I guess it would be hideously un-PC to make a distinction between "stepmother who's raised you since she married your dad when you were 3" and "stepmother who my dad married when I was 16 that I never see because they live in Europe."

Then again, some people's biological moms are like that latter example, too.

Yep, I was thinking about the exact same thing. I technically have a "stepmother" who's an AXO. She's been with my father since I was 16 but I consider her "my dad's wife" and it never would have occurred to me that I might be an AXO legacy. That would have been absurd. (This is in no way a jab at AXO!) She's a wonderful woman but she is in no way, shape or form anything resembling a "mother". She's only 7 years older than me. They don't live in Europe but they might as well. I never see them.

I thought her sister came to UGA as well, but I could be wrong. I know the Red and Black did a story about them.

Obviously, it's a name you never forget!

Yes, biological mother could be living with Step-Dad in Europe just as easily.

There's nothing "PC*" about it, it's just not possible in a policy sense.

I kind of feel like some people expect an overarching sorority policy to handle every possible nuance:

~~~ XYZ will give special consideration to every daughter, granddaughter and sister of a member, who is at least active enough in the sorority to be considered an active alumna member, and who has a thorough and loving relationship with her family member that is both supportive and educative in the policies and practices of sorority membership, recruitment and the lifelong commitment required without promising said family member membership or any expectation of guaranteed membership. Extra special consideration will be given to any of the above relatives of a member if they are named after a sorority founder or donated to the sorority foundation at birth. All donations are tax deductible. ~~~

It's just NOT POSSIBLE. Legacy policies are listed on the websites as applicable, all further discussion probably goes into MS and really don't need to be dissected twenty times til Sunday. They're general because they're inter/national and apply to every single chapter. That's just how it pretty much has to be belonging to inter/national organizations.




*PC is a bullshit phrase mostly made up and used by people who think that being polite infringes too much on their freedom to use offensive words. Being "un-PC" is not a thing, there's usually just being "an asshole." Like trying to find out if a PNM's mom is a) alive, b) really loves her or just kind of likes her or c) abandoned her and lives in Europe.

I think the way Alpha Xi words it works great. If the alumna CONSIDERS herself the relative of the rushee and she fits in those categories, then she is. I should think that would handle the stepmother who's 7 years older than you and has seen you 3 times in 5 years.

Sometimes, sometimes not.

Alpha Chi Omega lets the PNM define the relationship, as far as steps go. Like other orgs, if the PNM considers the step-mother like a mother, she can claim the legacy.

Most of the time, not. "Politeness" and "political correctness" have very little to do with one another. Calling someone "a person with disabilities" instead of "a cripple" doesn't mean you treat them any nicer or do things that actually help them.

Perhaps PC wasn't the most accurate phrase to use in my post, but if you can think of another, go for it.

I don't believe that is correct about Tri Delta. A DDD legacy is daughter or sister only. If you go here and open the "Recruitment Demystified" link it says daughters and sisters only on page 4 of the PDF in the glossary.

the KSU info. on ZTA legacies is WRONG. ZTA legacies are daughters, sisters or granddaughters.

Yeah calling people crippled in no way dehumanizes them at all or is impolite. I'd leave it at "use the terms people use to describe themselves" but that really doesn't cover everything - for example, group conversations or situations where you're impolitely describing someone sitting in front of you without realizing it. You have the free speech to be offensive but it makes you an asshole.

Persons with disabilities is really little more than institutional politeness and is all encompassing. The term PC became widespread as a term of derision over the idea that we should have to force the words "Native American" or "firefighter" out of our mouths. Oh. The horror. The Daily Mail can continue to rail against PC gone mad, but it is not hard for me to use the correct words or to acknowledge that I don't get to use the same words that other people do and still be considered polite.

/the horrrrrror of PC ohhhh nooooooo

//the right term would probably have been "impossible" and/or "irrelevant"

You guys exclude steps?

I don't know if "exclude" is the right word. DDD leadership apparently only includes daughters and sisters. So that means we also "exclude" cousins, aunts, and grandmothers.

