Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartofsec
I didn't challenge AOII Angel's comment about Southern California, but I would agree with her that racial diversity may be more common in smaller, newer chapters (likely with far smaller recruitments).
|
Perhaps I'm just terrible at understanding your point, then, because this reads to me like a pretty clear rebuttal:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartofsec
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel
In other parts of the country, my experience from advising in Maryland, AZ and CA is that chapters are NOT excluding women based on race.
|
One point I have seen raised in this thread is that removing the possibility of exclusion based on race is not enough to integrate chapters (such as Alabama, for instance) - that more needs to be done to recruit AA members. This is a valid point considering the preparation necessary to participate in a recruitment of this nature.
I looked at the University of Maryland AOII facebook, and did not see AA members (and none among those in white dresses - are these new initiates?).
The Arizona State University Panhellenic Recruitment Guide doesn't reflect NPC chapter membership of AA women either:
http://asupan.com/wp-content/uploads...oklet20121.pdf
Just using those examples as you mentioned these states.
So I guess my question is -- what threshold of AA membership is considered "fully integrated" and sufficient to claim that a chapter is racially diverse?
Do these chapters actively recruit AA women? What have the chapters you advised done to address recruitment of potential members from diverse racial and socio-economic backgrounds?
|
We all might just be talking past one another at this point, anyway.