Policing what members of a club do in their spare time?

[NOVA Lady]

I think the leader is so far over the line it isn't in her sigh anymore.

People are allowed to have free will and make friendships and friend groups at their will. I think as long as they don't rub the smaller group in anyone's face, probably by never talking about it, that it doesn't really concern the main group or the leader of it.

I think its pretty tyrannical for the leader of a group to go dictating about what other groups members can be a part of and create. This will surely bite her in the end. Others will not want to stick with a group that places such limits on personal freedom and who expands so much effort digging into the member's private activities.

[TychaBrahe]

I think such things are actually good.

When you get a bunch of people together for interest x, some of them are going to naturally be interested in other things in common.  In a group of 50 martial arts students, surely more than one of them knits, enjoys anime, watches American Idol, is a member of the SCA, does hatha yoga, and so forth.  There are two ways they can address this mutual extracurricular interest.  They can either spend free time in class (when chatting is permitted) chatting about this other interest, which I think would really alienate the other students, or they can meet away from the group to indulge in their mutual other interest.

I've been involved with splinter groups like this and while I wouldn't call the splinter groups CIA eyes-only secret, I have found that it's better not to discuss them around other members of the larger group.  Because some people who don't like other interest want to be included because it's a meeting of club members.  The fact that it's a gathering of club members who also enjoy other interest ABOUT other interest does not reach them.  They want to be included.  And then they are the wet blanket wanting to know why we always have to go to the Irish pub and can't go to the techno club when everyone else is a Celtic music fan; or why do we have to watch another horror movie, can't we watch Shakespeare in Love, and so on.

(I don't entirely fault people for wanting to be included.  I feel a bit left out when people in my knitting circle whom I like go off to a spinning retreat.  The fact that I don't spin and don't want to learn how and have publicly stated that I don't need or want another expensive yarn-related hobby makes me feel a bit chagrined that I have these feelings of being abandoned.  But I recognize that that is *my* issue.  Not everyone is willing to admit that it's OK for their friends to have other friends and other interests.)

I remember very well being at my knitting group and discovering that another person was a Connie Willis fan.  We went off about it for at least twenty minutes, totally preventing any other conversations from starting in our area of the room.  And then we ganged up on this other woman who had no idea what we were talking about: "OK, you *have* to read 'To Say Nothing of the Dog.'  It's imperative."  "But shouldn't she read 'Firewatch' first?"  "No, 'Firewatch' is in a book of short stories.  They'd be distracting."  "No, read The Domesday Book.'  It's shorter"  "It's so depressing, though.  'To Say Nothing of the Dog' is a love story, see, set in both the future and the past, and..."  "But you have to know, since you like cats, that there's been feline distemper that's killed them all."  "But there are cats in the book, in the past part."  At the time, I felt like I was high, and it was a gleeful, joyous thing.  Looking back, we were being really rude to everyone sitting around us, and probably obnoxious as well.  We would have been much better off retiring to a pub afterward.  At least Emily forgives us, as I lent her my copy of Bellwether, and she really liked it.

[Lisbeth]

Well, they're not keeping the existence of the subgroup secret-they let it be known in the main group that the subgroup exists. 

They didn't--the OP states that the sensei had to do a lot of snooping to find it at all.

I wonder what gave the sensei reason to snoop, though.  Apparently someone said something that told her that something secret was going on.

[RandomAngel]

Why is the "secret" part disconcerting? Lots of people customize their FB activities to be available to some friends but not all.

Sure they do, but they don't create a secret Facebook group for "My REAL Friends" and remind members not to talk about it so no one else's feelings get hurt.

I have no issue with being better friends with some people than others--that's human nature. But why go to the trouble of creating a group to formalize it? There are a million ways to communicate with your friends without making a secret club out of it. Count me in with the people who find the "personality"'s choices in this matter unnecessarily clique-y.

[katycoo]

Well, they're not keeping the existence of the subgroup secret-they let it be known in the main group that the subgroup exists.  I think that if they had wanted not to hurt feelings, they would have done more to keep it secret.  Even if nobody in this secret group said anything to the effect of "nya-nya," it can come off as "nya-nya" when members of such a group allow the existence of such a group to become known.  And by letting it known that so-and-so in the main group didn't make the cut to be in this secret group, that can throw up a roadblock to future friendship.

Subgroups within larger groups are in and of themselves fine.  But I think the polite way to truly stay "secret" is to not let it be known that they exist if secret existence is what they want.

I'm guessing that the revealing of the group was accidental.  I'm sure we all agree that ideally the group should have stayed completely unknown to others.

But the cat's out of the bag now - should the group be forced to disband or leave the class?

Well, they're not keeping the existence of the subgroup secret-they let it be known in the main group that the subgroup exists. 

