Depending on your point of view, Kappa Kappa Gamma just caved to pressure or caught up with the group. https://www.kappakappagamma.org/kapp...ypolicychange/

According to the FAQs that follow the announcement, the answer to the question "Does the legacy definition still exist?" is No.

As someone astutely and ruefully noted in the (many) comments on the KKG Facebook page, the highest giving level to the KKG Foundation is still called the Legacy Club at a $1,000,000 level.

I bet they'll lose a buttload of donors like Pi Phi did.

Gamma Phi Beta is no longer giving preferential treatment to legacies, but has formed a committee to look into other ways to acknowledge and celebrate legacies and "legacy makers" (I hate that term - open to suggestions for a better one). I'm on the committee.
https://www.gammaphibeta.org/gpb/00c...tions-Answered

You know, I don't think there's any other way they can "celebrate" legacies if they're going to toss out legacy policies.

Yes, the NPC Inclusion Bandwagon just got a little heavier.

The public relations pronouncements involved, when NPC groups vow to 'rectify' non-inclusion, are as important as any steps being taken to actually vote-in allegedly marginalized PNMs and persons who feel excluded from the NPC Recruitment system.

But I laughed when I read the following sentence within Kappa's Policy Announcement as IMO it was equally true of, and could have been made by, KKG at least 32 years ago: "Today, we firmly believe that an inclusive membership will set us on a path to an even more vibrant sisterhood."

"Legacy Maker" sounds a little cringy. Plus a quick google search and the first result for that term is a meat company.

It would be nice to celebrate legacies after recruitment- maybe tied to founders day somehow? Any maybe not even celebrate the colligate but the "legacy maker". maybe a special pin or necklace or something. In my experience it's the Moms that care more than the college student anyway.

I love Pi Phi's legacy badge. I hope they continue it.

https://www.hjgreek.com/assets/image...arge/67915.jpg

I feel like a lot of us don't ever want to hear from Pi Phi again, much less about any weak attempts they're making to get us to think that they value legacies.

I had quite a few sisters who have that badge in my pledge class - and their sisters or mothers were able to come to initiation. The extra bond of sorority sisterhood was beautiful to see. Removing preferential treatment in recruitment doesn't remove that entirely.

I expect that even in the groups whose HQs removed legacy preference, the members will still pledge who they want. The HQs are only doing this to look good (in their opinions).

I didn't see a post about our announcement, but Alpha Gamma Delta did announce a couple months ago (I think- time flies, etc.) that we've dropped legacy preference policies.

https://www.tridelta.org/the-trident...Gdnb9kk305G1TU

Tri Delta has officially eliminated their legacy policy. Before this, it was up to the individual chapter to have it or not, but now nobody can have it.

I guess I'm going to go against the hive here (what else is new?). Social fraternities and sororities are exclusive by definition. If you really wanted to be truly inclusive, you'd just have a table with a sign-up sheet for anyone who wanted to join. After a meeting where you explained the costs, you'd get payment from those who were above the GPA threshold and could afford it and welcome them to your pledge class (oops, forgot, calling women "pledges" could be considered to be "hazing").



But wait, what if she can't make the minimum GPA threshold? Are you being ableist by excluding her? What if she can't afford it? Shouldn't you provide her a scholarship? Do we have a level playing field if we exclude those who can't pay dues? Who would want to be in a chapter like that? Over-correction is a thing.

All that has been going through my mind. And if the rando who signed up at the table should happen to post some racist rant or make the new members chug a few, the poof! There goes your chapter!

Yep.

And if there is no policy won’t that just make things like alumnae sending cookies etc go through the stratosphere? Ie like how Congress denying the existence of the mafia makes it impossible to fight the mafia.

I just read the email. The reason they gave was that there are more legacies than available bids. Then they expanded legacies to include granddaughters, step-granddaughters and nieces in addition to the already recognized daughters, step-daughters, sisters and step-sisters. So now there are even more legacies than available bids.

