Diversity in the SEC
 

We've had various threads on this topic over the years. And in a year where it finally has appeared in the SEC, it seems no one has mentioned it. So I thought I would toss it out and see what everyone has to say.

So far, from online pictures, it appears that UGA, MS State and Kentucky have some AA NMs this year. Bid Day is today for LSU and others are coming soon. I, for one, am glad to see it. At UAB where I advised for 30 years, we've had AA members for a number of years - in fraternities and sororities.

Your thoughts....

Are we talking about "diversity" or are we talking about African American participation?

^^this^^ There have been many non-European members for years. But specifically regarding African American participation, we have true inclusion when people are celebrating the great members they pledged. Period. Not "We have great new members and oh yeah, we pledged a black girl, too." I think the greater progress is that the race is not mentioned and the new sisters are celebrated.

Well, I am going to back Titchou up. In the South, having AA participation in NPC groups is a recent occurrence. Period. I noticed a few African American new members at even the more sought after chapters at the SEC schools. We can taunt them for being backwards, but progress starts somewhere. I hope this signals a change that is lasting...however you want to label it.

I can remember some AA members in the SEC as far back as the eighties. Seems like we're more aware of it now because we have all the social media through which people post Bid Day pictures.

To address Sen's question: I am assuming that Titchou is saying "diversity" = racial diversity.

To the question overall - please realize that there are non AA in NPHC orgs as well.

Joining a GLO of one's choice may not always be about race. It can also be about how a person chooses to align with a certain culture.

We assume that race = culture, but that is not necessarily true.

Another point is that not all persons in this country who have "black" skin are African Americans. There are many persons of African descent, such as Jamaicans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Colombians, who traditionally do not consider themselves as African Americans. And just about every African that I've met absolutely do not consider themselves as African Americans.

So, while you may see a Black female in a NPC pledge class, that Black female may not see her cultural identity in alignment with historical African American identity, i.e., NPHC sororities.

Best post I ever SAW on the subject!

KKG at Arkansas has definitely pledged African Americans, as far back as 2000. Nothing new for them.

Having a relative few (which is why nonwhites always have and always will be a minority in such organizations) nonwhites in SEC is not automatically "diversity." The notion of faux colorblindness and tokenism have made people (read: usually many white people) pretend that having a few nonwhites is a quick solution to a silent issue and therefore you (in general) can claim diversity based on a small percent of the total population.

On that note, whether you (in general) want diversity and plan to address the diversity if it ever exists (read: avoid the "you're my brother, we don't see race..." lies) is completely up to you. On another note, if you want to persist with the "only a few nonwhites" in organizations, that is also up to you.

I, for instance, do not want DST to be racially diverse. I intentionally joined an historically and predominantly Black, African American, and African diaspora GLO. That is how I want it to remain and that is how it will remain. That is not a bad thing. I am just making a point to highlight how catch words like "diversity" must be unpacked to see what is really going on beyond the cool catch phrases and catch words.

As long as predominantly white organizations keep pretending that race is not intentionally and/or unintentionally part of their foundation and general makeup, there will be no diversity. That is fine if there is no diversity but you (in general) cannot then pretend that race is not part of your foundation and general makeup. Keep pretending your demographic makeup is mere coincidence, and keep pretending that whiteness is invisible and race neutral and only nonwhite organizations are founded or rooted in race and ethnicity, and you will keep running in circles regarding "diversity."

Any black women--or any women at all, for that matter--are in their sororities (NPC or whatever else) because they are wanted. I can not even imagine someone telling a bunch of women, "Okay, we're looking bad at this school or in this sorority because we're all white. We MUST pledge a black woman." Can you imagine how that would go over? Can anyone imagine any threat in the world that could make them pledge a woman they didn't want?

Nope, if they're there, they were wanted for themselves.

With over one hundred years and hundreds of thousands of members, let us not pretend that all sororities and fraternities only have members who were (1) wanted and (2) wanted for their individual awesomeness regardless of demographics.