They didn't--the OP states that the sensei had to do a lot of snooping to find it at all.

I wonder what gave the sensei reason to snoop, though.  Apparently someone said something that told her that something secret was going on.

Maybe they're just a weird stalkery person with nothing better to do?  Or mabe someone slipped in their earshot?  Who knows?

[katycoo]

There are a million ways to communicate with your friends without making a secret club out of it. Count me in with the people who find the "personality"'s choices in this matter unnecessarily clique-y.

I personally, find this to be a very efficient way for a group of people to communicate with each other. Its much easier to read conversations than by email as you don't get split conversations if 2 people reply at the same time.

[vTenebrae]

I think the leader is wrong to try to prevent members of the main club from forming their own club on Facebook, doing their own socializing, etc. merely because their group is not open to all members of the club.

But if the secret club-within-a-club was used to do things that actually undermine the main club, such as competing with them, back-stabbing them (so to speak if not actually), or harassing members of the main club who are not members of the secret group, I can see where that would be really problematic for the leader of the main club.  I suppose she could ask the secret members (if she knows who they are) to leave the main club, but I'm not sure.

Wouldn't that fall into the category of being an "interesting assumption", unless you have actual proof of that this is the driving motivation of the secret group?

[Lisbeth]

Would it seem as cliquey if the word "private" were used instead of the word "secret"?

"Private" does seem to have a more benign ring to it, doesn't it?

[bobsyouruncle]

There are a million ways to communicate with your friends without making a secret club out of it. Count me in with the people who find the "personality"'s choices in this matter unnecessarily clique-y.

I personally, find this to be a very efficient way for a group of people to communicate with each other. Its much easier to read conversations than by email as you don't get split conversations if 2 people reply at the same time.

I've got to agree - It's much easier to be able to get info to a number of people at once instead of having to track them all down individually (and risk missing one too!)  I actually have a number of lists on my cell phone so I can text multiple people at once, I have e-mail lists that do the same thing. 

[bobsyouruncle]

I think the leader is wrong to try to prevent members of the main club from forming their own club on Facebook, doing their own socializing, etc. merely because their group is not open to all members of the club.

But if the secret club-within-a-club was used to do things that actually undermine the main club, such as competing with them, back-stabbing them (so to speak if not actually), or harassing members of the main club who are not members of the secret group, I can see where that would be really problematic for the leader of the main club.  I suppose she could ask the secret members (if she knows who they are) to leave the main club, but I'm not sure.

Wouldn't that fall into the category of being an "interesting assumption", unless you have actual proof of that this is the driving motivation of the secret group?

Missed this the first time reading the thread but I definitely agree with vTenebrae - that's a pretty big leap to make based on the info in the OP

[yokozbornak]

To be honest, I can see where a club leader would not like this at all.  Having a super-secret group for a special 15% of the club sounds very clique-y to me, and cliques can be very corrosive to group dynamics, especially if the club is trying to foster a open, friendly atmosphere.

She is probably not going about it the right way, but I can see her wanting to get rid of it.

But it doesn't sound like that at all. From the information in the OP, the Facebook group doesn't seem to be for club activities, and is not excluding members who don't belong to it from any activities concerning the club.

IDK, "a longstanding personality within the club" creating a super secret group for "her" friends within the club, all long term members, sounds like a clique to me.

So, do you have a problem with the group, or the friendship?  Any club that requires members to all be friends equaly is just silly, and kidding themselves.

Since you're coming at the angle of someone not included in the group - clearly you aren't close friends with these people, so why do you care?  Assuming of course they are still friendly and act as they have always done in class.

Alternatively, would you prefer your social interactions to not include people you don't especially like?  I do.  I like to hang with people whose company I enjoy.  In a class environment it doesn't matter so much as socialisation isn't why I'm there.

  Wow, I don't have a problem with anything.  I'm saying it sounds like a clique, and I can see why someone wouldn't want that in their club.  I am making no statements about forcing people to interact with people they don't like.  Geez.

But, if this is just a "social group for people who are already close friends" why is it "super-secret"? (And apparently not as secret as they think... "Don't talk about this at the club" must be at least implied somewhere.

The bolded is the question I had also.  If this group is alreadly friends and made a private facebook page, I wouldn't see an issue, but the OP's wording implies that this is a super secret, special subset within the original club.  I could see how that would make others uncomfortable and cause hurt feelings.  I could see where the leader would have an issue if our club now has an unofficial offshoot.  Do I think her actions were reasonable?  Truthfully, I don't know.  If she feels the group was being undermined or harmed because of this subset, then I can see her reasoning. If she is just trying to exercise control over this group, she is being unreasonable.