At this point, which organizations still have preferential treatment for legacies during recruitment? From what I've found, the following still have theirs intact (or there was no announcement of a change of policy easily found):

Alpha Delta Pi
Alpha Epsilon Phi
Alpha Sigma Tau
Chi Omega
Delta Phi Epsilon
Delta Zeta
Kappa Delta
Sigma Delta Tau
Theta Phi Alpha
Zeta Tau Alpha

And these orgs have clearly eliminated their policy:

Alpha Chi Omega
Alpha Gamma Delta
Alpha Omicron Pi
Alpha Phi
Alpha Sigma Alpha
Alpha Xi Delta
Delta Delta Delta
Delta Gamma
Gamma Phi Beta
Kappa Alpha Theta
Kappa Kappa Gamma
Phi Mu
Phi Sigma Sigma
Pi Beta Phi
Sigma Kappa
Sigma Sigma Sigma

If any part of this is incorrect, please feel free to clarify.

I counted 25 orgs and then realized Zeta Tau Alpha isn't listed. I believe their policy is still that a legacy will be invited back to one invitational event. Maybe a ZTA can confirm. See here:

Thank you! I added them. Through a quick search, it seems they haven't made a more recent change to their legacy policy.

Reading through this and the rec thread, does anyone else think it’s bat guano crazy to be doing all this in the middle of a worldwide pandemic?

I mean - the people who are pushing all these changes through have probably picked an optimum time to do so as most of us are occupied with other more pressing things or in the throes of depression. When everyone snaps out of it and wakes up, will these policies really stay? How many national convention throwdowns will result?

I also wonder how the national leadership of so many groups has come to be so far out of touch with the rest of the membership.

Guy with a question here. When a legacy goes through sorority rush do all the chapters on campus know she's a legacy?

If it is disclosed in the sorority recruitment registration yes. I have know of some PNMs that do not disclose that they are legacies. So sometimes yes, sometimes no.

YES! YES! YES!

In answer to your final thought: Consultants, both the legal kind and the operational kind.

Some national sorority boards have been under the spell of consultants for too many years. Consultants stand as middlemen between the sorority boards and sorority constituents.

Consultants sometimes ask the wrong questions of boards and constituants. This can result in poor sorority decisions being made and incorrect actions being taken.

Consultants are sometimes tasked to encourage policies passed by a board but considered unnecessary and discouraging to the constituants because constituants feel they have not been properly consulted or heard.

Another thread spoke about members of sorority boards needing to make high yearly monetary bequests to their orgs in order to even be on said boards. That denies some people from becoming a major decision maker for their org.

Oh yeah, we got us one of those. I wonder how much she’s being paid and if that money couldn’t have been better used for things like scholarships at the many campi we’re on where first gen college students predominate. Or maybe even competitive housing.

I was wondering, why not disclose the legacy status ONLY to the chapter in question? Not all legacies want to join the chapter anyway, and it would prevent them from being cut from chapters that want her but figure "she'll go XYZ anyway because she's a legacy". :confused:

I cannot speak for all schools, but for the one I advise, if a 'mistake' happens (accidentally dropping a legacy after first round comes to mind), our panhellenic will only let us correct that mistake if the PNM indicated that legacy status in her sign-up.

And my international org dropped preferential treatment for legacies before this last recruitment, and guess what? we took just as many "legacies" this year as in prior years. But we still have recommendation forms so that helps a bit.

I don’t think the national offices are “so far out of touch with the REST of the membership.” On my group’s Facebook page, there are regularly posts from members thanking EO for the positive changes being made, especially from women who wouldn’t have been eligible to be in a sorority 60 years ago and have sometimes felt marginalized even as full members.

