Agreed! How about this for a more realistic example using those numbers?

1) 1500 PNM’s registered and attending Round 1. Panhellenic knows that based on their previous numbers, quota will be around 100.
2) ABC chapter has about 100 legacies
3) ABC is a pretty strong recruiting chapter & RFM says they can invite 600 to Round 2. Using the old legacy model, they have 100 legacy invites & 500 additional women at Round 2.
4) They cut some legacies (& are dropped by some of their legacies), so there are 65 legacies and 335 non-legacies at their Round 3 parties.
5) They cut some more legacies (& are dropped by some of their legacies) again so there are 200 invited to Preference with 40 of them legacies and 160 not.
6) Traditional model of legacies - everyone is on the bid list with legacies making up less than half of Bid List #1 and none at all on Bid List #2.
7) PNM’s rank their favorites and not all legacies rank their legacy house #1, so maybe your quota of 100 has 30 legacies matched and 70 non-legacies matched.

Obviously, the chapter could also make much larger cuts to their legacy list after Round 2 & Round 3 and end up with only a handful of legacies even attending Pref. Even in a weaker recruiting chapter that has to invite larger numbers back each round, they still can choose not to invite them to Pref or more likely their legacy would have released them already. How many times do we preach to our chapters that if you invite them to Pref, you must see them as a sister because they are going on your bid list.

So it is just hard for me to understand why we can’t have common courtesy of putting legacies on your 1st bid list. If the chapter doesn’t vibe with the girl, don’t have her at your Preference party at all.

Agreed. We don't have that stipulation, but I agree it creates more exclusion, because it applies to every PNM, not just legacies.

Most of the legacies we see in the chapter I advise are in-house sibling legacies. Those outweigh generational legacies by far. If sister is currently in house or a recent alumna still known to actives, a policy change probably won't make much difference in the special consideration paid to Suzie Sibling, because there is reluctance to offend Big Sister. And, those legacies do tend to be involved and I can't think of one who's disaffiliated.

THIS 100%!!!! If someone comes to preference, they have a chance, however minute, of getting a bid, so you need to figure it all out by then, or you will risk having someone as a sister who you may not want. Too bad, so sad, but that's the rule.

And again, NONE of this is inclusion. It's a smoke screen to be relevant.

Yes! Yes!!

None of these policies will SOLVE our lack of inclusion.

Many little tiny steps make great strides.

These aren't even steps. They are totally unrelated to inclusion. I know a black DG who has a little girl, and she's majorly upset about these virtue-signaling new policies that crap on legacies.

I'm proud of Gamma Phi Beta's first steps. We've also had a series of table talks with our sisters who are POC, and continue to look for ways to be more inclusive. https://www.gammaphibeta.org/AntiRacismResources

Oh, and to stay on topic: we still value legacies.

Unfortunately the collegiate chapter resources are all behind a firewall. If these are really good ideas, we should learn to share with all of the NPC. Just my .02.

Sen reported they are now public.

Over this last year, DD and I have had many discussions on the issue of legacy. Each of us are involved with two different chapters and it was interesting to see how the two chapters interpreted Theta's previous policy.

DD was completely in favor of adjusting the policy--but not eliminating all "perks" of legacy. She talked about the division that occurred in her new member class between the legacies and non-legacies. It broke my heart to hear that some of the ladies felt "less-than" for not being legacies.

She brought up some very valid points that I felt needed further exploration. If that discussion had been brought to the membership--or at least chapter leadership (advisors, officers, etc.) I think the ultimate decision would have been fully embraced--and perhaps the solution would look a little different that the current one. At the same time, with the way the decision was made--by just the Grand Council--it might just as easily be adjusted in the future.

I recognize there was a problem felt at some schools. With the vast expansion of chapters and the rise of "mega" chapters, at some schools, the number of legacies was simply overwhelming. The actives want to have complete control over who their sisters might be--just as we did--and the removal of special treatment for legacies gives the actives more control. I do wonder if this wasn't more of a control issue than an inclusion issue. Several of the chapters that I am familiar with look NOTHING like the Hollywood interpretation of a sorority.

