As a Pi Phi alum, I love that they gave each chapter to ability to decide what is best for their own chapter. One size does not fit all and I think this helps recognize that.

Yes. ^^

Wait, so... doesn't this policy simply say: chapters can choose to recruit legacies in any way they want?

How is this any different from eliminating a national "leg up" legacy policy altogether?

And people think there should be another option: eliminating the first invitational-round courtesy but keeping the top of the bid list option...

So what's to stop a chapter from reporting option #3 to the national org (treating all PNMs the same, regardless of legacy status), but putting legacies on the top of the bid list if they make it to preference?

It seems to me like Pi Phi has seen the fallout from other orgs and is trying to dress up the same change as something else to appease their members.

Unless I'm reading this wrong? ::shrugs::

Actually, nothing will stop any chapter (even the ones with the new policy) from following the old policy. Membership selection is rarely publicized.

Right. So again, what's the difference?

If I'm reading this right, both Pi Phi and the other orgs who have gotten rid of their national legacy policies are all saying the same thing: we're leaving it up to the individual chapters.

If the chapter chooses one of the old legacy options, they will be held to it if a mad mama calls because her daughter wasn't on the first bid list. They won't be if they choose the newer option.

So if membership selection is rarely publicized, then that means mad mama wouldn't know which system the chapter is following, correct? So what justification would she have for being mad? Unless Pi Phi plans on publicizing which chapters are following which option?

And is the only goal with these policies to allow mad mamas to berate chapters when their daughters aren't selected for membership? If so, it seems like a policy that isn't worth supporting. ::shrugs::

Of course they'll know which policy they're following.

Of course? Why? Curious.

Does Pi Phi intend to disseminate this information for each chapter to all alumnae?

Probably so.

In the very early 1990s NPC groups were also grappling with the issue of diversity, although not to the intense extent of today's concerns and demands. Recent readings of online-archived NPC magazines from that era confirmed what I remember of that era, when I served several area collegiate chapters.

Personally, I think many sorority chapters have long given healthy promotion to being as diverse as possible given the choice of some WOC preferring not to become members of an NPC group [as carnation and others here on GC describe].

You think what the NPCs are facing right now is "intense"? I beg to differ.

I would be curious to know what those NPC magazines of the 90s are confirming for you, though. Care to share?

Can you clarify this statement?

Do some chapters promote diversity and inclusion? Sure. But to pretend like most of them do is laughable, and I don't just mean in terms of welcoming different races.

Do a Google image search on "Panhellenic bid day". Scroll for a bit. How many WOC do you see? How many young women are in a wheelchair? How many young women are curvier or have a little more weight on them? How many young women aren't picture-perfect (straight) white girls?

Seriously. Look at the photos and tell me what you see. And then we're going to claim that we're welcoming to everyone, and "if those 'other' girls aren't joining, it's because they choose not to!"? Even if they're choosing not to, do you think it might have something to do with the system? With how we recruit? With some of our practices and procedures? With how we present ourselves? With who we choose to exclude?

Either way, let's not act like ALL WOC are turning away from NPCs simply because they want to join a BGLO. Let's also not pretend that WOC who join NPCs aren't experiencing microaggressions from their own sisters. It happens. I've seen it happen and I've heard people say that it's happened to them.

We could all be doing sooo much better. Acting like we don't need to is the real issue here.

I don't think you can speak for any chapter except your own.

Replying to Cheerio’s comment about the 1990’s & not quoting because my browser stinks......

Agree 100%! Funny (or horrifying) story: I was a traveling consultant for my national organization in the the early 1990’s. We had a beautiful, amazing, super-awesome WOC on the front page of our national magazine that year. (I LOVE this woman & am SSSOOO glad she is my sister!) We met earlier in our active collegiate years at convention, and this is important to note for the story.

One of my first trips as a consultant was to a mid size southern school for rush. (Yes rush, it wasn’t recruitment yet). These very white, very sheltered girls were having a bit of a breakdown because the first WOC was registered for NPC rush on their campus, and they legitimately did not know what to do about it. Talk about a long weekend of inclusion training......When I brought up the fact that my African-American friend was on the cover of our magazine, they really and honestly thought that she was a planted model and not really my sister. I had to politely tell them that no, she is real and is YOUR sister too, not just mine.

I am proud of all of our GLO’s for continuing to evolve over the last 30 years. Do we have a long way to go? YES! But we are moving forward.

That's what you got out of my post? Oh, OK.