Some of us know of chapters that were forced to initiate people and chapters that chose people based on what some would consider superficial reasons.

Furthermore, "wanted for themselves" can include race, ethnicity, and culture. My awesomeness includes being a Black woman. I am not a transparent robot void of culture and group identity. Therefore, "wanted for themselves" and what this means to different people is one reason why diversity is complex. People want to boast about not caring and pretend as though you just accidentally have diversity. You wake up one day and say "wow, we suddenly and randomly have a bunch of nonwhite people...it wasn't even somewhat intentional...we never noticed our PNMs and members were changing in demographics...wow....."

It's very, very difficult for women to get into most GLOs at all the universities I've worked with. A woman might have fabulous grades, scores, activities, and looks and still get released and no one will really know why. It's going on as I speak right now at various schools and we're all openmouthed at who's getting released--PNMs with sitting sisters, daughters of Alum Club presidents, you name it.

That's why I think that the idea of going into some sorority's selection meeting and saying, "OK, ladies, we're looking racist here and you have to take a black woman--here are the names of the 3 who are rushing, pick one and we're going to force 2 other sororities to do the same." An alum can't even go in and order the members to be sure and take 8 girls from Mountain Brook High School or take X amount of pageant winners or anything I can think of. And if some member gets up and tries to do the same about a stranger when they're in the middle of pitched battles about women they already know and love...nope.

They have to love the girl for herself.

If only human interactions, cultural capital, and social capital always work as they do in our member guidelines and pledge manuals. :)

I imagine that forced pledging in the NPC would work about as well as it would with any GLO-- a college president, say, comes stomping into a DST meeting and says, "OK, ladies, I just made an NPC group pledge a black woman and I expect you to return the favor to me and pledge a white one. Here are 3 names, pick one."

Can you imagine how thrilled both groups would be? :)

I think there's truth in what both DrPhil and carnation are saying. Yes, the sororities have to like the girl or she's not getting a bid, but I still think there's some of that look at how cool and diverse we are because we have a black sister. Just my humble opinion.

Ditto.

And I was going to say (but checked myself, and then decided it was in fact relevant) that diversity is a continuum for most places. You can't define yourself as diverse because of one African American, or one Asian American, or one Arab American, or one or a few anything. Diversity means picking each one on her own merit. When Recruitment is done that way it's done the way it's meant to be done, not the way someone else thinks it should be done, or the way way it used to be done.

This isn't about college presidents. This is about the GLOs themselves making such decisions.

Delta regional and NHQ wouldn't push white members (only because they are white) on our chapters because we do not purport to be seeking white members. It is not correlated with our founding purposes and interests. That is why you will typically not see us starting discussions about "racial diversity in Delta (NPHC, in general)." It is typically not our concern and not our goal. We are honest about that and therefore do not pretend to be shocked that 99% of our aspirants and membership for 100 years has been women of the Africa diaspora.

We also do not pretend that race and ethnicity are not part of the aspirant and membership process for many aspirants and members. Many if not most of us would never claim that race and ethnicity were no concern when speaking with aspirants. That doesn't mean that we do not have nonBlack aspirants and nonBlack members. It means that a Sisterhood of Black college women committed to public service is not pretending as though we unintentionally, coincidentally, and accidentally ended up 99% African diaspora and have no intention to remain that way. Delta has an "anti-discrimination clause" but there are also members who will honestly tell you that they would never vote for a white member regardless of other qualifications. White aspirants and white applicants are a rarity so these members are not losing sleep over this.

It's an interesting conundrum. I think having racial diversity in a chapter makes it more interesting. But you have to start somewhere and that means you're probably going to pledge 1 black girl and that sort of screams - see? We are diverse! We have A black girl! But if 3 or 4 black girls go through rush at Bama or Ole Miss, and they don't all magically like the single same chapter (and vice versa), that means there is going to be 1 black girl in an otherwise white chapter. And in a chapter of 200, if they did pledge all 3 or 4 black girls, it's still not even a drop in the bucket.