The only reason this jumped out at me is because I remember reading that it was only mothers and sisters now and I was surprised that grandmothers were no longer on the list. Obviously a casualty of the growing number of members in recent decades and a need to narrow the potential field.

I'm pretty sure we aren't the only ones who have narrowed it to this degree and I'm sure we won't be the last.

I understand limiting grandmothers, but I'd be surprised if a step daughter were actively excluded from anyone's legacy policy. I'm more likely to believe that they're just not specifically mentioned like 'adoptive.'

/and yes yes it does mean that you exclude cousins, aunts, and grandmothers... I'm confused how you wouldn't be excluding them? You're not including them as legacies, right? So...

Ah, there's the rub though. I'm fine with call people what they call themselves, but sometimes that means there's not a "correct" word, and the problem is attempting to enforce a correctness that doesn't really exist.

For example, I don't mind saying "Indian" (or "American Indian") and I don't mind saying "Native American." I don't want to offend. But I have been castigated for not saying "Native American" even though I have been told by my "Native American" friends that they don't like to be called that, that they prefer to be called by their tribe or to be called [American] Indians. So what's a person to do, pay attention to people they know or pay attention to those who have decided which term is "correct" and will correct you if you don't follow their lead?

(And I'm not saying no one prefers to be called Native American. I'm just saying that friends have told me they don't like to be called Native American, but I'm sure others do prefer it. I'm just trying to be respectful.)

And I think PCness goes further than that. Frankly, I think "pledge" vs. "new member" and "rush" vs. "recruitment" can veer into the realm of PC.

I'm totally with you on being polite and considerate. But I'm not with you on thinking that there aren't some overzealous political correctness police out there. I've met them all too often.

Yep, MysticCat. You are right.

I think using the word "exclude" sounds like something you don't want. And I don't think that is the intention in narrowing it to mothers and sisters. I'm sure all Tri Deltas are happy to have any woman who has a Tri Delta connection consider our sisterhood.

So "exclude" sounds exclusive or negative to me and I'm sure that isn't the intention.

It is more about having to decide who to include and given the overwhelming legacy problems so many schools are starting to face, I'm not surprised they chose to narrow the parameters. I bet there was a lot of discussion before the grandmother connection was dropped.

No there's not always one correct word, but there ARE words that are considered generally offensive.

Generally you'd pay attention to the people you know, although also not always assuming that those people represent everyone. And there's an element of reclamation of words that may make it OK for members of a group to use words and not ok for non-members to use them.

People can be misinformed from either side of the spectrum. But think this way if you had one friend who said "American Indian and/or tribal name" and another friend who said "Native American" you'd probably manage to code switch and use the correct words with each. Even if you didn't, your friends would probably understand. If you insisted on saying whatever you preferred because it was 'too hard' to remember or worse to just say 'INJUN' you'd be an asshole. Which, MC, you're not ;) There's a big difference in words used for policy "persons with disabilities" and words used among social groups - where 'cripple' might be ok because it's been kind of reclaimed by an individual or group of individuals.

And that's the point. When it's

Could, except that it's not really "PC" in any way other than the fact that our orgs have changed the language. They've intentionally changed the language for a reason. It's called marketing. It's not so we don't offend the widdle PNMs feewings.

I didn't say that they weren't assholes too, they're not typically being 'polite' themselves. That doesn't make any of it about being "PC" or not.
Not necessarily, it means the opposite of including. It doesn't mean you won't offer them bids, but it does mean you're not extending them special consideration of legacy. In some sense it also does mean you don't "want" to include them in your legacy definition on a national level. I'm not sure what other word you would use that wouldn't require talking around the subject. Omit? Leave out? Not include? Exclude isn't inherently negative, our orgs are exclusive in many ways and inclusive in others.
Right, but not necessarily as a legacy. This is the same with every NPC org AFAICT

It is exclusive, that has to be the intent or it would include everyone.
I'm still curious to know whether steps are excluded or included by the policy. And I'm still leaning towards 'included by lack of exclusion.'

