of college while plateuing during senior year compared to undergraduate peers that are "unaffiliated" or minimally affiliated with other social groups on college campuses. When you read these developements against William Perry's model of academic maturity, there are some (in my mind) significant implications.
During the first stage of academic maturity, a student operates in "dualist" thought patterns. There are right and wrong answers and they need someone to teach them those "right and wrong" responses. This is why hazing is so damaging and why many individuals do not consider hazing to actually be hazing. When a "pledge master" says that you must have 18 dollars and 52 cents on you at all times, there is no doubt that every pledge in the chapter had to do the same and that the symbols are important. As far as the pledge is concerned, it is the "right" way of doing things.
The same understanding goes for alcohol consumption. When you tell a pledge that he cannot (or must) drink, the natural mindset is to consider the rules to be "right" or "wrong" regardless of what the law says and what the campus practices are.
Most students, mainly freshmen and sophomores, tend to then morph into the second stage of Perry's model. They percieve problems in terms of problems that have solutions that they know or solutions that they don't know. When students realize that there are solutions that they don't know, they tend to go for broke as it were. Most schools play on this desire and encourage experiential learning as a major component of their first and second year curriculum. They hope that through hands on application and taking ownership over their own experiences, freshmen and sophomores will gain a bigger impact from their lessons than if they were in lecture classes alone.
Fraternity and Sorority students tend to fall into the same pattern. As they're exposed to more chapters (either at national events or through Greek Leadership Conferences), they tend to find that the comfortable world of pledging is no long as simple as they thought. Since few people follow "the rules" exactly as it is drilled into them from their Pledge Masters, their consultants, and the University officials, it is natural to want to experiment with a wide range of issues from alcohol, to drugs, even different world views and chapter operations. If left unconstrained, there is a great potential for damage both physically and emotionally vis a vis a student or a chapter's social actions as a result of running afoul of "The Rules."
The third major stage of Perry's model indicates that students become "relativists" or "proceduralists." In this stage, you begin to find significant chapter leadership for better or worse. Without clear rules, a student believes their situation to be "truly unique" and thus each response to any event must be viewed in context of their individual circumstance. Here we find chapters responding to critiques of their behavior and their procedures with the common refrain that "well, that doesn't work here because we're UNIQUE (or different)." However, in later stages of relativism, leaders may see the need to create proactive or alternative solutions. This is where most institutions begin modifying or "straying" from FIPG to accomidate the experiences of their individual chapters. We see this in the use of "off campus" or "annex" houses (apartments leased by seniors), bus parties, designated driver programs, and "alternative" or gimmick based new member education programs. Ironically, all of these may be influenced by consultants constantly challenging chapters to mix things up and engage in proactive leadership. Not to mention all of the ideas that students pick up from each other and other organizations!
Finally, while Perry does not make a normative claim on the value of the final stage of intellectual maturity, his framework is clearly where our Inter/National organizaitons are going. Perry talks about students making solid committments, facing challenges to those values based committments and learning that these committments are life long.
Doesn't that sound like "living your values" argument or "having a life long chapter obligation" rather than a three to four year committment?
Conclusion
The problems are multiple. First and foremost, consultants (often the face and the teachers of risk management) are not trained adequately to make simple declarative statements about the risk of running afoul of the liability line of FIPG. Second, even if you could make a cogent argument to follow the law to the T, you're not meeting students at their developmental level. Talking about brotherhood and love as a retention model while looking to the future of the chapter reflects a stage four development more often seen in seniors if it is seen at all in a chapter. Moreover it may well confuse the new members while frustrating the stage two and three leaders who see their model as "unique." Third, when talking about risk, you really are dealing in a relative argument that plays to the second and third stages of Perry's model of intellectual development. You frustrate those freshmen, sophomores, and juniors who are still looking for a line in the sand that they cannot cross and when you do put a line in the sand you run the risk of running afoul of the FIPG standards yourself let alone put your organization and the school at risk of a liability claim. Finally, you're a fighitng a culture where 90% of students make positive and constructive life decisions EVEN WHILE DRINKING and as thus, they don't see the risk that that poses to the bottom 10% who suffer from personal emotional issues that create the probability of further harm and conflict in the chapter.
Peer counseling is definitely a way to address these issues. Reducing The Rules, at least in the legal restrictions of drinking in college where personal experience trump any consultant, may be a significant step. Standardizing enforcement and making enforcement more transpearent is another great step.
Unfortunately, so long as students will be students (ie making mistakes) and the rules are so complex that any Fraternity and Sorority event presents some signficant liability while the victims of drinking are just as criminalized as their providers, then students will always remain unsure of where the line is until they cross it.
I do not condone under-age and irresponsible drinking. Nor do I condone hazing or acitvities that are designed to seperate and pit new classes of men and women against the older (or at least create the appearence thereof), but I do believe there is a significant problem with our liability models. I think that all chapters (and their alumni advisors) think of increasing measures to protect themselves and their brothers, they demonstrate further involvement in often times risky and often illegal (but accepted behavior) which should be integrated into our judicial process and the way we determine liability settlements in the courts. I also believe that de-criminalizing drinking (as the amethyst intiative suggests for adults over the age of 18) would also help us. Since then we could focus on educating against truly harmful behaviors.
There's certainly no perfect answer. I wish it would be as simple as promoting the ideals of brotherhood and sisterhood and that chapters that recruited properly grew at greater sizes than those that didn't. But there are a lot of conflicting models where bad practices win big and good practices flounder. These mis-gotten successes will only encourage others to make similar decisions with potentially radically different (and not positive) results.
As one Greek Advisor told me "Love is a Recruitment and Retention Strategy. We just need to find a lever to teach love."
How do you teach a concept such as love?
Some resources:
http://www.amethystinitiative.org/
http://www.bacchusgamma.org/mission.asp
http://www.stophazing.org/index.html
http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)