|
hmmmm
This idea of not offering legacies just seems contradictory on so many levels.
If a FOUNDER of any organization could see how membership is done presently, I would think they would be appalled. Why would any organization risk alienating alums by not offering legacies? You not only lose future membership, but also financial support as well.
If an organization is successful (however you measure it, but let's use size, because of 'quotas'), then why should you turn away membership? How did this policy start? Some weaker organization whining about how they are shrinking, and then this policy was instituted to help them out? Was the policy started by a non-greek or someone with a grudge? Why would any organization want to help their competition? After all, every organization is competing for alum financial support and member support...
If House A can attract 200 people, and House X can only get 5, then House X deserves to go silent, unless they fix the problem. If House A decides to NOT offer legacies, and all of a sudden their Alums stop supporting them (causing decline), then they ALSO deserve that as well.
|