Even myself, a white girl from a “good” family and a strong high school but no legacies...when I was deciding between two colleges, I definitely considered the fact that one school had a 100+ year old Greek system with more legacies than spots in many chapters. And the other school had a younger Greek system where the first chapter legacies would start to come through the year I graduated. My rush was competitive - sororities were still selective and I had cuts - but our chapter had maybe 2-5 legacies pledge each year. The last time I saw our chapter’s stats, legacies were about 40-50% of the pledge class with many legacy cuts. That’s a huge difference in 25 years and represents many fewer opportunities to pledge for PNM’s like me (who literally was born on life’s “3rd base”), not to mention other PNM’s who have as much or more to give but don’t know the ropes.

Are members grumpy and even outraged about these changes? Sure. But they seem to be the same kind of people screaming “make America great (white) again” and fighting tooth and toenail against America becoming more diverse,, ignoring the huge “leg up” in life they had by being (mostly) white, college educated women. I won’t be so ignorant to think my daughter would be a better DG than a non-legacy just because of her family name. All legacy relatives should strive to raise their legacies in a way that every sorority is interested in her because her character, kindness, morals, service, and intellect radiate on their own.

I know with our org, part of the problem was that this change was announced after a convention during which it had been neither brought up nor discussed.

Also, some women of color were the loudest critics of eliminating the legacy policy. They wanted their sisters or future children to get an extra look if they attended a school that was more homogeneous than where they had gone.

I know that everyone’s policy is different but I think there are ways other than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Chi Omega has been very smart in confining who is a legacy to mothers and sisters. Once again, this is something that would be served better by being handled on a chapter level rather than nationally.

I know a black DG who would be infuriated if she read that. She is extremely upset because her daughter's legacy status won't be honored when she rushes.

ETA: I can think of a lot of women who are angry about this who do not fit that MAGA picture.

This sums it all up.

The next thing to go, of course, will be quota/total. And then either the 3 most popular chapters will be the only ones left standing or else it’ll be a random lottery to make the chapters as indistinguishable from each other as possible and choosing members will disappear.

I can just hear (read?) Titchou telling me that I’m being over the top and reactionary. I certainly hope that she is right.

Ask me what it was like the year that Shorter required that every PNM get a bid. :eek:

Oh my, I remember that story. What a nightmare. Wasn't that still when Shorter was all local sororities?

It was the last year. I think that the debacle precipitated the college's demand that all go national.

The newer policy also makes me grumpy, and please count me as not fitting the TXDG-described MAGA picture.

My small sorority chapter (mumble) years ago when I was initiated was PLENTY diverse as far as nationalities, sexual orientations and religious affiliations among our members, too, and we LIKED IT that way!

Holy generalizations, Batman! I’m grumpy and voted for Biden. I’m grumpy that a triple XYZ legacy could get taken to Pref round and put at the bottom of the bid list. I’m grumpy that fantastic small town girls will get overlooked, and I’m grumpy that weak chapters will likely get weaker. I’m grumpy that this was shoved down the members throats with very little input/discussion. All the while...none of this is doing anything to change diversity in our groups.

If we’re still specifically discussing DG there was plenty of input and discussion before this change was made, this change was the direct result of a large outcry of members asking for this change and many others last summer. The discussion around legacy’s was happening for years and it finally was pushed to its breaking point when a chapter wrote an incredibly well thought out proposal to council for the removal of the policy and they listened to member input and that proposal was backed and supported by dozens of other chapters. (It was Beta - Washington if I’m not mistaken)

Just because others chose to ignore the conversation doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening.

Yes! Yes! Yes! And they're claiming that they're doing it in the name of diversity but we all know it won't change anything, except to make the chapters less diverse because now the girls will only be voting for PNMs whom they know.

Not specific to DG at all. Several other groups have had issues with this being thrown at them.

The policy some have had of "leaving it up to the chapters" (who, incidentally, likely all conduct recruitment/membership selection differently depending on the size and scope of their recruitments) made the most sense to me.

Bolded to make things louder for those in the back!!!!