I think the best we can hope for in the near term is eliminating the disregard for a girl outright just because of race. It's going to be pretty hard to avoid a perception of tokenism when there just aren't that many black girls interested in NPC sororities, especially relative to the population of white rushees at the same school. I'm assuming the black southern girl who is interested in the NPC is used to being the only black girl in the room and what she and the chapter thinks is all that matters.

Yep. And I know I've seen stories—usually horror stories—of inter/national offices or even college administrators who have basically forced a chapter to take someone it didn't want to take. It may not end well, but it certainly has been reported to happen.

I think that's very relevant to what a number of people have been getting at.

But I'd take it a step further. I think chapter diversity, at least in terms of racial or ethnic or cultural diversity, means more than just having some non-white members. I think it means not expecting those members to "adapt" to a majority-white chapter ethos or culture—not to be "just like the rest of us"—but rather expecting the chapter as a whole to adapt to and be enriched by how "they" are not just like "us."

There's plenty of that to be discussed in sorority history - exclusion of Catholics and Jews for instance. It can also point out how ridiculous some of those restrictions sound now. Sexual preference and race are probably the next barriers to go away. How long before it becomes -seriously, we kept girls out because of that? - is yet to be seen.

A few sororities at Auburn have all different types of minorities. I only know this from looking at pictures. As far as my daughter and her sorority are concerned, they are just sisters.

*Putting the "Racial Cliche' Crown" on TNAuburnMom's head*

Unfortunate.

Good luck getting that to fit into a 6 week NM program. I'm not saying it shouldn't be there, but pointing out that there isn't sufficient time for them to learn much beyond the basics.

Whites can't win. If we don't pledge black girls (they may or may not be rushing NPCs because they prefer NPHCs), we're racist. If we pledge the few who rush, we're practicing tokenism. If only a few rush, we didn't make them welcome, even though they might only want to be in Mom's NPHC. If we pledge some and don't think the right thing about them, whatever the heck that is, we get a crown for racial cliches.

We can't win.

And five of my daughters aren't white and I don't think about it much at all and I'm off to have my racial cliches crown with 5 jewels made.

White people aren't not winning with this.

The key is multitasking. Boasting "have all different types of minorities...from looking at pictures" and "my daughter and her sorority are concerned, they are just sisters" are cliche' statements whites tend to make when discussing race. This topic has to do with race and GLOs but the foundation is the same. It reeks of "I see 'those people'...they are here...and there's plenty of them" and "we are colorblind...I need to pretend I don't notice our differences in order for us to love each other".

Why do many white people feel the need to proclaim this? It reinforces this notion of whiteness as a carefree, race neutral, and powerful identity. Just because you claim not to notice or think about something doesn't mean it is void or invisible. It doesn't mean that everyone else, including the racial and ethnic minorities themselves, do not notice or think about it. That is one of the foundations of tokenism. Race, gender, and other minority tokens are expected to smile and pretend as though their minority status is moot 24/7.

Few parents of adopted non-white children spend much time thinking about their children's races. Maybe before they arrive, yes, but afterwards you're spending so much time parenting them that there's little time to think, "Dang. My child is ______." But they are not tokenists.

My daughters don't think about being non-white 99% of the time. They just live their lives. Like us, they mix with the people they want and race isn't an issue. When we took them to "cultural" events when they were children, they thought we were weird; they really wanted to go home and play with their friends. But we weren't tokenists for trying.

My mother rarely thinks about not being all white. Life's too busy. I don't sit down every day and consider racial issues when I'm checking the roll in class. I have stuff to do.

Think I'll turn down that crown, I have too much to do to go have it made.

Carnation, are you claiming to know what people are thinking at all times? Is there something wrong with noticing race? Race is not synonymous with racism and unfair treatment by others. Race, ethnicity, and culture have to do with group identifiers. I notice race and ethnicity when I twist-style my beautiful hair up at night.

