Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
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.
|
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.