Quote:
Originally posted by furmanbeta
Look, this is not an issue at my chapter. However, as I've said before, who am I to judge what person might fit into another chapter's organization? People with differences in religion, race or sexual orientation don't fit into certain chapters? Do I think less of Auburn (merely a fictitious example) for not extending a bid to a black person because it's a house full of rich, white kids? No. While this individual might fit into the Columbia chapter, he might not fit in at Auburn. Different strokes for different folks y'all. We all discriminate in the process for one reason or another. I personally am not of the belief that discriminating on the above factors is any better or worse than discrimination based on looks or popularity. Discrimination is discrimination any way you slice it. The only way to avoid it in this case is to try to extend bids to the entire rush list or freshman class. Otherwise, you're technically discriminating against some individual. That's not good. I'm advocating picking who's best for you, period. Don't think less of chapters who are rich kids not poor kids, white kids not black kids, christians kids not jewish kids. They pick who works with their chapter dynamic and it should be left at that. Period.
|
I don't think that discrimination is discrimination. And further, I think that "fitting in" with a chpater is part of that "what people do" portion I was trying to get at.
I should have fleshed that out a little farther. The proposed admendment is saying, we're not going to deny a bid simply because that person is black, or jewish or gay. If the chapter says, "well we'd give him a bid, BUT he's X" (and X is something that people are - we call them ascribed characteristics in sociology) than that is wrong. This would mean that he "fit" in, but just so happen to have one thing that didn't fly with the chapter.
Further, because the admendment is going to specifically state which areas are not going to be discriminated against (race, color, creed, sexual orientation) then we're protected from having to offer everyone, not that we would have to do anything of the sort anyways. Again, this isn't saying that simply because someone is interested we can't say no, just that we can't say no if the only reason we say no happens to be one of those things.
Most discrimination cases as far as I know, require proof that the trait in question is the only reason why the person was dismissed. If there is ANY legitimate reason, then that is not discrimination.