We only know what people claim. There are adopted parents and parents of biracial children who invest a great deal of thought and time researching and teaching their children about race. They do this to educate themselves as well as to establish or reinforce a racial, ethnic, and cultural identity in their children. They do not stop doing this just because children seem uninterested or unappreciative. It serves a larger and longstanding purpose just like the NAACP black tie banquets I attended since childhood despite my absolute child boredom. There is nothing wrong with having an identity. Pretending it is possible to only have a "human identity" is usually a way to reinforce "white identity" that is being disguised as race neutral.

And with all due respect you don't know what your children are thinking and feeling just as you don't know how they interact with people when they are not in your presence. It is good that you took your kids to cultural events. Kids are kids so they will not understand and appreciate everything. Of course now that they are older your children will pretend to not care about race if they think you want them to not care because you have a multicultural household. However, as my college classmates who are Chinese and adopted by whites discovered when they left the confines of their parent's home, they had to research Chinese culture and understand why the world did not see them as white. They knew they looked different than the other white kids but did not learn the full extent (not the introductory version) of why until they got to college. I think that is a shame.

I think this is a good discussion to have when discussing GLO diversity. Adding a few nonwhites doesn't make you diverse. Adding tons of nonwhites but pretending no one notices race doesn't make your GLO diverse.

And if someone said, "I, for instance, do not want DDD/ADPi/KKG/DG/ZTA/XO/etc. to be racially diverse. I intentionally joined a historically and predominantly White, European American GLO. That is how I want it to remain and that is how it will remain. That is not a bad thing."

What would happen? Would that group even exist in ten years after the outrage that someone would say that and a group would embrace it?

I agree with Carnation. Whites can't win. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

I know what my kids are thinking because they told me time and again, "Y'all can stop it now. We don't want to go to the Filipino dinners, the Japanese parades, etc. We want to play with our friends/go out with our boyfriends/ eat hot dogs and hamburgers and we never ever want to see another noodle."

We were the poster parents for learning about diversity, our children's cultures, putting up art and collecting things from their countries. In educating pre-adoptive parents, we told them this was important.

We've hosted 10 exchange students, most from our children's countries. Our children privately told us that they were glad they hadn't grown up in our students' birth countries; they liked America just fine.

And what do we have? Adult children who love to listen to country music (we don't!), joined NPCs and had a great time, date guys of whatever culture they want, in short--they're like anyone else.

And the only time I ever think about them being non-white anymore is when I think, "It would be wonderful to have that heavy, shiny, raven hair."

I think a point that is being implied, and not explicitly stated is there needs to be action and not words.

Great, you (NPC) pledged a Black girl. You feel a "warm fuzzy" because now people can not accuse you of being racist. And I can understand where you are coming from. You probably grew up in an environment where anyone other than white was considered beneath you. You probably grew up in an environment where there were subtle ways of excluding other people, with the most common way of just pricing other people out of certain markets. So I get it. In your minds you have made great strides to reach out and connect to those other people. Great!

But, what else are you going to do? Are those SEC NPC chapters going to literally spend time conducting community service activities in the AA community? Are you going to have programs where the central focus is on attacking some of the issues that are persistent in the AA communities. I mean really, are NPC chapters going to do anything to actively participate in Black History Month programs?

To me, sometimes this proclamation by White NPCers that they have pledged a Black girl comes off like that scene in Animal House where the all white male fraternity member points to the couch and says "See, we have a Black guy, and Indian guy, and a Muslim guy. We're not racist." It just comes off as being a bit insincere.

Just a general observation - I don't think anyone has a carefree life. Everyone has challenges in life to overcome, everyone deals with problems that come their way, and yes some people have more difficulties in their lives for different reasons. It is good to have open and honest conversations with people who have different opinions knowing that there are times people may just have to agree to disagree.

