Originally Posted by shirley1929 (Post 2483078)

Couldn't agree more. Strong recruiting chapters know people, and will ONLY pull from those cities where their people are from. Before they would take a look at the girls from smaller towns that have recs. How will those girls get noticed in these huge chapters?

Weaker recruiting chapters won't have a compass of sorts (RIF/Rec/Letter of Support) to even know who to look out for. I think those chapters will be the ones hurt most by this, which is a shame.

Originally Posted by carnation (Post 2484809)

Ask me what it was like the year that Shorter required that every PNM get a bid. :eek:

Originally Posted by TXDG (Post 2484800)

I don’t think the national offices are “so far out of touch with the REST of the membership.” On my group’s Facebook page, there are regularly posts from members thanking EO for the positive changes being made, especially from women who wouldn’t have been eligible to be in a sorority 60 years ago and have sometimes felt marginalized even as full members.

Even myself, a white girl from a “good” family and a strong high school but no legacies...when I was deciding between two colleges, I definitely considered the fact that one school had a 100+ year old Greek system with more legacies than spots in many chapters. And the other school had a younger Greek system where the first chapter legacies would start to come through the year I graduated. My rush was competitive - sororities were still selective and I had cuts - but our chapter had maybe 2-5 legacies pledge each year. The last time I saw our chapter’s stats, legacies were about 40-50% of the pledge class with many legacy cuts. That’s a huge difference in 25 years and represents many fewer opportunities to pledge for PNM’s like me (who literally was born on life’s “3rd base”), not to mention other PNM’s who have as much or more to give but don’t know the ropes.

Are members grumpy and even outraged about these changes? Sure. But they seem to be the same kind of people screaming “make America great (white) again” and fighting tooth and toenail against America becoming more diverse,, ignoring the huge “leg up” in life they had by being (mostly) white, college educated women. I won’t be so ignorant to think my daughter would be a better DG than a non-legacy just because of her family name. All legacy relatives should strive to raise their legacies in a way that every sorority is interested in her because her character, kindness, morals, service, and intellect radiate on their own.

Originally Posted by carnation (Post 2484806)

I know a black DG who would be infuriated if she read that. She is extremely upset because her daughter's legacy status won't be honored when she rushes.

ETA: I can think of a lot of women who are angry about this who do not fit that MAGA picture.

Originally Posted by TXDG (Post 2484800)

Are members grumpy and even outraged about these changes? Sure. But they seem to be the same kind of people screaming “make America great (white) again” and fighting tooth and toenail against America becoming more diverse,, ignoring the huge “leg up” in life they had by being (mostly) white, college educated women. I won’t be so ignorant to think my daughter would be a better DG than a non-legacy just because of her family name. All legacy relatives should strive to raise their legacies in a way that every sorority is interested in her because her character, kindness, morals, service, and intellect radiate on their own.

Originally Posted by shirley1929 (Post 2484822)

I’m grumpy that this was shoved down the members throats with very little input/discussion.

Originally Posted by shirley1929 (Post 2484822)

Holy generalizations, Batman! I’m grumpy that a triple XYZ legacy could get taken to Pref round and put at the bottom of the bid list. I’m grumpy that fantastic small town girls will get overlooked, and I’m grumpy that weak chapters will likely get weaker. I’m grumpy that this was shoved down the members throats with very little input/discussion. All the while...none of this is doing anything to change diversity in our groups.

Originally Posted by GoldenAnchor (Post 2484823)

If we’re still specifically discussing DG there was plenty of input and discussion before this change was made, this change was the direct result of a large outcry of members asking for this change and many others last summer. The discussion around legacy’s was happening for years and it finally was pushed to its breaking point when a chapter wrote an incredibly well thought out proposal to council for the removal of the policy and they listened to member input and that proposal was backed and supported by dozens of other chapters. (It was Beta - Washington if I’m not mistaken)

Just because others chose to ignore the conversation doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening.

Originally Posted by carnation (Post 2484825)

Yes! Yes! Yes! And they're claiming that they're doing it in the name of diversity but we all know it won't change anything, except to make the chapters less diverse because now the girls will only be voting for PNMs whom they know.

Originally Posted by TXDG (Post 2484800)

I don’t think the national offices are “so far out of touch with the REST of the membership.” On my group’s Facebook page, there are regularly posts from members thanking EO for the positive changes being made, especially from women who wouldn’t have been eligible to be in a sorority 60 years ago and have sometimes felt marginalized even as full members.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06 (Post 2484856)

I went digging and found Facebook posts regarding the legacy policy changes for a handful of organizations. There is certainly a mixed bag of responses for each.

Alpha Sigma Alpha
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...composer=false

Gamma Phi Beta
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...composer=false

Kappa Alpha Theta
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...composer=false

Kappa Kappa Gamma
https://m.facebook.com/kappakappagam...composer=false

Sigma Sigma Sigma
https://m.facebook.com/sigmasigmasig...composer=false

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 2484863)

The last two didn’t come up. I certainly had some favorites in these, though.
I’ve come to the conclusion that a scuttling of legacy policies would have been received with far less acrimony if it had been explained that after 150 years of sorority membership, there were so many legacies coming through some chapters that the actives had no agency as far as being able to choose women other than legacies. I think everyone would have related to that, sympathized and understood and been supportive of a change. Instead it’s turned into a big virtue signalling moment to the point that some women in those threads actually APOLOGIZED FOR THEIR MEMBERSHIP. It makes it sound like the only thing holding back sororities from being bastions of diversity were these antiquated policies. (Psssst: there’s lots more than that.)

The chapters whose members are diverse in race, sexual orientation, physical appearance and economic status will continue to be so, and those that are homogeneous will continue to be so. The only thing that will change is who will be the new superstar as far as national headquarters and chapter awards are concerned.