I firmly believe that how people's posts come off the first time is how they were intended. As humans we attempt to come back to correct ourselves so the viewpoints expressed can be in line with our nonprejudiced opinions of ourselves. :)

You said that antidiscriminatory claims for organizations are stupid, which is interesting in and of itself since this discussion wasn't just about denying membership to people who wore Izod versus Ralph Lauren (that stuff was mentioned but it wasn't the context of every post). You then said that an Obama supporter wouldn't fit in with your chapter, which was apparently a race correlation for you because you not-so-randomly inserted your tidbit about whites in BGLOs. And, btw, that was an intentionally broad comparison that you made.

Yeah...that post and the resulting discussion happened exactly as they were meant to happen. No backpedaling.

Right, thats what I meant.

If there won't be a black pledge because it can't happen then that is systematic... and that is racism. I'm not trying to call you out because I believe that organizations should be allowed to take whoever they want, but that doesn't make it anything other than racism when you deny a black guy membership only because hes black.

With all due respect, I take exception with the bolded statement. I happen to know more than a few gentleman of Kappa Alpha Order and I seriously doubt that anyone who has met them would ever consider them racists.

Which chapters are you talking about here?

Naming specific chapters will just get people in - pardon my crassness - some sort of a pissing match. "Shut up." "No, you shut up." So suffice to say that all of the KAs *I* happen to know come from chapters that are located in the South. Including - but not limited to - more than a few Southeastern Conference (SEC) institutions of higher learning. And over different generations as well.

It is quite possible that they happen to be the only members of their chapters that are not racists. However, I find it hard to believe that is the case.

Thank You, 33girl for the correction, but I'm going to add to the distinct differences between:

1) Kappa Alpha Order, whose spiritual (not actual) founder is Robert E. Lee. Almost all of its chapters are in the South and it was founded after

2) Kappa Alpha Society, which only has a few chapters (I think that they are all out east), but it has the distinction of being one of the first fraternities ever founded.
I found out about KA Society by reading Baird's years ago. :)

I am reminded why PhiGam is alright with me. :)

Generally speaking, it may only take a limited number of members to vote "no" to deny a bid to a rushee. In some chapters, it might be just one no vote. And some chapters may require a vote (approval) on each pledge prior to initiation. Again, this number needed to "blackball" (vote no and deny membership) may be low here as well.

That is impressive. I wish I could say the same. I do not have the power to turn them into an "ism", but I do have some prejudices.

Well, Kappa Alpha Order at Maryland definitely does not fit your description. Then again, Maryland is not the South. Of the first 3 KAs I met, one was African-American, one was Asian-American, and one was Jewish. I wonder what going to their convention is like...

That would be uncomfortable.

Because you can read my mind and tell me exactly what I intended. And yes, I have certain prejudices, but race is not one of them. Don't even think about trying to me how I feel about certain things because you do not know me. You do not know how my organization is run. I do not tell you how to run yours, therefore you do not tell me how to run mine. I do not see what my chapter of my organization not taking an Obama supporter has to with race. An Obama supporter can white, black or any other color. And if being an obama supporter makes this race correlated then you would seem to be saying that only black people support obama and all black people support obama. The fact that I do not care for Obama has nothing to do with his race.

I can read what your mind led you to type and deduce, accordingly.

phigam, you must have me confused with someone else cuz I don't know what in the heck you're talking about :) I was asking DST about her post, I haven't ever commented on any of your posts - til now.

My son is in the Kappa Alpha Order and he isn't racist and never has been. He has too many friends that are African American and too many relatives that are hispanic to be so. You are grossly over generalizing and it is not only rude, but also not acting like a gentleman (which you proclaim you are - vehemently).

Didn't your mother teach you that if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all? That is the southern way.

I take personal exception to your blanketed statement

My father is a Gentleman of the Kappa Alpha Order. He is most assuredly not racist or bigotted in any manner. His ability to see the greatness in all served him well during a decorated Air Force career.

He is however, prejudiced and quite intolerant against ignorance, laziness, deception and intrenched refusal to learn and appreciate intellegent discussion on all topics; no matter the demographics of the individual uttering such.

