Then if that's the case, there should be a chapter bylaw that says "all members regardless of class standing must live in the house for x semesters." If Suzy Senior can't fulfill that, then don't give her a bid. But don't not give her a bid because of her class status. That can really put you on the hook if someone wants to say you're discriminating. I mean, Frieda Freshman might not be able to live in the house and do her part, so she shouldn't get a bid either.

Nothing is a "sure thing."

Class standing isn't a protected class when it comes to discrimination. There's nothing 'wrong' with it and the vast majority of chapters do it. Ideal world, it wouldn't happen, in a world of quotas and totals and beds, it does. Women don't get bids because they are seniors all the damn time. Some do get bids and that's awesome, but it happens all the time.

Stop acting like it's a shocking lawsuit waiting to happen.

It is if people admit on a message board that their chapter does it, and have been told by a higher-up in their sorority to do it.

And yes, it IS wrong. If this was about a chapter being told that a Native American lesbian chem major shouldn't get a bid, you'd be contacting the ACLU yourself.

Many NPC groups and NPC in general have said over the past few years that they need to be more open to nontraditional students. IMO, that includes anyone other than the 18 year old freshman. Obviously, this has as much weight as the "recommendation" to get rid of frilly rush made 15+ years ago has had. DBB touched on this in the community college thread.

It's one thing to say "try to give bids to qualified women in a way that each class has an equal amount of members." I completely agree with that. It's quite another to say "you are forbidden to bid a senior, no matter what."

No, because there's no protected class involved. Being a senior in school is not the same thing as being a minority of any sort.

Because our orgs have policies against racial discrimination and states have laws against it. Some states and some orgs protect from discrimination on sexual orientation, but chem majors, like seniors are NOT a protected class.

This is ridiculous on the face.

And yet, if a chapter refuses to take senior women, not a thing will happen to them legally. Only if it is violating an internal policy will there be problems.

Also, I really haven't seen such a push to be open to nontraditional students, where have you seen this outside of GC?
Sure they're different but there is no legal/lawsuit/civil rights issue here. Because there is nothing wrong with accepting only freshmen, just like there's nothing wrong with requiring membership in a 4 year degree granting institution.

No, it's not fair. But neither is recruitment, really; it tries to be equal, but it's not really about fairness. Number goals and requirements from HQ are real and create certain restrictions on chapters. It'd be nice if things weren't that way, but they are and pretending otherwise is silly.

http://www.kappakappagamma.org/Templ...CONTENTID=8225

Let's get off this "protected class" garbage - and just say it is stupid to say "you are not allowed to take a senior" because at some point it may bite you in the ass. I guarantee you if Selena Gomez or any of those chickie-babes went through rush as a senior, everyone would be falling themselves to bid her.

Absolutes of any kind with regard to member selection (other than being a girl or having a minimum GPA) are dumb and dangerous to implement because they contradict the fact that much of member selection is intangible. If it gets around that ABC is FORBIDDEN (there's a big difference between forbidding something and it just not happening) to bid seniors, this or that major, or anything else, it'll call into question what their exact requirements are. Basically I'm saying - if you're going to put one facet out thee, be prepared to be asked to put it ALL out there.

If traditionally, seniors are typically not found amongst PNMs during rush, wouldnt that make them a minority? Being a senior at a school, not a minority. Being a senior during NPC rush, minority.

Otherwise, I agree, this isn't a big enough issue for legalities to be involved, but just wondering.

ETA: oh, obligatory "lane swerve" clause.

Fair enough, not something i've seen discussed so much, but also not necessarily comparable to a prohibition on accepting seniors, or a disinclination to for any reason. Are such articles coming along with lowered pressure or reprioritized pressure about numbers at collegiate chapters, I wonder?

I don't see that as necessarily referring to nontraditional students. But perhaps someone who was there could say.

Chickie babes? WTF?
Protected class is important if you're talking lawsuits, which while I specifically said the word, you were hinting at the trouble a chapter could get into.

And even if some celebrity was rushing as a senior, I'm sure a 'no seniors ever' rule would get broken for that and then never broken again. Finding special circumstances is again, a terrible way to discuss a general rule.


