I take personal exception to your blanketed statement

My father is a Gentleman of the Kappa Alpha Order. He is most assuredly not racist or bigotted in any manner. His ability to see the greatness in all served him well during a decorated Air Force career.

He is however, prejudiced and quite intolerant against ignorance, laziness, deception and intrenched refusal to learn and appreciate intellegent discussion on all topics; no matter the demographics of the individual uttering such.

Some fall prey to the idea that southern = racist. Phigam, having your broad knowledge of American history to fall back on you know:
1.) Slavery existed in the U.S.A. throughout and after the WBTS.
2.) The Emancipation Proclaimation freed slaves in the C.S.A., NOT the U.S.A.
3.) After the War, many northern cities passed legislation barring freed slaves from living there.

. . . and so on, and so on. My point? That by celebrating southern heritage KA is most assuredly NOT celebrating racism. Racism, unfortunately, exists everywhere. I think it is dangerous for non-southerners to smugly assume it does not. It allows them to believe the issue doesn't affect them and isn't something they should consider and fight.
Are there racist KAs? Sure. Just as there are racist FIJIs, and every other GLO. Let me point out - the campus culture will have a great deal more to do with whether or not 1.) minorities even go through IFC rush and 2.) they are given bids. At some campuses, the BGLO are so strong that there is not much, if any, interest in minorities in pursuing membership in a traditionally white GLO. If you look at composites, they might be lily white, and you might assume they are racists.

I'm reminded of when cries of "Racism!" were leveled against the SMU Panhellenic. Turns out, no minorities(specifically, blacks) had gone through recruitment. (!!!) Once some did, some did indeed receive bids.

There are so many variables to why someone might not be given a bid. In fact, a very non-racist member might chose NOT to give a minority a bid if they felt their brothers would not be as accepting or positive about his pledgeship. Be very careful of making gross generalizations.

I don't think anyone should assume racism because a chapter is "lily white." The absence of something doesn't equal racism unless certain practices are found that attempt to deter nonwhites from participating in chapters' events or going through recruitment.

And, yes, every fraternity and sorority has chapters that go out of their way to keep certain people (whether that's based on race, social class, hair color, etc.) from programs or recruitment activities.

Makes sense. But, keep in mind that this still goes back to the many factors that contribute to why some minorities do not go through recruitment.



So instead of questioning the status quo, these people go right along with it.

That's actually STILL racism at the individual-level and reinforces the racist structure.

"So instead of questioning the status quo, these people go right along with it.

That's actually STILL racism at the individual-level and reinforces the racist structure. "
__________________


So, in my hypothetical situation what do you think is the proper response for a non-racist brother to one who is racist? Our hypothetical minority pnm is up for a vote. The non-racist knows that if he is given a bid, the pnm will not be treated equally. What do you think would be the best way to not reinforce the racist structure - to question the status quo?

The "nonracist" brother isn't really nonracist if he not only can't figure out how to handle the situation but would also continue to associate with racists within a racist structure. ;) If you believe your brothers are bigoted and racist morons who use chapter policies inappropriately, why's that okay for YOU to associate with but not for certain pnms?

Racism (and sexism) exist because of the prejudiced racists (and sexists) and the nonprejudiced (racists and sexists). This is one way in which racist (and sexist) structures and practices continue eventhough the average person will claim that they aren't prejudiced or racist (or sexist) when you ask them.

I acknowledge that's it difficult to make things change and that people often won't vote for someone because they want to "protect" that person. But when it boils down to it, it's still the same -ism.

Well, it's not as though you go through rush asking "Are you a racist?". (Talk about "biggest rush mistakes"!) It's entirely possible the subject never came up until this specific example. So let's say the non-racist member quits - "I won't associate with you racists!" and storms off. What has changed? By quitting, how has he advanced the cause of equality? I think it entirely possible that by remaining a member he is in a much better position to change the group culture - even if it means waiting to become an officer or an alumni and scheduling programming to try and open up some minds.

I guess my point is that I am always perplexed by those who call "racist!" but don't offer concrete suggestions on how to overcome it. Changing hearts and minds isn't, I realize, the work of an hour or a day. I think members can do more IN an org than OUT, and that sometimes one strong leader can make a difference.

Well, bless his heart!

My concept of racism isn't about changing hearts and minds, anyway, because that would be in the realm of "tolerance and diversity training for Archie Bunker."

Okay, I am truly trying to make sure I am clear about your views - you don't think people can change? I think often racism is a form of ignorance - you simply don't know enough to think beyond a stereotype.

SWTX i agree

ANY discrimination is ignorance. People can change it's not they can't it's that they won't because they don't want to feel uncomfortable doing something that isn't familiar to them.

On a structural level, racism isn't about "people changing" and it isn't a form of ignorance.

However, prejudice is a form of ignorance and people can learn and change their prejudiced or bigoted ways. But you don't need to be prejudiced to be racist and that's why I discussed prejudiced and nonprejudiced racists.

(We've had this discussion on GC about once a year. :))

To bring it back to rush mistakes, I do know of aspirants who have verbalized some discontent with the present GLO system (for example, I know of aspirants who were going to "diversify and teach" certain chapters about their bigoted ways regarding race, sexual orientation, etc.) and claimed that they would be the ones to change it. That pissed a lot of people off, of course, not just because some of the actives didn't want to change but because the actives didn't like know-it-all aspirants. It took forward-thinking and compassionate actives to get these aspirants a vote. Some aspirants didn't get a vote.

Gotcha
 

cool beans - and if you want to post a link to the previous discussion I'd be happy to read it.

You do tend to back pedal. Earlier you said you had no prejudices.

Or HE might feel that the person's personality just does not fit the group. Nothing wrong with that.

To be honest, fraternities are about brining together people of similar character who have shared interests and backgrounds. It only makes sense that a lot of those groups would be made along racial lines. A chapter doesn't need diversity to be a good chapter.