Some fall prey to the idea that southern = racist. Phigam, having your broad knowledge of American history to fall back on you know:
1.) Slavery existed in the U.S.A. throughout and after the WBTS.
2.) The Emancipation Proclaimation freed slaves in the C.S.A., NOT the U.S.A.
3.) After the War, many northern cities passed legislation barring freed slaves from living there.

. . . and so on, and so on. My point? That by celebrating southern heritage KA is most assuredly NOT celebrating racism. Racism, unfortunately, exists everywhere. I think it is dangerous for non-southerners to smugly assume it does not. It allows them to believe the issue doesn't affect them and isn't something they should consider and fight.
Are there racist KAs? Sure. Just as there are racist FIJIs, and every other GLO. Let me point out - the campus culture will have a great deal more to do with whether or not 1.) minorities even go through IFC rush and 2.) they are given bids. At some campuses, the BGLO are so strong that there is not much, if any, interest in minorities in pursuing membership in a traditionally white GLO. If you look at composites, they might be lily white, and you might assume they are racists.

I'm reminded of when cries of "Racism!" were leveled against the SMU Panhellenic. Turns out, no minorities(specifically, blacks) had gone through recruitment. (!!!) Once some did, some did indeed receive bids.

There are so many variables to why someone might not be given a bid. In fact, a very non-racist member might chose NOT to give a minority a bid if they felt their brothers would not be as accepting or positive about his pledgeship. Be very careful of making gross generalizations.

I don't think anyone should assume racism because a chapter is "lily white." The absence of something doesn't equal racism unless certain practices are found that attempt to deter nonwhites from participating in chapters' events or going through recruitment.

And, yes, every fraternity and sorority has chapters that go out of their way to keep certain people (whether that's based on race, social class, hair color, etc.) from programs or recruitment activities.

Makes sense. But, keep in mind that this still goes back to the many factors that contribute to why some minorities do not go through recruitment.



So instead of questioning the status quo, these people go right along with it.

That's actually STILL racism at the individual-level and reinforces the racist structure.

"So instead of questioning the status quo, these people go right along with it.

That's actually STILL racism at the individual-level and reinforces the racist structure. "
__________________


So, in my hypothetical situation what do you think is the proper response for a non-racist brother to one who is racist? Our hypothetical minority pnm is up for a vote. The non-racist knows that if he is given a bid, the pnm will not be treated equally. What do you think would be the best way to not reinforce the racist structure - to question the status quo?

The "nonracist" brother isn't really nonracist if he not only can't figure out how to handle the situation but would also continue to associate with racists within a racist structure. ;) If you believe your brothers are bigoted and racist morons who use chapter policies inappropriately, why's that okay for YOU to associate with but not for certain pnms?

Racism (and sexism) exist because of the prejudiced racists (and sexists) and the nonprejudiced (racists and sexists). This is one way in which racist (and sexist) structures and practices continue eventhough the average person will claim that they aren't prejudiced or racist (or sexist) when you ask them.

I acknowledge that's it difficult to make things change and that people often won't vote for someone because they want to "protect" that person. But when it boils down to it, it's still the same -ism.

Well, it's not as though you go through rush asking "Are you a racist?". (Talk about "biggest rush mistakes"!) It's entirely possible the subject never came up until this specific example. So let's say the non-racist member quits - "I won't associate with you racists!" and storms off. What has changed? By quitting, how has he advanced the cause of equality? I think it entirely possible that by remaining a member he is in a much better position to change the group culture - even if it means waiting to become an officer or an alumni and scheduling programming to try and open up some minds.

I guess my point is that I am always perplexed by those who call "racist!" but don't offer concrete suggestions on how to overcome it. Changing hearts and minds isn't, I realize, the work of an hour or a day. I think members can do more IN an org than OUT, and that sometimes one strong leader can make a difference.

Well, bless his heart!

My concept of racism isn't about changing hearts and minds, anyway, because that would be in the realm of "tolerance and diversity training for Archie Bunker."

Okay, I am truly trying to make sure I am clear about your views - you don't think people can change? I think often racism is a form of ignorance - you simply don't know enough to think beyond a stereotype.

SWTX i agree

ANY discrimination is ignorance. People can change it's not they can't it's that they won't because they don't want to feel uncomfortable doing something that isn't familiar to them.

