OK, so I went to Phi Sigma Sigma's website to hopefully understand WHY eliminating this legacy policy is so prudent for NPC organizations. And again, the explanation is that

"continuing to offer any preferential treatment perpetuates and upholds a system of privilege within our membership and does not meet our responsibility to promote inclusivity."

I'm sorry, but sorority and fraternity membership is exclusive, whether we like it or not, and changing a legacy policy isn't going to change that. Being in a greek organization requires several things that signal "exclusivity", one being you have to PAY to be a member. That item, in and of itself, is a HUGE reason limiting women who may be fabulous from joining. Are our national organizations now going to offer scholarship assistance for dues to these fabulous women who can't afford to pay dues?

Let's move on to the recruitment process, which in some places means that a PNM has to buy an entire week's worth of new clothes to "look the part" of a sorority member on their campus. If she can't afford that, is she going to be given a "clothing allowance"? My pledge sister and best friend's daughter is going to be going through recruitment at Alabama in the fall, and let's just say she spent QUITE A BIT of money to get her what she needs to "be competitive". On top of that, you charge a woman at least $250 to GO THROUGH recruitment, with no guarantee that she gets a bid. Should we refund the registration fees if she isn't successful? In-house fees at Alabama average $7,200 PER SEMESTER and out-of-house fees are nearly $3,600 PER SEMESTER. How is THAT not limiting the women who can join a sorority?

I do believe that economics is the first thing that would need to change for sorority membership to stop limiting women from joining. No amount of legacy policy changes are going to change the fact that the cost of joining a sorority or fraternity is the number 1 limiting factor against inclusivity.

Here's a thought. Let's stop the madness with all the fees and nickel and diming that national organizations love to do. Hell, let's get rid of the ridiculous mansions that chapters live in, which cost millions of dollars to build and maintain. Let's have the national organizations find ways to lower their costs, and pass that savings on to the chapters, who can then lower their dues to allow for inclusivity. That makes a WHOLE LOT more sense than removing a legacy policy.

OK, rant over...sorry if I've offended anyone.

Or we could get rid of national organizations altogether, as local groups are way cheaper.

:)

Like I said on someone’s Facebook the other day, when you support or are an ally in a way that is comfortable and doable for you, instead of in a way that truly helps the group in question, you’re doing it wrong.

NPC sororities: housing since 1872; tough nut to eliminate unless the new Covid19 economy continues to shrink the $$$ pool living in-house (and we all know BIG financial changes are coming here).

Not all NPC housings are owned by an NPC group. Among the existing options, a chapter may rent their land but own their house on said land, or pay rent to a college for dorm floor usage.

There are already NPC groups offering collegiate scholarship assistance for dues to members in need; some groups are more circumspect about them than others. Not everyone in a chapter need know who receives help.

My point is that eliminating the economic barriers to membership, which is quite frankly what makes membership exclusive, makes a whole lot more of an impact than eliminating a policy that doesn't guarantee anyone a spot. If our organizations are going to tout change, make it meaningful. That's what I'm saying.

I know that the change in legacy policy was explained to us as this - a legacy obviously has a parent that has been to college. This puts them at an advantage in life.

Taking more legacies means you’re not leaving a lot of spots for women who are first generation college students. I was kind-of one of them (well, my grandparents went to college... but my parents? No.) I do feel that all women should have the chance to go Greek, not just ones who’s parents went to college.

However, would I be sad if my daughter got cut from Phi Sig? Yes. (Granted now they’re 22 and 23 and the likelihood of them actually being a Phi Sig is next to none....)

I was also a first generation college student. And at my university, legacies were few and far between, so it wasn't an issue. I wonder how many chapters said, "hey, we need to get rid of the legacy policy, because we want to take all of these women over here, but we can't because there are so many legacies." I can't imagine outside of the large Southern universities and Indiana that this is the case. Maybe I'm being naive.

To me, this is a feeble attempt to look relevant in terms of what is going on in the world today. And I'm not saying it just about Phi Sigma Sigma, because DPhiE is talking about it too. I just don't think it does enough to make relevant change.

See, that's what I'm saying. I think that these groups are just trying to look relevant and cool, while their HQs are possibly congratulating each other on cutting down the number of screaming mom calls they get every year. I haven't heard of a sorority being forced to take legacies for years. I also have not heard of a sorority who admitted to dropping a fantastic PNM in order to keep a subpar legacy. It just doesn't happen!

Yes!

I think you've hit on something. WHY on this planet of the gods would someone want to buy new clothes just to get others to look at them? The idea this is required simply boggles my mind, and further reinforces my belief that many policies/procedures/"how it's done" come from a couple of dozen big campuses. The rest of the greek world knows better.

Of course, you seem to be equating money with inclusion, and I can't fight that.

To the bolded: I get what you're saying. The correlation/argument is buying a new suit for the job interview of your life. Feel good, feel confident. Not saying it's the right thing to do, but that's why people do it.

I feel the same way. It's a knee-jerk reaction to staying relevant to the causes that potential members care about. It feels disingenuous to me, like a token gesture to show they're in tune to what's going on in the world. Maybe I'm just an old cynic :cool:

Right! Look at most campus's recruitment booklets or websites or social interactions about recruitment, there's a HUGE focus on what should I wear. Of course PNMs are going to focus on having the right look based off of what the CPC is putting out there.

Breaking down economic barriers to membership certainly makes our organizations less exclusive. How many stories on here have a PNM saying an active member asked what her dad did for a living? I think that's insane, but it happens all the time!

An "interview suit" is not an entire new wardrobe, though.

But I'm betting outside the biggest, say, 20-30 greek schools in the nation, this doesn't happen.

Where are the advisors who are creating these? For literally decades we (sororities) have been claiming to concentrate on a woman's character, but we've been playing these kinds of games, making liars of ourselves.

Ding ding ding!

We always seem to be contradicting ourselves... we don't care about looks, but we do. We're inclusive, but we're exclusive. It doesn't matter where you come from, but it does. It doesn't matter how much money you have, but you need a lot.

We do all of these wonderful things to empower women, but the world outside Greek life generally doesn't see it or believe it. Should we be surprised by this?

WINNER!!!