Quote:
Originally Posted by GreekOne
If NPC is truly interested in making meaningful change (and not just seeming relevant due to the optics of the moment) there should be some research done. How many minority women register for formal recruitment? How many first gen students register? How many from these groups receive bids? Maybe they have that data and it is just not universally accessible. I have never been privy.
Campuses that have upperclass quotas have established those to give these otherwise overlooked pnms an equal opportunity of receiving a bid.
If the data shows an interest by POC and first gen students (who have presumably been overlooked in favor of legacies) then the elimination of these policies may be warranted. Perhaps then we need to establish a separate quota for these overlooked pnms?
I suspect the data may show that lack of diversity has much less to do with legacy policies and rec letters. It likely has much more to do with the financial burden. And, if the numbers point there, as many others have said, what are our organizations willing to give up to make membership more affordable?
Do we restructure recruitment to 4 rounds in the Panhel provided tshirt? Do we let our housing decor become dated? Do we eliminate in person training for our members to cut travel costs? Eliminate national office staff and traveling consultants? Do we redirect money raised for our philanthropies to more needs based scholarships for pnms?
I have no doubt the groups dropping their legacy policies are well- intentioned. I just don't think it is going to bring about the change that most hope it will.
If NPC has captured the statistics on diversity now, I would love to see a comparative study in 10 years. Without far more than a change to legacy policy, I suspect this data will remain unchanged.
|
I like where you're going in terms of looking at the data to truly see if we can suss out the trends, identify potential obstacles to membership, and identify possible solutions.
I agree with the others that separate quotas are not the answer; but, that one suggestion doesn't dismiss your whole post. You brought up a lot of valid ideas and considerations.
One issue I do see is.....human factors. If we were to all "agree" that financial means was a problem and we all "agree" to cut down on costs, I firmly believe that there will still be chapters which won't truly hold themselves to that. They will still post photos of members on trips to Greece, members on yachts, and members with expensive handbags to the chapter Insta and whatnot. They will still find some way to spend $$$ during recruitment. It's human nature to want to be better than everyone else. No one wants to be the financially sensible chapter that gets left behind because we all know they will be left in the dust by the big spending chapters doing big, flashy things. It seems that some chapters these days are selling an image more than sisterhood
Those professional-grade recruitment videos cost money and the money has to come from somewhere. Once one chapter ups their game and raises the bar on their videos, house, formal dances, etc, then there goes the neighborhood!
So, as you were suggesting, how do we make sorority membership more financially accessible? Food for thought.....