I'm laughing that absolutes are DUMB AND DANGEROUS except when it's a minimum GPA. Amazingly our chapters manage to have minimum GPAs without revealing their MS and gee somehow I bet they can have absolute NO SENIORS rules without ever revealing their MS, nor are they probably going around campus and saying 'NO SENIORS.' Because seniors get bids all the time in every other chapter, amirite?

Where the hell do you get Dangerous? If you're not wanting to talk about protected classes and minorities and that 'garbage' then you're probably not talking about lawsuits.

So, Top Tier sorority ABC (tm) gets a rep for banning seniors and their campus reputation is ruined? Bullshit. Groups and chapters have their own MS, always have, and a senior has, in general, a much lower chance of membership in NPC groups. Whether a rule is explicit, implicit or enforced by the advisors without the actives even being aware of it, it's their MS and no matter how unfair it is, it's not dangerous even if you think it's dumb.

And with housing requirements in particular, I'd argue that it's not necessarily dumb either.

In a numerical sense, yes, but not in a sociological sense, no.

So will redheads, six foot tall women, professional chess players and engineering majors (at most schools at least), but none are legally protected either.

In a perfect world it wouldn't matter, but neither would a PNM's braces or hairdo, but there are organizational and chapter reasons why seniors have fewer options.

Your GPA is what it is. So are your ovaries. You can't change them (during rush, anyway). It's no different than saying you need to live in so and so district to vote for someone who will be, example, township supervisor of that district.

Assuming that a senior will always be unable to fulfill certain things that a freshman supposedly will be able to fulfill (will be able to live in the house, will be active for more years [and bring in more $$]) - to the point of FORBIDDING (you don't seem to be fucking getting that point) a senior to receive a bid, is...well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKlWGZHEO7Q

Your class standing is what it is.

None of this makes it 'dangerous.' You may disagree with it, hell I disagree with it. But you're implying far more than "That is stupid" with your lines about dangerous and opening doors to MS and so on.

It doesn't matter whether the chapter explicitly forbids it or implicitly does so, as I clearly stated previously. Something you missed, in your hurry to find an Odd Couple video, but I'll repeat:

Whether a rule is explicit, implicit or enforced by the advisors without the actives even being aware of it, it's their MS and no matter how unfair it is, it's not dangerous even if you think it's dumb.

OMG, you are SO right. I'm going to go delete all of my posts and cut off my head. I WAS SO SO SO SO WRONG!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSiHxdTgPQ0

I don't understand how one minute you're bashing "traditional" Greek life and everything it stands for and the next you're basically sucking its dick.

You mistake my criticism of your criticism as performing fellatio on Greek tradition. Of all the things to perform fellatio on, Greek Tradition is not at the top of my list.

So I'll clarify for you, this is my personal opinion on banning seniors:

I think it's unfair, I'd love to make changes to my GLO that would make is more focused on life long service and social activities, and less concerned with numbers, keeping up appearances and so on. Meaning a college senior might miss out on some undergrad years but could and would be expected to progress into alumnae chapters that are equally active and not only full of people her mother's age or older.

This is my opinion on what you're saying:

But that doesn't change that it's not in any way dangerous or risking a lawsuit or risking revealing their MS process to prohibit bidding a senior explicitly or implicitly. It's not even necessarily 'dumb' in a logistical sense, as a chapter that is simultaneously restricted by NPC Quota/Total AND housing requirements must maximize the number of years that a member is in their chapter or they make it harder on themselves every single year.

Here's a general summary:
Yeah it sucks, but it's the reality. If I could tear it down and build it back up differently I would, but I can't. Just like I'd tear down the ridiculous socially stratified Tier system at SEC campuses if I could. But regardless of my opinion I'd be wrong to tell a chapter there that they should individually buck the system and do it 'right' aka 'my way' when that would only hurt them.

/I don't know why you keep googling Odd Couple videos, I'm not watching a third of a pirated episode to kill time, that's why I pay for Netflix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HGyUhRGeuM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3A4EFgclZw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIMLaIieko0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMNbsrZF6Ps