I must admit, I was a bit heart-broken when I read the decision--especially the removal of a minimum GPA (if that part isn't public, please PM me and I will remove that comment.). The Mr--in his typical cheeky self--turned to me and sang one of our old college "songs." He sang, "Theta born, Theta bred..." He then offered a sage observation:

"Our daughter has three besties in her chapter. They could all be her twins. They all share the same values and same heart for other people. Their mommas all happen to be Thetas as well. If you really believe everything you spout--about how the values Theta permeate everything you do--don't you think that rubs off on others? Don't you think that actives would recognize those values in PNMS and they will rise to the top--with or without any extra help?"

(Ok, so he didn't get the whole actives and PNM terminology exactly like this, but bear with me.).

There was a lot of truth in that and at the same time it addressed the very issue at hand--are groups made stronger when they hold shared values or are they stronger when they embrace diverse values? At my heart, I can't dream of a world where scholarship, leadership personal excellence and a heart for humanity are not shared values. We may have differing personal experiences and paths that we follow to uphold those values, but in the end, doesn't there need to be some common ground to hold a group together and help guide its direction? These were all the things we discussed this last week.

Anyway, I'm firmly torn on this issue. It will be a very different recruitment this fall and it will be very interesting to see how things play out over the next few years. DD has observed that you will have two PNM classes that really don't know "how to recruit." I wonder if that isn't a bad thing. Perhaps these new classes will come up with different ways that reflect current values and not tradition. Will door stacks and bouncing be replaced by...?

After discussing this ad nauseam, the Mr asked if we could stop talking about "the whole sorority thing" and get back to listening to Hamilton on our Great American Road Trip. I think he actually sang that request as well.

Wow.

I know a black DG and she supports this policy.

Which one speaks for her race?

Neither. Each one speaks for herself.

Sounds like a wonderful, thoughtful discussion touching on many important points. I agree that, above all else, the shared values should be what brings members together and will hold a chapter together through a lifetime.

Your husband sounds like a great sport!!

My cynical side thinks that this was actually an easy "give" for most NPC orgs.

Let's face it, managing a legacy policy is a nightmare for a lot of chapters. I'm sure a lot of alums are not going to be happy about this and will raise a stink. HOWEVER ... What they aren't cancelling or speaking to is the unspoken and elitist policy of "VIP" PNMS. You know the one ... a PNM will be given VIP status if they are connected to a well-placed higher-up member. One phone call from a regional or national leader telling a recruitment advisor that they need to take Miss XYZ because she is related to muckety-muck old lady who donates money in a big way, etc. Take her even if your chapter doesn't like her, doesn't want her, doesn't fit in, whatever. We all know that this happens now. Those are going to be the only ones that get special passes into rounds and the rest of you can take a flying leap.

LET THE ARM TWISTING BEGIN!

I know. Cynical.

Legacy “perks” are outdated, mostly because sorority recruitments are overrun with them, and these policies cause more headaches during recruitment.

A PNM should be invited to join a sorority on *her own* merits. If she’s a legacy, then that’s nice. But it shouldn’t be a reason why the PNM is selected. But all of our organizations want quality women: women who are academically solid, confident leaders, and volunteer in the community.

Typing from my phone so apologies if it's wonky, but just got this email entitled "Changes to Legacy Considerations." I'm just going to quote the most relevant portion.

"Today, we write with an important update which we felt you need to be aware. Pi Beta Phi is providing chapters flexibility as to how they implement our legacy policy. (Potential New Members whose sister, mother or grandmother is an initiated member of Pi Beta Phi is defined as a legacy).

The Pi Beta Phi Constitution and Statutes states “special consideration shall be given to legacies whose qualifications are comparable to those of other Potential New Members (PNMs).” Chapter Bylaws dictate how that special consideration is applied.

Historically, legacies participating in primary recruitment have received the following courtesies:
an invitation to the first invitational round, and if attending the Preference round, the legacy is placed at the top of the chapter’s Bid List.

After much conversation and discussion, Grand Council has decided chapters will be allowed to choose from three legacy courtesy options for the 2020-2021 academic year. Allowing chapters a choice provides the Fraternity opportunity to collect relevant information to shape future policy. These options are as follows:

1. Follow existing legacy procedures. These chapters will invite all legacies to the first invitational round and if invited to Preference, legacies will be placed at the top of the bid list.
2. Eliminate the top of the bid list courtesy but keep the first-round invitation courtesy. These chapters will invite legacies to the first invitational round.
3. Eliminate the top of the bid list courtesy and the first-round invitation courtesy. These chapters will consider legacies just as they consider any other PNM for membership. These chapters will meet the requirements of the Constitution and Statutes special consideration by identifying all legacies for members of the chapter prior to the start of recruitment.

