This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Compounding this issue was the lack of any members from an objective third-party pledge class. The first pledge class held all of the positions of leadership within the fraternity, while the other pledge class comprised the general body. However, the general body did not grant authority to the leadership to lead; conversely, leadership believed that this power should have been inherent with their positions. Leadership would take credit for any activity that was done well; their logic was that great leadership must have been a factor of success. Activities that did not end as planned were blamed on the general body for being incompetent workers. The opposite was true of the general body. If an activity went well, it was because of the hard work they committed; if an activity failed, it was because the leadership did not provide adequate direction. These actions and attitudes continued within the fraternity until all of the members graduated....
View Full Document
- Spring '11