Here's the thing...I've seen other binding agreements bent and/or ignored. So, if you see that some are, it wouldn't be totally unreasonable to think that this one is not-totally-mandatory as well.

With transferring increasingly common and many local chapters refusing to allow same sorority transfer students to affiliate this rule is way past its sell date. I support it in the same college case but not where the tranfer is to another university and the local chapter refuses to allow affiliation. I can't see who is harmed other than the transfer student who is cut out of greek life at their new school entirely. Just because it is a rule doesn't make it right.

I can understand your logic, but doesn't kind of go against the whole lifetime membership thing?

Um, then isn't the problem the chapters that don't vote for affiliation?

I can see where you wouldn't feel like your lifetime membership means anything when the chapter of your supposed sisters refuses to allow you to affiliate.

My understanding is that the local chapters who don't allow automatic affiliation/refuse affilates are far from "many" - rather, it's the large SEC schools who've gotten burned many many many times by women who purposely pledged a so-so chapter at another school to allow them an easy "in." Just because you're popular, doesn't mean being used for that popularity is a fun thing. Also, the women who do this obviously know or care nothing about sisterhood. They just want social prestige.

If a woman transfers to a new college, in a normal scenario, she should be given every opportunity to affiliate with the new chapter - as I think the majority are - but sometimes it doesn't work out. That's a fact of life. Sometimes it is the transfer student herself who spurns the new chapter, not the other way around.

I don't condone full initiation into another group, rather, relaxing the RM policies so that "social members" are a viable option.

Oh boo hoo for them. Somehow generations of women that came before these special snowflakes survived the tragedy of transferring.

Once you have been initiated, you've witnessed secret rituals that bind the members of that organization. You've taken vows. If you toss it away like it's meaningless, you might as well give up all the NPC unanimous agreements. You cheapen the very foundations of our organizations and the NPC as a whole.

And why limit it to two sororities? What about three? Or four? Or even five? It might take Snowflake many extra years and multiple campuses to graduate. Why should she be penalized for that?

Well I meant more as a concept in Greekdom as a whole, not just for the individual. If the NPC were to allow this, then they are saying that lifetime membership isn't important.

This whole situation reminds me of the stories of vindictive college coaches who restrict the ability of college athletes to transfer to other schools. In one case I remember the coach said the athlete couldn't transfer to any school closer than an 8 hr drive from his school. These coaches have received tons of bad press on this issue.

Huh? I'm sorry I don't see the parallels here.

The reason it's a problem is because 1-these memberships include secret sharing. If members were allowed to join groups willy-nilly, the secret nature of the whole thing would be lost. And 2-this is a lifetime commitment. Now it's true that most girls go into this not understanding that (me included) but that doesn't make it less true. It's a crying shame when you decide to transfer and your sorority isn't represented there. But that's the way the cookie crumbles. And wanting to join a sorority because you pledged, initiated and THEN decided you didn't like them is even less of a reason to be able to join another group. I believe every single NPC sorority allows for some sort of alumna status for collegiates put in this unfortunate scenario. The founders didn't plan for any scenario that was denying you access to the spring formal. And would they change the rules now, understanding that kids these days are much more mobile and less willing to make a commitment for even 4 years? I think not!

I think a factor, perhaps small, perhaps not, is the lexicon. The system is not reminding women they've taken a PLEDGE. The word PLEDGE implies so much more than "new member" in terms of commitment.

I don't see the great harm in leaving these ladies on alumna status. For KD, a transfer student on alumna status has all the rights of an alumna. She can attend chapter and participate in recruitment as an alumna. She can attend any of the events the local alumnae are invited to -- Homecoming, philanthropy events, chapter dinners, etc.

If a transfer isn't accepted for affiliation, it's often because the chapter is at quota or close to it, and they'd like to fill the available spots with freshmen. It doesn't mean that the transfer isn't welcome. If she suits up, shows up, and volunteers to help out, she'll make friends and be included in the chapter's social life.

Imagine what would happen on highly competitive campuses. Women might go through recruitment, be rejected by every single house, transfer to a regional/smaller/less competitive school, get initiated, then transfer back to the original competitive school to be automatically accepted and count against their quota. This would happen all the time.

I agree.