Interview with plaintiff, mother and lawyer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=lyfbrINQd9s

I'm wondering what the mom's are hoping to get out of this?

Do they really think that their alumnae sisters are going to want much to do with them? Obviously I can't speak for them, but man if I found out an alumnae of ADPi was suing EO because her precious snowflake legacy was cut and not allowed to bid ADPi, damn straight I'd 1. not be associating with her. I'd want nothing to do with the woman and would be doing everything in my power to support ADPi against her and her daughter.

I really hope that AKA comes through this retarded lawsuit shining through. It is about self-centered women who feel that everything in life should be handed to them on a silver platter.

After watching the interview, I feel sorry for the daughter.

This is clearly something mommy wants way more than her little girl.

I had that very same thought.

Sounds to me as though the legacy status means that if a woman fulfills membership obligations then her daughter can be a member of the national sorority. It doesn't mean that a specific collegiate chapter is obligated to extend a bid to the daughter. However, obviously, that's not what this mother and daughter assume.

Oh my!!

Breach of contract? Interesting...

This article has a link to the filing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2822828.html.

Question: So if a child IS a legacy, should they not put that down on the "application" (I'm not sure the correct terminology)? Is it better for them to apply on their own merits rather than of their legacy status?

I'm sure the daughters put their "legacy"* status on the application.

I'm also sure the chapter knew they were "legacies" before they actually applied.

I'm certain they applied on their own merits, but the moms feel that since the daughters are "legacies", just that alone should have allowed their daughters automatic acceptance to the chapter.


* legacies used in quotes since each daughter is technically not a member.

The next chapter in this saga: witness tampering?
 

Can someone help me with a question? When the article says that they cancelled the mothers' sorority privileges does that mean they deactivated them or whatever it is called in AKA and they claim it was witness tampering because that makes all the other actives worry that the same will happen to them if they get involved with the case?

Based on the article, I would say 'yes' and 'yes' to both of your questions.


Membership is a privilege, not a right.