^^^^ My point is that it's not a choice between being offensive and being "PC." This is the statement that I quoted above and that I have a problem with:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2078726) *PC is a bullshit phrase mostly made up and used by people who think that being polite infringes too much on their freedom to use offensive words. Being "un-PC" is not a thing, there's usually just being "an asshole." Like trying to find out if a PNM's mom is a) alive, b) really loves her or just kind of likes her or c) abandoned her and lives in Europe.

If people are using their aversion to PC to justify being offensive, then that's a valid problem. But the fact that some people do that doesn't mean that there aren't real PC police out there.

My point was that just because you call someone the "correct" term, doesn't meant that you are also treating them nicely or equally. To put it in Greek terms, you can call people "new members" and still be hazing them in other ways.

No I'm really sticking by that. I feel like you're setting up a strawman here though. I'm not saying that. It's not a choice between being polite and offensive, it's not all black or white, there are plenty of shades of gray. There are, however, plenty of people who bitch about the concept of "political correctness" because it ~infringes~ upon their ~*RIGHT*~ to say offensive things. "Why can't I say queer, they say queer," etc.

In 33girl's case it was the equivalent of "no disrespect, but," or "I'm not a racist, but." Once those words are said, we all know what's coming next.

I'm not going to say "yeah there are 'PC police' because those people are being idiots (even if theoretically well meaning ones at times), and one can hardly call them the PC police when they're being the exact opposite of what "PC" supposedly is. There are assholes who try to correct others' language in an assholy way and they're just assholes, not PC police*.

*Actual members of the minority group are excepted from being called assholes just for not being nice about correcting someone. After the billionth time hearing an offensive term, I really don't think anyone's obligated to be nice about it.

This is what I was thinking. Steps wouldn't be excluded, but implicitly included.

Like I said, if you have a better way to say what I was trying to say, lay it on me. Or are you saying it is OK to say that there's a difference between stepparents who have played a parental role and those who haven't, and legacy status should reflect that?

This is how steps are referenced in our legacy policy:

(emphasis mine)

That seems to cover both bases: the step who raised a girl since she was 3 would be considered a legacy, since the family defines their relationship as mother-daughter. It would then exclude the 25 year old step-mother when real dad had his mid-life crisis, since clearly that is not a mother/daughter relationship.

It also better defines the step-sister situation, since again, some of these step-sisters could have grown up together, whereas others grew up across the country with virtually no interaction.

Right, I didn't say anything about equality, just politeness.

That's not being PC that's being polite.

Now, being polite and still treating people like shit still makes you an asshole, but at least you're a polite asshole, I suppose.
Example: "Gay and lesbian individuals should not get married because they can't make babies." "African-American families during slavery were better off than they are now." Polite in their language usage but still assholes.

Treating people nicely and equally in every way but using the terms that they prefer to call themselves still... makes you an asshole.
Example:
"You queers can get married now you fudge-packers*."
and
"N****** are people too."

These will not make you friends either.

Tl;dr: words and actions both count, so you can't pretend the words are just superfluous.

Actually if you'd read the rest of my posts rather than the tiny bits you quoted, I addressed that.

Since there's no way to address any level of parental involvement other than the fact they provided the legacy form itself, it's not really relevant. Our legacy policies don't look like this for a reason:

I get that. But I'm sticking by my position, too. ;) In my experience, there's more to the concept of political correctness than just

Quote:

a bullshit phrase mostly made up and used by people who think that being polite infringes too much on their freedom to use offensive words.

Fair enough. I'm not saying the phenomena you describe don't exist but I don't label them as part of political correctness because I don't find any validity to the phrase. If that makes sense.

Pi Beta Phi legacies are actually only Mothers and Sisters.

Sorry I meant daughters and sisters!!!! I'm a Mom that is why it is on my mind.

Psst! JFF! I just looked on our website and it still says granddaughters!