Today, chapter officers and Alumnae Advisory Committee (AAC) members were made aware of these options and how to begin the effort of exploring what is best for their chapter. It is imperative we support our collegiate sisters and do not place pressure on a chapter to select one option over another."

Personally, I would have loved to see an "eliminate the first round courtesy invite and keep the top of the bid list" option, but I am overall thankful that the opinion of collegiate members is being asked for. I'm an alumna, so will continue to follow with interest!

Well, I'm glad that we're getting options. I can't imagine the explosions and amount of money withdrawn if there had been across-the-board screwing over of legacies.

I also get that some chapters have far more legacies rushing than they can pledge--my own chapter faces that this fall--but that has never prevented any chapter of any sorority from taking who they really wanted.

And I agree, that other option would have been fantastic.

I agree that eliminating the invitational round, but placing on the 1st bid list is a great option. Kind of strange that that isn't one of the options. But GOOD FOR PI PHI that you got options!! This is the way an important change in policy should be done.

We've had a committee investigating legacy policy since October. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. I like the options Pi Phi has given chapters.

Very interesting options, and I do hope that more GLOs will at least consider them.

As a Pi Phi alum, I love that they gave each chapter to ability to decide what is best for their own chapter. One size does not fit all and I think this helps recognize that.

Yes. ^^

Wait, so... doesn't this policy simply say: chapters can choose to recruit legacies in any way they want?

How is this any different from eliminating a national "leg up" legacy policy altogether?

And people think there should be another option: eliminating the first invitational-round courtesy but keeping the top of the bid list option...

So what's to stop a chapter from reporting option #3 to the national org (treating all PNMs the same, regardless of legacy status), but putting legacies on the top of the bid list if they make it to preference?

It seems to me like Pi Phi has seen the fallout from other orgs and is trying to dress up the same change as something else to appease their members.

Unless I'm reading this wrong? ::shrugs::

Actually, nothing will stop any chapter (even the ones with the new policy) from following the old policy. Membership selection is rarely publicized.

Right. So again, what's the difference?

If I'm reading this right, both Pi Phi and the other orgs who have gotten rid of their national legacy policies are all saying the same thing: we're leaving it up to the individual chapters.

If the chapter chooses one of the old legacy options, they will be held to it if a mad mama calls because her daughter wasn't on the first bid list. They won't be if they choose the newer option.

So if membership selection is rarely publicized, then that means mad mama wouldn't know which system the chapter is following, correct? So what justification would she have for being mad? Unless Pi Phi plans on publicizing which chapters are following which option?

And is the only goal with these policies to allow mad mamas to berate chapters when their daughters aren't selected for membership? If so, it seems like a policy that isn't worth supporting. ::shrugs::

Of course they'll know which policy they're following.

Of course? Why? Curious.

Does Pi Phi intend to disseminate this information for each chapter to all alumnae?

Probably so.

In the very early 1990s NPC groups were also grappling with the issue of diversity, although not to the intense extent of today's concerns and demands. Recent readings of online-archived NPC magazines from that era confirmed what I remember of that era, when I served several area collegiate chapters.

Personally, I think many sorority chapters have long given healthy promotion to being as diverse as possible given the choice of some WOC preferring not to become members of an NPC group [as carnation and others here on GC describe].

You think what the NPCs are facing right now is "intense"? I beg to differ.

I would be curious to know what those NPC magazines of the 90s are confirming for you, though. Care to share?

Can you clarify this statement?

Do some chapters promote diversity and inclusion? Sure. But to pretend like most of them do is laughable, and I don't just mean in terms of welcoming different races.

Do a Google image search on "Panhellenic bid day". Scroll for a bit. How many WOC do you see? How many young women are in a wheelchair? How many young women are curvier or have a little more weight on them? How many young women aren't picture-perfect (straight) white girls?

Seriously. Look at the photos and tell me what you see. And then we're going to claim that we're welcoming to everyone, and "if those 'other' girls aren't joining, it's because they choose not to!"? Even if they're choosing not to, do you think it might have something to do with the system? With how we recruit? With some of our practices and procedures? With how we present ourselves? With who we choose to exclude?

Either way, let's not act like ALL WOC are turning away from NPCs simply because they want to join a BGLO. Let's also not pretend that WOC who join NPCs aren't experiencing microaggressions from their own sisters. It happens. I've seen it happen and I've heard people say that it's happened to them.

