Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles87
It turns out there was a bit of a misunderstanding between our National Office and our President. After speaking with the National Office myself, here is the issue (and my attempt to describe it while maintaing as much anonymity as possible):
To use the silly example from above. The organization was founded by a group of redheads because they were not accepted in other organizations. The organization prides itself on being a redheaded organization. Our chapter has a large proportion of blondes and brunnettes. Not a majority, but definitely a significant proportion.
National said the recent trend of an increasing proportion of non-redheads needs to stop, and it needs to stop now before it's too late. They said that we need to stop rushing non-redheads. If a non-redhead approaches us, and asks us to let them in because they "really want to be in a redheaded fraternity," then it's ok to let them in, but simply because the non-redhead likes all of us, wants to be friends with us for life, wants to build up the house, is of good character etc, that is not enough to let them in.
They said that at every other school, this is how they operate, and this is how the organization is meant to operate given how it was founded. They have determined that a change needs to be made in our chapter and either we're going to do it or they are. They said that if none of us is willing to be in the organization that the National office knows it to be, than they will kick us all out and form a new chapter at the school or simply leave the school void of a chapter. They're exact words, "I organized a chapter at your school before. What makes you think I can't do it again?"
The one question they wouldn't really answer is: Which is a better chapter: 100% redhead, but doesnt do ANYTHING to acknowledge the fact that they are members of the redheaded community, or a chapter that is 2/3 redhead but plays a very active role in promoting its readheadedness (and the non-redheads participate equally in such activities)?
In my (and others') opinion, we can be a redheaded organization without being 100% redhead. They claim that the number of non-redheads who truly want to be in a redheaded organization are so small that we shouldn't be opening our arms to non-redheads who appear to want to join for any reason other than "being in a redheaded organization." After being assured that the non-redheads were very good, quality members, they responded, "We're not a good person organization; we're a redheaded organization. If they're good people, then that's a bonus."
I hope this made some sense. It's very late (damn Olympics).
|
Oof. This is an extremely awkward situation. Especially if that threatening comment from your nationals is accurate. That's not very professional.
I completely agree with you that if your organization is still promoting red-headed equality and issues, and the values that your organization was founded upon, it seems totally OK that blondes and brunettes are joining. Hey, you're getting them to help with the red-headed equality cause too, which who knows, they might not have otherwise been.
At the same time maybe you should evaluate why the nationals is telling what they are telling you. If you are honest with yourself, is there something you could do to ensure that your org is sticking close to its values?
And also, when you say National Office, who do you mean? Was this just one person, or a grad consultant or something of that nature? I think you really need to talk to your chapter advisor, regional advisors, etc., and make sure that you are on the right track and interpreting what your nationals are telling you correctly. You chapter/regional advisors can be a great resource and backup for you here.