This is an old thread, but I was just thinking about how a lot of PNM's think they are legacies when they are not. I remember going through with a LOT of women who claimed to be "legacies" to XYZ through aunts or cousins. I think it is generally a bad idea to list your legacy status on your Panhellenic paperwork anyway, but it occurs to me that other chapters could see someone is a legacy and release her, when it turns out she really isn't, anyway.

I find this whole "not bidding legacies" thing a bit odd. Is it the normal for sororities to not favor legacies like it is for fraternities (as in not give them bids because of being legacies)? I know for sure with us we bid legacies pretty easily. Its kinda an unwritten rule.

Men don't have quotas (or at least, they don't at the vast majority of schools). Every legacy you take is a different girl you can't take. It's a whole different ballgame.

Now, when chapters are below quota/total, I think it is very rare to not give a bid to a legacy. I'd guess that virtually every HQ would want a damn good reason that you chose to remain below quota/total rather than give Lindsay Legacy a bid.

Oh, no kidding! One of my sister's [bio] sisters is a sister in another NPC at another school and they're thrilled because "their daughters will be legacies to both." Looking over the list of what constitutes a legacy in various groups, that's not the case.

For a lot of sorority chapters (particularly in the south), even if there WEREN'T quotas and totals, the amount of legacies would be as many women as there are already active in the sorority...times 5. It just isn't feasible to bid every legacy from a mathematical standpoint.

And even at a smaller school/system, even if the chapter is waaaaay under total...if the legacy just blatantly doesn't fit...the sorority will give her every chance, but in the end, why bid someone who no one in the sorority likes (and who more than likely doesn't like anyone in the sorority) just because her mom was a member 25 years ago? It's stupid. Better to practice true Greek unity and Panhellenic spirit and encourage the young woman to look at ALL the chapters and find what is right for HER - not force her into what was right for her mom a generation ago.

I feel like reposting my comment on this topic, since it was way back on page 1! Take Ole Miss, for example, you think 1,500 Chi Omega legacies go through each year? You are way off base.

Overemphasis added for boy to understand concept.

I could give a shit how many Chi Omega legacies go through rush at Ole Miss.

Alpha Gamma Delta Legacy Policy
 

Thought I would add in Alpha Gamma Delta's Leacy Policy (seeing as I just noticed this thread today!)

(From the Legacy Introduction Form):

"Alpha Gamma Delta recognizes that legacies are important to our Fraternity because they bring loyalty, strength, pride, and support to our chapters.

A legacy is a daughter, sister, grand-daughter, or step-daughter of an Alpha Gamma Delta who is an initiated member in Good Standing with the Fraternity.

It is the responsibility of the legacy's AGD relatives and friends to notify a chapter that she will be participating in recruitment by completing a RIF and LIF.

Collegiate chapters are not required to offer a bid to a legacy.

An AGD legacy should be a qualified recruitment guest in her own right--grades, activities, accomplishments, and overall compatibility with the chapter.

The Fraternity expects all collegiate chapters to give serious consideration to each legacy out of courtesy to the AGD member to whom she is related.

A legacy must be invited to at least one invitational round of the chapter's recruitment functions.

If a chapter releases a legacy, an advisor for the chapter must contact the AGD relative of the legacy to inform her of the legacy's release from membership consideration. All efforts must be taken to contact the relative prior to the distribution of invitations to the next round of recruitment events.

If a chapter invites a legacy to Preference, the legacy must be placed on the chapter's first bid list.

AGD members must have realistic expectations for our legacies. We must remember that some legacies are happier in another Greek group. All NPC groups have similar goals and ideals.

Legacies--Our special link between Alpha Gamma Delta's past and future."

I really like that they have a part specifically stating that some legacies are happier in other NPC groups!

This isn't necessarily valid. I went to Indiana (the user name) and even as far back as the 1980's we had some chapters where, in fact, the number of legacies was higher than that chapter's quota. With bed quota, our quotas were anywhere from usually 30-55. Given the number of chapters in our state/area and the age of these chapters, having a lot of legacies for some chapters was common. I remember Theta having over 100 legacies with Kappa and Pi Phi close behind. Now 25 years later, I am sure that this still happens on some campuses or for some of the older, larger organizations. It may even happen more frequently today.