We could all be doing sooo much better. Acting like we don't need to is the real issue here.

I don't think you can speak for any chapter except your own.

Replying to Cheerio’s comment about the 1990’s & not quoting because my browser stinks......

Agree 100%! Funny (or horrifying) story: I was a traveling consultant for my national organization in the the early 1990’s. We had a beautiful, amazing, super-awesome WOC on the front page of our national magazine that year. (I LOVE this woman & am SSSOOO glad she is my sister!) We met earlier in our active collegiate years at convention, and this is important to note for the story.

One of my first trips as a consultant was to a mid size southern school for rush. (Yes rush, it wasn’t recruitment yet). These very white, very sheltered girls were having a bit of a breakdown because the first WOC was registered for NPC rush on their campus, and they legitimately did not know what to do about it. Talk about a long weekend of inclusion training......When I brought up the fact that my African-American friend was on the cover of our magazine, they really and honestly thought that she was a planted model and not really my sister. I had to politely tell them that no, she is real and is YOUR sister too, not just mine.

I am proud of all of our GLO’s for continuing to evolve over the last 30 years. Do we have a long way to go? YES! But we are moving forward.

That's what you got out of my post? Oh, OK.

The whole defense of "we can't give them bids because they don't go through our recruitment" is bull excrement. Let's look at the most egregious offenders in modern times, Alabama. In all the 110 years prior to 2014, only one black woman was given a bid to an NPC sorority, and that sorority was degraded and ostracized for it all the way up to the time the sororities were forced to desegregate. When asked why there were no women of color in their chapters, the go-to response was the tired "we can't bid them because they don't rush."

But what happened after they received national attention? The university extended recruitment and quota. Then 21 black women were extended bids. That to me says it all. There were many black women have wanted to join NPC chapters there but knew they had no chance. Now black women in recruitment and sororities are a regular occurrence.

I cobbled together the approximate number of black undergrads there who could potentially become one of our sisters.

Total undergraduate students 33028
Total males 44%
Total females 56%
Total black enrollment 10.4%
10.4 x 33,028 = 3435 total black students
3435 x .56 = 1935 estimated Black females

That 1935 total also includes women who want to go NPHC, those without financial means, those who adamantly want to remain independent for any reason. We should be approaching, supporting and encouraging the women who want to join our sororities.

Been doing it over here for over 20 years!

Good for you. That doesn't mean that everyone is. And the evidence overwhelmingly shows that they aren't.

But truly, the legacy policy isn't our only issue. And the policy doesn't only hold us back in terms of diversity. If we truly analyze the way we recruit, it's no surprise to me that we can't get women to join our organizations and commit to them for life.

They arrive on campus, go through two weeks of recruitment and a few conversations with members, get a leg up if a certain woman bore them decades prior or someone wrote them a recommendation having never met them before, then are given a bid. And if they don't get a bid in their first year or two of college, we tell them their dream of being in a sorority is dead.

We complain that recruitment is too short and we have to make sharp cuts based on a 30-minute conversation. We complain about angry mothers calling and berating chapters. We complain about our six-week new member period and that these women "don't truly know us" by the end of it. We complain that we have so many members but they all disappear after graduation.

So many of us are missing the big picture. The NPHC figured it out a long time ago. Us NPCs severely limit our recruitment and member-building potential and then wonder why we're not succeeding, which is evident based on hundreds of threads right here on GC.

NPC has most of it right and NPHC has most of it right. Same for NIC. No one is perfect.

What I hate is when people come here and berate sororities, especially Southern ones, for their lack of diversity/lack of reaching out to minorities or first generation college students or whoever. This is WRONG. Women my age from my chapter and others are constantly working behind the scenes trying to help our chapters find the strongest pledge class we can, and race does NOT play a part in it. It doesn't matter!!!

And if we know of a girl who's rushing at a school that doesn't have our chapter, we work to help her find recs to the others, no matter what race she is. I'm a member of one Facebook group that was created especially for that and we are almost ALL Southern.

I am so tired of people saying that we're all rocking on our antebellum mansion porches, trying to keep women of color out of our GLOS. IT IS NOT TRUE!!!!

Then why do we all come here and complain about the issues I mentioned when we're willing to do nothing to change?

Who is saying this? Has anyone specifically been coming down on southern chapters and them only? I must have missed that.