On a personal note, I belong to a fairly large mom's group and I have seen things like this happen. It's only normal that certain people are going to hit it off and become better friends with some people than others.  Some of the ladies and their families socialize together often and no one has a problem with that.  Some of us formed a Bunco group and no one has a problem.  There are a couple of ladies though who always take this kind of thing to the next level and it always creates a problem. 

For example, one mom contacted the place where we meet (for free - they usually charge for renting the space) to tell them she wanted to hold a party for our mom's group.  The person in charge allowed her to use the space for free since she assumed it was for the group.  The mom then proceeds to invite about a third of the mom's to the party with a note of caution in the invite not to say anything about the party because it was not an "official" event. I was actually invited and still have the invitation somewhere in the vast recess of my inbox.  Of course, people found out about it and feelings were hurt.  If she had just had a party at her house and invited a third of the group, no one would have thought twice about it.  It's the way she handled it that caused the issue.  I am not sure how this group handled it, but I can see the potential for issues.

[TychaBrahe]

Why is the "secret" part disconcerting? Lots of people customize their FB activities to be available to some friends but not all.

Sure they do, but they don't create a secret Facebook group for "My REAL Friends" and remind members not to talk about it so no one else's feelings get hurt.

I don't think there has to be a "real friends" thing about it.  That's one person's interpretation.

I run a group on Facebook for fans of my favorite radio show.  It's not private.  Heck, I'd like to have ten times the members.  Also, there isn't much posting.  Mostly I post if I see the host doing something else, like a CNN interview, or being reviewed by a media pundit, or if he's filling in for other people, so fans know to tune in during those times.

Now, since I don't post there much there's no reason to keep the group private, but if I were the type to post several hundred times a day, "OMCC he's so FANTASTIC!" I probably wouldn't want the rest of my friends to see that, and I wouldn't want to bother them with the frequency of the posting.

Soldier's Angels has a public Facebook group and maybe two dozen private groups.  The private groups are team and/or state related.  I'm a member of the Illinois page, the Ladies of Liberty page (Angels who have adopted female soldiers), and the Forum.  The reason that these groups are private is because we share our own addresses for projects and we may share our soldiers' address for crossed support.  (As in, "Hey, my soldier's birthday is at the end of his month.  Cards go to...")  We pledge not to share our soldier's address with anyone in the public, because we have had people sign up for the purpose of sending hate mail to our troops.  Every one of us in those groups is an Approved Angel, so we know that we can trust them with both our information and our soldiers' as well.

Now, do the Living Legends team members share friendship and jokes that I'm not privy to?  Yes, most likely.  Do I feel excluded by this?  Yes, a bit.  Does this mean I should get free and unfettered access to everything I want to, just because I want to?  Nope. 

[Lisbeth]

I think the leader is wrong to try to prevent members of the main club from forming their own club on Facebook, doing their own socializing, etc. merely because their group is not open to all members of the club.

But if the secret club-within-a-club was used to do things that actually undermine the main club, such as competing with them, back-stabbing them (so to speak if not actually), or harassing members of the main club who are not members of the secret group, I can see where that would be really problematic for the leader of the main club.  I suppose she could ask the secret members (if she knows who they are) to leave the main club, but I'm not sure.

Wouldn't that fall into the category of being an "interesting assumption", unless you have actual proof of that this is the driving motivation of the secret group?

Well, I said "if" those things are going on.  I certainly don't have any actual proof that this is the driving motivation of the secret group.  And even with this group being secret, the only way I could see it being anyone else's business would be if this secret group is being used to do any of these things.

It does bother me that somehow there was enough information out there that the sensei felt the need to investigate it further.  I in no way justify her point of view-but yeah, depending on how this secret group interacts with everyone else, there could be problems if this group is giving off a feeling to others that they're a clique.

[Shiraz_Much?]

Listen, in my opinion, it doesn't matter whether or not you think it is right or wrong....the point is that the leader has no business trying to regulate it whatsoever! And the fact that the senses is punishing members is so far out of line....it is beyond bonkers.

[vTenebrae]

Frankly, there are far too many people who use the word clique to actually mean "anything that doesn't include me".  It's specific language used to demonize people for preferring the company of others over you (general you). 

A private/secret group doesn't necessarily mean anything but "I really like to be around these people and I feel comfortable sharing intimate and personal parts of my life with them.." 

I'm sorry, but I believe I should be allowed privacy amoung my friends where intimate details of my life (and the lives of others within said group) are shared.  I don't believe that should warrant any kind of witch hunt or assumptions about said group, just because some people are excluded.

I had lots of friends in HS.  Some I hung out with privately, away from specific people because.. ya know.. they told everyone my personal business.  I think I was justified.

I believe this situation sounds similar.