One of my jobs as an alternate is to sit in on committee meetings and the like, mine being Bylaws Purple. We handle all sorts of resolutions that deal specificily with modifying the Grand Chapter Bylaws, and in effect the local bylaws of every chapter.

So after a heated morning in committee (none of the resolutions passed easily, even the military status debate caused us to have to table it until tomorrow morning), we managed to send two resolutions to the Conclave floor. Both dealt with academics.

R3 -- Raising the chapter GPA requirement

I'll omit the reasoning (although it is your standard "being the best" rhetoric), however the most important action taken so far this Conclave in my opinion is the following:

RESOLVED: That the standard for chapter academic performance be increased to read, "Chapter G.P.A. must be at or above a 2.6 using a standard 4.0 system"

So what? A tenth of a point increase is hardly something to write home about. However, it was the action in 1997 that set us on course for breaking a 3.02 national average. It was a sight to behold as chapter after chapter came to the microphone to either urge passage or defeat of this ammendment. It was almost as if two schools of thought were told that only one could remain. The resolution took well over half an hour to debate, with seemingly more dissent than support. Chief among them:

  • We will lose guys if we increase the GPA requirement.
  • We are a social fraternity, not an honor society.
  • Some schools are harder than others.

The benefits on the plus side are bit more grounded:

  • Administrators are going to respect the move as a credit to the fraternity as a leader in the greek system
  • Our aim is the Phi Beta Kappa Wheelhouse (a 3.25 overall chapter GPA), so why set the bar at 2.5?
  • Contentment breeds mediocrity, and the only way to go is down if we don't push the envelope
  • Even chapters on the bubble will have ample time to make the changes needed to accomodate a one-tenth increase.

The resolution passed, albeit by a slimmer margin than most would have liked. I heard very, very heated remarks after its passage, saying that "nationals is killing us!" The decision was made by our peers, not the man behind the curtain. It's a long time coming.

R4 -- Increasing the minimum standards of membership

With the former resolution passing, a lot of the fight was taken out of the "more of the same" crowd. That didn't stop a few determined individuals to attempt to stop the bleeding. The resolution was to increase the minimum standard of membership from a 2.2 to a 2.4 (it had been a 2.5, but the committee dropped it a tenth to boost its chance at passage. This one sailed through by a 15-4 margin, but the voice on the legislation floor was a lot louder.

Again, we heard about how manpower would suffer, good guys would be be unavailable for leadership roles, etc. I suppose I sound a bit cold in all of this, but our chapter has had a 2.5 standard since this past spring, and our overall GPA hasn't been below a 2.6 in our recorded history.

The resolution also passed by a slim margin. I think it should have retained the 2.5 mark, but I also understand the concept of "small wins" to achieve the greater good.

On to Friday

The moral of the story is that our chapters have got to quit thinking that the aim of college is squeek by and enjoy the frat life. Until we all can recognize that our GPA and BAC are inversely porportional, and that we are a fraternity of men, not just "good guys," any of our talk of being "balanced men" is nothing more than an expensive marketing plan.