Sexual orientation and MS
 

Someone asked this over in the Theta forum, and apparently we have some curious people....

Which GLOs have non-discrimination bylaws for sexual orientation (if you are allowed to say - but I believe this is usually open info)?

Alpha Sigma Alpha voted last convention to add sexual orientation to the list of non-discrimination bylaws.

Sigma Chi HQ has had a lot of discussion on this. I want to say that they passed some kind of resolution, but did not put it into the by-laws.

It is not specifically written into the by-laws of my sorority, but our panhellenic association has the language in theirs. Also, due to the campus culture of Otterbein, you've got to expect to have GLBTQ students rushing and getting bids. It's just how we work and there's little stigma attached to it. People who are uncomfortable with the lifestyle transfer out pretty quick.

I have no idea if our nationals have talked about this or not, but I'm pretty sure we would continue a tradition of not listening to them.

LXA has no discrimination of any kind in our by-laws.:)

Me too. What does MS refer to, in the context of this thread? I'm confused. :confused:

In other news, I mined this from Tri-Delta's website:
"Non-Discrimination Policy:
In the selection of members, Delta Delta Delta does not discriminate on any basis other than gender, and expressly will not discriminate on the basis of ethnic heritage, national origin, personal appearance, personal beliefs, race, religion, or sexual orientation."

The thing is, even if a GLO has policies on this issue, if someone didn't receive an invitation to membership and they believed that the reason was because of their sexual orientation, it would likely be extremely difficult to prove, since membership selection is (or should be) done in secret and kept within the chapter as chapter business.

I'm assuming Membership Selection.

Ah yes....thank you.

Why should it matter? Doesn't the chapter decide on chapter membership?

Generally speaking, each chapter has a mandate from their IHQ to select membership as best fits the specific chapter. As such, just because a GLO might have non-discrimination clauses in their bylaws, does not mean that a specific chapter would be required to take someone that the chapter feels would not be a good fit.

I'm not sure whether or not it'd matter. Whether or not it matters is up to the active brothers. It's possible that it could be one of the criterion examined in membership selection. Whether or not anyone could prove that, as said above is an interesting question. Although we voted to integrate racially back around '68 or so, we probably have a few chapters which have never admitted a non-white member.

Policies of a couple of GLOs:

Sigma Phi Epsilon:
http://www.sigep.org/
(use their site's search tools to find By-Laws, I, 1a.)

Delta Delta Delta:
http://www.deltadeltadelta.org/about/policies.asp

Delta Upsilon: See By-Laws, Article II, Sec. 2:
http://deltau.org/default.aspx?actio...t&ContentId=90

Beta Theta Pi:
http://www.betathetapi.org/index.php...d=23&Itemid=47

(click on Code link, go to Constitution, Article II, Section 3)


Pi Kappa Phi:

http://www.pikapp.org/AboutUs/seven/diversity.cfm

“WHERE PI KAPPA PHI STANDS ON RACIAL, RELIGIOUS AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY

The United States of America is fortunate to have one of the most diverse populations in the world. Here, people of all races, religions ethnicities, disabilities, sexual orientations, HIV status, and any further protected statuses contribute to the collective achievements of our nation and our colleges.

Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity chapters are encouraged to seek out new brothers of all backgrounds. While our fraternal origins are based on Judeo-Christian traditions, the fraternity asks that all members and non-members (regardless of belief) join in respect for the beliefs of all. This Fraternity shall only discriminate on the basis of gender.”

Me three. My daughter has MS and I was like WHAT???!!!!! :(

I would imagine that was flamboyantly gay would likely not "fit" in with most fraternity chapters. I think that the type of situation that having a sexual orientation clause is trying to prevent is when a potential member comes through rush, everyone thinks he's cool, the chapter is set to offer a bid, and then it somehow becomes known that he is openly homosexual. If the chapter then changes their minds simply on the fact that the kid in question is no longer welcome, that's not right in my opinion.

That's what these clauses are really getting at is not that chapters have to extend bids to individuals in these categories, just that they won't reject qualified candidates (who otherwise fit everything the chapter is trying to do) simply because they are of a different race, orientation or whatever.

One of my pledge brothers (who served terms as Pledge Ed and President) came out last fall (after we had all graduated), and nothing really changed - he was still the same guy we'd all known. In fact, I think he might actually be more fun to hang around with simply b/c he is much more at ease, and I think happier with himself. It would have been a mistake for my chapter not to give him a bid simply b/c of his sexual preference.

BigRedBeta has it totally right. It's not that we have to give anyone who is gay and rushing a bid, or that we should "seek out" gay people to join - simply that we shouldn't not bid them on that alone if we like everything else about them.

At a larger school not too many miles from Otterbein, while the campus culture may be a little different, it's certainly possible for an openly gay student to be in a fraternity. This article in the Columbus OH paper may be of interest, though it doesn't go into details of whether the young man is super-active in his fraternity:

http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.p...619-C1-04.html