Quote:
Originally Posted by LPIDelta
You're right--I probably am not giving the rest of the system its due. But this group of women wanted to started a national social/service sorority. When the group approached the "system" at their school that is in place for that type of group they essentially were turned down (because if there is a tie, the motion fails). And now they are trying to take advantage of what is essentially a loophole by researching non-NPC options. And the Greek Life person seems to be allowing it. My "beef" as it were is not with the women--they are entitled to investigate their options--its with the campus administration who is not adhering to the wishes of the existing Panhellenic. Since this group will likely have to have a relationship with the existing groups, why not try to build a relationship with them and encourage them to consider what a new group can bring to campus? Maybe one of them would change their vote?
If a new group can come to campus anyway, from a strategic standpoint, the Panhellenic might reconsider its vote to allow an new NPC so that all the groups are playing by the same rules. But essentially, their vote means nothing in this circumstance.
As far as service or honorary groups acting like social/service groups--I don't get that at all, and wouldn't advocate that.
|
I doubt the non-NPCs are playing by the same rules as far as recruitment and anything else governed by the NPC itself. Their vote is strictly based on what is best for the NPCs on campus, not Greek women as a whole because that's what it is designed to do. So their vote means exactly what it is designed to mean. If those chapters are not at total then they need to address that, but the school sets the rules for allowing new chapters, not the college panhellenic. I don't see why the Greek Advisor has to support only half of the sororities over the other half.
I also don't see checking into your options as a backdoor or a loophole. That assumes that NPC is the ideal and the other options are also-rans.
I agree that no one should subvert a GLO's goals to run a service as a social for example, but neither should we assume that because they asked about NPC first, they're settling for something else.