On a structural level, racism isn't about "people changing" and it isn't a form of ignorance.

However, prejudice is a form of ignorance and people can learn and change their prejudiced or bigoted ways. But you don't need to be prejudiced to be racist and that's why I discussed prejudiced and nonprejudiced racists.

(We've had this discussion on GC about once a year. :))

To bring it back to rush mistakes, I do know of aspirants who have verbalized some discontent with the present GLO system (for example, I know of aspirants who were going to "diversify and teach" certain chapters about their bigoted ways regarding race, sexual orientation, etc.) and claimed that they would be the ones to change it. That pissed a lot of people off, of course, not just because some of the actives didn't want to change but because the actives didn't like know-it-all aspirants. It took forward-thinking and compassionate actives to get these aspirants a vote. Some aspirants didn't get a vote.

Gotcha
 

cool beans - and if you want to post a link to the previous discussion I'd be happy to read it.

You do tend to back pedal. Earlier you said you had no prejudices.

Or HE might feel that the person's personality just does not fit the group. Nothing wrong with that.

To be honest, fraternities are about brining together people of similar character who have shared interests and backgrounds. It only makes sense that a lot of those groups would be made along racial lines. A chapter doesn't need diversity to be a good chapter.

:) That only makes sense because this is still an extremely racially segregated society.

Or perhaps I made the statement I have no prejudices to get my point across that I was not racially prejudice but then realized that the statement was far more general than having to do with just race. Not back-pedaling, clarifying.

The thing is, which is why I originally said that I think discriminatory laws in GLOs are pointless is because a black person may not fit in with my organization, thats not saying we would not take a black person, because it could happen, but very few rush here so thats doubtful, but if he does not fit in he gets cut. So he files a lawsuit against my chapter saying we racially discriminated against him. He has no case, because we tell the truth that he was released not for his race, but for the simple fact that we do not feel he fits in with our organizations and what we embody. We probably cut a vast exponentially larger number of white people to for the same thing. I know a white person on our campus that inquired about membership to a traditionally black organization and they told him they would not take him. Him and his black friend that he wanted to pledge with then inquired about our organizations, and we welcomed them both to rush us and discussed it and decided that we would bid them both but with their athletic schedule they decided not to.
Moral of the story, I am not a racist person, neither are any of the brothers in my chapter. And I am standing by my claim that discrimination laws in GLOs are pointless.

And now I stand by for someone to ridicule some part of post because its sure to happen.

Wow how did this thread get to this ^^^ from this:
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n...1/P3240463.jpg

I actually miss Fratty's list of what to wear and what size/type/look of female to be seen in the company of...

Because I made a huge mistake.

I think what I have a bigger problem with is your missue of the term/construct of race. At least you're open with your biases and discrimation so people know what they're dealing with, and frankly I respect that a hell of a lot more than a closet bigot. A lot of what I believe you're referring to as "differences among races" are social constructs and have nothing to do with skin color, eye and nose shape, or even how one spells their last name. People grow up in all kinds of families and economic structures, and I know plenty of people who are not checking the white/caucasian box, but are interested in some activities you have mentioned. Race isn't defined by genetics or physical characteristics.

Of course I live in a completely different part of the country, but we have our history of hatred to the point in recent history a nearby city completely shut down operation to protest a KKK parade.

So in other words, what you're saying is you would have more in common (and probably bid) a black man who was raised in your town and whose parents were of the same social strata as yours before you'd bid some white guy from Pittsburgh.

I understand that - I think what people get upset about is what seems to be an assumption that there aren't any situations like that.

That's actually NOT why.

Yeah because he just tried to justify why this is still an extremely racially segregated society.

MEANING, blacks and whites from similar socioeconomic backgrounds remain segregated from one another versus being more integrated based on social class and similar experiences. And that's the reality.

I swear, I was trying to just bring back the "rush mistakes" but the uninformed posts keepacoming. There aren't FUNDAMENTAL differences across races.

If you believe "race" is culture (which it is, along with other social and economic factors that impact some groups more than others) then you agree 100% with the social construct definition of race.

"Race" is not biological. Period. And 99% of the differences that people observe across racial groups aren't biological or inherent.