Originally Posted by GoldenAnchor (Post 2476224)

Wow. That’s a jump. I’m shocked at how many people here are convinced this singular choice will be the downfall of all NPC groups. Have a little faith. Legacies still exist, even in DG, it’s not like that bond is being completely erased.

Originally Posted by DGalumna (Post 2476214)

I made an account just to comment on this.

I am a relatively young alumna (late 20s). I come from a mid-sized chapter (~150) at a well regarded private school. I have been active in my city’s alumnae group and have done some work with undergraduate chapters nearby. That is to say, I'm not someone who just left after my college years and have been an involved member of our sisterhood in a number of capacities.

I support this decision. There are a variety of barriers to entry for women to join a sorority. Some of them are wider NPC problems like the rising cost of dues and other costs associated with sorority membership. DG cannot do anything about that. What they can do is remove a policy that at the end of the day is mainly benefitting upper-class (white) women whose mothers and grandmothers had the opportunity to attend college and the ability to join a sorority. We can argue about what that privilege means and who has or doesn’t have privilege (which is what a lot of the comments on Facebook have devolved to) but that doesn’t change the fact that the legacy policy can and likely has prevented wonderful women from joining our sisterhood that we absolutely could have benefited from. If PNM A is a 4.0 student who also runs track and is an engineering major with a glowing personality and PNM B has fine grades but minimal involvement on campus and a personality that clashes with the sisterhood BUT is a legacy, don't we want to give our collegians the opportunity to choose A as often as befits their membership selection? And legacies do not suddenly disappear. A woman whose mother, grandmother, or sister is a DG is still considered a legacy. What changes is the requirements to look at them differently than any other woman who wants to join our sisterhood. She will still be welcomed as someone with a special connection to DG and her legacy relative is still welcome at initiation and any other events that they may host. The celebration just formally starts on bid day rather than before.

To be frank, the comments that have turned truly nasty on the Facebook thread in particular have come from older alumnae demanding respect that they are not giving in return. The majority of the women for the change (again, mostly younger alumnae) have kindly, politely, and gently tried to explain where the policy change has come from and how exactly it relates to privileges they may not have realized. Instead they have been met with condescension, coded language and in some cases overt transphobia that had no place in the conversation. This is not an ageist thing and there are still many older alumnae who have actively engaged in debate in a way that is productive and polite. But the majority of women coming out swinging, accusing DG of pandering and belittling their own sisters, are those who have not been in college for a long time and are not as close to the current members and DG chapters. They have spoken down to their sisters, denied their experiences, and have in effect formed cliques that have ganged up on other women and used "laughing" reactions to some very serious posts. I believe someone quoted our Article II ("The objects of this Fraternity shall be to foster high ideals of friendship among women, to promote their educational and cultural interests, to create in them a true sense of social responsibility, and to develop in them the best qualities of character") to one of the woman and she replied " it’s ok, I’m a grown up that is not concerned with whatever article 2 is." These younger women coming out in force for the policy change may not have legacies of their own but they are the ones dealing with it day-to-day. They are the ones seeing its effects during recruitment (and in many cases being yelled at by women twice their age because her daughter is not a fit for DG at XYZ university the way she may have been 25 years ago at DG at ABC college) and beyond.

The reality is that our beloved Fraternity is going through changes that come with today’s world. What you deem as “wokeness” is not sudden and rather part of the last few years of Delta Gamma actively re-examining its history and contextualizing what it did wrong and how it now wants to do right. I would like to point you to the Winter 2019 Anchora cover article here which was a huge step in understanding our history and what that means for us moving forward. It's something many of the women who have been *chosen* for membership in Delta Gamma are passionate about and work for in line with our values. This is one piece in a long process and I doubt it ends here for us or for the rest of sorority life (DG noted in a comment that the NPC has requested that all members examine ways to become more inclusive organizations). I understand that change can be hard but many of the younger alumnae and collegians have been doing as much of the work as we can within the institution to push for more inclusivity within DG and we’re grateful to see it be taken seriously. This isn’t pandering or virtue signaling but instead shows a commitment by DG to work to bring new members from all walks of life into our sisterhood.

I’m young and I accept that. I am not a mother yet and don’t know if I will have a daughter (though I hope!). I’m sure that would color my feelings, but not enough to change my view. I will lovingly raise my imaginary future daughter with the values DG and I share. I hope that when the time comes to join a sorority she and DG are a perfect fit and she will receive an invitation to join based on her own merit and character. She will still be a legacy to Delta Gamma and if she joins I will probably cry when I pin her with our shared anchor badge. The only thing that changes is that she and I will both know DG chose her for her and not because twenty-something years ago it also chose me.

Originally Posted by shirley1929 (Post 2476230)

Disclaimer - not a DG, but a member of another NPC that I'm sure is watching and paying attention.

Also, I agree with whoever said that DG should eliminate the mandatory RIF/REC requirement for membership. That seems to be the biggest barrier - SO many people who's families didn't do this before them have NO understanding of the process (even as many of us try to help them). It just seems like that's a bigger barrier to membership.

Originally Posted by TriDeltaSallie (Post 2476228)

Without input from members or voting. Apparently without warning. And announced it on social media to the general membership (read: a lot of the soon-to-be alienated middle).

On top of that, they directly tied the change to the most divisive developments in our culture at the current moment - identity politics, intersectionality, and critical race theory.

Originally Posted by UVASquirrel (Post 2476232)

I agree with this. I think that more than anything else, a lack of a recommendation (at the schools where it really matters) is probably the kiss of death. Eliminating the recommendation process would certainly level the playing field on those campuses and would also be a great first step for any NPC group that isn't willing to yet change their legacy policy.

Originally Posted by GoldenAnchor (Post 2476236)

There has been discussion at Delta Gamma regarding our current Constitutional requirement to receive a Recommendation Form for a Delta Gamma prior to pledging as it relates to removing barriers for membership.

Unlike polices, Constitutional changes must be made by the Convention body and follow a series of steps in order for any recommendation changes to be discussed and voted upon. While the deadline has passed to propose Constitutional changes for next week’s Convention, Delta Gamma will continue to follow NPC guidance on finding ways to reduce the barriers for membership.”

Originally Posted by GoldenAnchor (Post 2476234)

To address this part - this is a direct result of calls to action on the collegiate level, multiple collegiate chapters made this request of EO. Input directly from the members being impacting by this policy and seeing it in action in their recruitment spaces.

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 2476239)

I would think, though, that this would come up directly after recruitment, not NOW, when people have other things on their minds to put it mildly. If in October or November they would have opened a discussion saying, many chapters felt hamstrung by our legacy policy this past recruitment season, they had to cut great women and many of these women were POC, etc etc, it would have been much more well received. Instead, it gets tied to the George Floyd murder and subsequent recent events and really does come across as virtue signalling.

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 2476239)

I would think, though, that this would come up directly after recruitment, not NOW, when people have other things on their minds to put it mildly. If in October or November they would have opened a discussion saying, many chapters felt hamstrung by our legacy policy this past recruitment season, they had to cut great women and many of these women were POC, etc etc, it would have been much more well received. Instead, it gets tied to the George Floyd murder and subsequent recent events and really does come across as virtue signalling.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06 (Post 2476243)

But if their alumnae were paying attention, they'd know that it isn't tied to that. Go back and read the Winter 2019 Anchora posted by DGalumna. It seems apparent that this isn't a decision that emerged out of thin air.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06 (Post 2476243)

But if their alumnae were paying attention, they'd know that it isn't tied to that. Go back and read the Winter 2019 Anchora posted by DGalumna. It seems apparent that this isn't a decision that emerged out of thin air.