|
I think Shinerbock is right that not all chapters are even close to a representative sample of even that particular college's demographics. I agree with him that there's no reason that they should be. Most of our groups exist because a group of people wanted to belong to a smaller community that was set apart from the student population at large.
Now, personally exclusion of homosexual members isn't something I'm interested in. I'll admit this is lame and not a good reason for avoiding a stronger stance about including lesbian members, but my only concern, even back in the early 1990s when I was in college, about having a lesbian member of my chapter would have been the stupidly middle school level fear that we would be compromised during recruitment.
I don't know how it is today, but back them to be publicly out at UGA resulted in people regarding a person essentially in terms of sexual orientation: it wasn't just regarded as one of the multi-dimensional aspects of identity; it was the defining one. And it would have been at best a novelty and at worst fodder for tent talk that a group had openly lesbian members.
But just as I don't object to homosexual members, I don't object to individual chapters being able to make membership decisions based on the comfort level of current group. Although I do think the day is coming when sexual orientation is regarded just as race, religion, national origin or ethnicity are, I don't think everyone is there yet, and I don't think GLOs will get there by compelling chapters to take members they are uncomfortable with.
|