I have known minority sisters of my sorority and I have known minority sisters of divine nine sororities. One divine nine member girl I knew was shocked that my sorority had an African American local alum and to her it was unacceptable the lady was not a part of the divine nine. Truthfully I was surprised this was her take on the situation but whatever. To each his own. Go where your heart leads you, be who you are and who you want to be. No one owes anyone else an explanation about who they are to others.

Observing diversity in any organization is not a value judgement except that it seems to indicate that more people are relating to others according to the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin/religious beliefs/sexual orientation. Considering that all of our respective orgs began in another time when there was significant segregation (and when it was rare for women to even go to college at all), it is natural that orgs would continue as they have traditionally. It is nice to see that recently all groups have been more open outside of that tradition so that each individual is free to pursue membership in their own way and with a group by mutual selection and choice.

Probably not directly. They'll keep doing their national philanthropy activities like literacy and breast cancer and arthritis, which will help people of all races. But they're probably not going to do anything directly with the black community because some people would tell them that they're only trying to make themselves feel good and that they didn't even add a drop to the bucket. Why stick your neck out if you're only going to be attacked?

I know no one has a carefree life. That is why I want the notion of whiteness as carefree, unobservant, and race neutral to stop. White people have race and ethnicities (plural). The social dynamics around the world would not be as they are if a large percentage of whites did not notice, think about, and act on race and ethnicity. Claiming to not notice and think about these things does not make that true at all times. This isn't about carnation because cliche' means that it is common across contexts.

I agree with sigmadiva.

The reason is because this extension of the olive branch does not happen in other aspects of life. So, its hard to believe the sincerity when it comes to NPC recruitment.

A personal example that happened to me over the past few weeks.

I love to needlepoint. My favorite hobby ever. I live in a city (Houston) with about 4 - 5 different needlepoint shops. Of these there is one that I consider my "home" shop. I can tell you that over the years that I have been going to that shop, since ~1999, I've been one of two Black women who frequent the shop. All the other customers and regulars are White.

Just a few weeks ago I decided to visit one of the other shops just to see if they had any great sales going on. I don't visit that particular shop often, maybe 2 - 3 times a year. So, I walk in the shop and every White woman in the shop just stops -dead frozen. The tension in the air became very high. As I was browsing around I could feel them looking at me, and quite frankly I got negative vibes. So much so, one of the women called her husband in to follow me around the shop. THIS IS A TINY PLACE!!

Now, what if I'd been a NPC member, and that woman who called her husband in was my sister. One shop member greeted me, but no one took the effort to do small talk with me. The moment I walked in the door they judged me purely on the basis of my skin.

Its wonderful that NPC pledges Black women, but that needs to be extended to other aspects of life.

I was waiting for someone to ask this....

They would finally be an IFC or NPC member who was honest about the founding purposes of their GLO. They would finally be an IFC or NPC who stopped pretending as though their GLO just so happened to be predominantly white since founding.

That is awesome.

Who's pretending that? Who even thinks about that? Most GLOs were formed so people could have friends and in many cases, there were few females of any color on campus. Thus sororities were born, with no thought other than friendship and standing together.

You must have missed years of GC threads.

Anyway, TriDeltaSallie asked and I answered. If you are proclaiming that NPC and IFC foundings were race neutral and the membership remains predominantly white unintentionally, then this discussion will remain circular.

Not I!

But just because something is posted on GC doesn't make it right, lol.

I am so sorry that happened to you. I wonder what they thought you were going to do: steal all their needles? :mad:

I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, and I'm going to reassertion my earlier statement that there is truth on both sides here. Tokenism vs not seeing race.

No one doubts that carnation loves her children for being her children and not for their ethnicity. Carnation appears to me from her stories about her children to be an awesome and supportive mom. On the other hand, I don't know how many times in my life I've heard a white person say something disparaging about [insert race] as a whole and when questioned about a friendship or other relationship with a person of that race the white person says something along the lines of "well he/she isn't like the rest of them." I do not believe that carnation feels this way about her children, but I'm not going to pretend like other people don't feel this way.